Simulation VGO and waste lubricating/
cooking oil co-hydroprocessing
Software used to build a simulation case for industrial hydrocracking of VGO, WCO,
and WLO validates predicted values of gasoline and middle distillates product yields
Mohamed S El-Sawy, Fatma H Ashour and Ahmed Refaat Cairo University
Tarek M Aboul-Fotouh Al-Azhar University
Samia A Hanafi Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute
T
his study presents simulation and analytical stud-
ies on vacuum gas oil (VGO), waste lubricating oil
(WLO), and waste cooking oil (WCO) co-hydropro-
cessing over commercial hydrocracking catalyst. It follows
previous work which studied the co-hydroprocessing of
VGO, WLO, and WCO experimentally on a lab-scale reac-
tor utilising the commercial hydrocracking catalyst. Most
fuel producers prefer to utilise existing units to co-hydro-
process WLO, WCO, and VGO rather than install new indi-
vidual separate hydroprocessing units because there is a
high degree of similarity between units used to hydropro-
cess petroleum cuts and units to hydroprocess waste oils
mixtures with VGO.
A conceptual design of an industrial hydrocracking unit
is simulated and validated using the proprietary special
built-in tool RefSYS from the proprietary Aspen HYSYS
V.11 (or HYSIS V.11) program. The calibrated and validated
hydrocracking model is run with operating conditions and
feed compositions. These parameters are pre-selected dur-
ing experimental trials executed in previous experimental
work. The model runs forecast process variables (hydrogen
consumption, quenching rate, heating duty, cooling duty),
helping in process optimisation and energy saving.
Waste recycling
Many countries were highly affected by the COVID-19
pandemic and its consequences on global markets and
economics. This usually led to intensively trying to use all
available resources. One of these resources is waste oils
and their application for fuels conversion with traditional
esterification for WCO, distillation followed by extraction
for WLO or hydroprocessing of both. Waste recycling has
several benefits, including the use of waste as an energy
source to suppress toxic and hazardous emissions into the
environment and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
In addition, waste recycling is stimulating development
in the region as well as social structure aiding, especially
in developing countries. Furthermore, many challenges are
facing the refining industry aiming to produce high-quality
fuels with considerable costs. Products from hydroprocess-
ing waste oils or VGOs are frequently tackled by cold flow
properties.1
The hydroprocessing unit generally consists of a reaction
www.digitalrefining.com
section and a fractionation section to separate reaction
products into desired product streams. Hydroprocessing
units’ reactors widely use the trickle bed reactor (TBR) con-
figuration due to its simplicity, reliability, and good operabil-
ity. TBR is a fixed bed reactor with a trickle flow regime of
hydrocarbon and hydrogen mixture moving from the top to
the bottom of the reactor, passing through catalyst bed(s).
Usually, heavy hydrocarbons and middle distillates hydro-
processing reactors consist of more than one catalyst bed,
with intermediate hydrogen quenching streams to control
reaction temperature, as all hydroprocessing reactions are
exothermic. Co-hydroprocessing of VGO, WCO, and WLO is
a mixed-phase reaction where liquid moves down, forming a
laminar stream around catalyst pellets and hydrogen distrib-
uted through available voids in the catalyst bed. Reactions
start by diffusing dissolved hydrocarbon feed mixture and
hydrogen in catalyst pores reaching active sites. On the
active sites, cracking and hydrogenation reactions occur and
are enhanced by increasing reaction temperature and hydro-
gen partial pressure.2
Modelling and simulation of an existing industrial hydro-
processing unit needs operating conditions and product
yield identification. The simulation model case of the hydro-
processing unit consists mainly of a reaction section and a
fractionation section. The most complicated course in the
simulation model building up is the kinetic model calibra-
tion, which is the core of the simulation model.
The reaction kinetics depend on many factors, such as
reaction temperature, hydrogen partial pressure, liquid
hourly space velocity (LHSV), feed composition, and cata-
lyst configuration. From these data, in addition to product
yields and specifications, simulation software can predict
calibration factors that will be the core of the simulation
model. To overcome the complexity of building a hydropro-
cessing reactions kinetic model, many studies and technical
papers recommend using commercial software to execute
the modelling and simulation of hydroprocessing units.3
Many recent studies depend on commercial software to
simulate hydroprocessing units aiming to use these simula-
tion models in process optimisation and profit maximisation.
In 2018, Eslam S. Sbaaei and Tamer S. Ahmed modelled and
simulated a hydrotreating unit that processes middle distil-
lates produced from a delayed coker unit (DCU). This model
PTQ Q4 2023 69
 Operating parameters of Unicracking unit at start-of-run and end-of-run
UOM
Feed flow rate kg/hr
Cracked feed ratio wt%
Make-up H₂ flow rate Nm3/hr
Temperature at 1st reactor inlet °C
Temperature at 2nd reactor outlet °C
Average catalyst bed temperature °C
High-pressure separator pressure Bar g
H₂ partial pressure at reactor outlet Bar g
Recycle gas flow rate Nm³/m³ of fresh feed
Recycle gas hydrogen purity mol%
Recycle oil ratio wt%
LHSV hr-1
Table 1
allows them to find room for energy saving, productivity
increase, and fuel consumption reduction.4,5 Saeid Shokri et
al. studied the application of particle swarm optimisation
(PSO) algorithm using Visual Basic 6.0 in modelling an exist-
ing industrial hydrocracking unit in 2017.
The produced model gives good predictions regarding
product yield distribution with an error of less than 1% for
operating parameters within building model limits. In 2009,
a fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) unit was modelled using the
fourth-order Runge-Kutta algorithm (Visual Basic) to opti-
mise the FCC naphtha yield of this industrial unit process-
ing mainly VGO in a riser reactor by Kenneth Dagde. This
study depends mainly on the five-lump kinetic scheme to
describe the cracking reactions.6
An extensive literature review has been conducted to
study the technologies and equipment used industrially in
the hydroprocessing of WCO and WLO individually and the
co-hydroprocessing mixture of them blended with petro-
leum feedstock. Axens recently started marketing its new
proprietary technology (Revivoil) developed jointly by Axens
and Itelyum (formerly Viscolube Italiana SpA), which goes a
long way to put WLO re-refining on the fast track to success.
UOP also has its proprietary Ecofining technology developed
by UOP and ENI for hydroprocessing plant-derived oil.
Feedstocks include plant-derived oils such as soybean,
rapeseed, and palm. Not only process technology develop-
ers are interested in waste oils co-processing, but refiners
as well. For example, Petrobras’ proprietary H-Bio hydro-
genation technology processes a mixture of waste vege-
table oil and mineral oil to produce renewable diesel using
hydrotreating units in existing oil refineries. CEPSA refinery
in Tenerife successfully co-processes waste frying oils in
a gasoil hydrodesulphurisation unit (HDS-I). Research cen-
tres also give great importance to this topic. The research
centre of CanmetENERGY supports and funds these types
of research activities. It was noticed that most refiners
choose to inject WCO (on a large scale) or WLO (on a small
scale) with VGO for co-hydroprocessing units rather than
installing a separate unit to hydroprocess pure WCO or
WLO, taking into consideration the high degree of similar-
ity between technologies and catalysts used in these units.
The novelty of this work is to study the co-hydroprocessing
70 PTQ Q4 2023
Start-of-run End-of-run
297,210 297,210
20 20
73,449 75,499
378 422
410 449
398 438
161.9 161.9
140 140
2,046 2,047
89.2 89.2
55 55
0.94 0.94
of VGO, WCO, and WLO blend over commercial, industrial
hydrocracking catalyst.7
Against this backdrop, this study simulates a conceptual
design of an industrial hydrocracking unit utilising the same
catalyst used in our previous experimental work.1 This con-
ceptual design has been performed using HYSYS V.11 with
its unique built-in hydrocracker model (HCR). The HCR
model simulates light and heavy petroleum fractions hydro-
processing based on the built-in reaction network and
kinetic lumps. This simulation case can be used to evaluate
– technically and economically – the co-hydroprocessing of
the normal unit feedstock of VGO vs blends of unconven-
tional feedstocks of WCO and WLO with VGO.
Simulation case
The industrial hydrocracking unit licensed by UOP, commer-
cially referred to as Unicracking, is simulated using HYSYS
V.11. The selection of this unit is based on its utilisation
of the experimentally used catalyst (TK-711 and DHC-8)
with a similar reactor bed configuration. The unit reaction
section consists of two reactors. The first reactor contains
three beds, one for hydrotreating and the others for hydro-
cracking. The second reactor contains two beds for hydroc-
racking. The five beds are roughly equal in weight.
This unit was designed to process 33,500 barrels per
stream day (BPSD) of combined feed consisting mainly of
vacuum gasoil (VGO) from the vacuum distillation unit and
heavy coker gasoil (HCGO) from the delayed coker unit.
The target of this unit is to produce light fuel products from
heavy petroleum distillates, in addition to removing the
majority of impurities such as sulphur, nitrogen and oxygen.
Process design
Hydrocracking is carried out at elevated temperatures and
pressures in a hydrogen atmosphere. Hydrogen partial
pressure at the reaction section outlet is 140 bar g, and
reactors working inlet temperatures range from 378°C to
422°C. Table 1 shows the recommended operating param-
eters for the simulated unit.
The process consists of two main sections: the reaction
section and the fractionation section. Fresh feed is directed
to the unit feed surge drum, then pumped by the feed
www.digitalrefining.com
 QR1B1
Feed mix
R1
Feed 1 QR1B2
Feed 2
Feed 3
QR2B1
R1
QR2B2
NH3 removal
Figure 1 Hydrocracker model configuration in HYSYS V.11
pump to the heat exchangers and charge heater. After liq-
uid hydrocarbon feed enters the heat exchangers, make-up
and recycle hydrogen flow are mixed with this liquid feed.
Once the feed and hydrogen are mixed and heated to the
required temperature, the feed mixture enters from the top of
the reactor through an inlet distributor. As the reactants move
downward in the reactor, hydroprocessing reactions occur as
illustrated before, and the temperature increases gradually.
The first reactor is divided into three beds, each supported
by a steel beam and support grid. The support system is sep-
arated from the next bed of catalyst by a quench gas distrib-
utor and vapour-liquid redistribution tray. The second reactor
is divided into two beds, and each is supported by a steel
beam and support grid. The support system is separated
from the next bed of catalyst by a quench gas distributor and
vapour-liquid redistribution tray. As the reactants and prod-
ucts mixture leave the second reactor, the flow through the
heat exchangers is to be sufficiently cooled before entering
the high-pressure separator.
In the cold high-pressure separator, hydrogen recycle gas
is separated and sent back to the reactors through the recy-
cle gas compressor. Further, recycle gas flow is considered
high flow with a considerable design purge flow of 10%,
which increases hydrogen consumption. It is recommended
to use an amine sweetening unit to treat recycle gas from
acid gas contaminants such as CO, CO₂, and H₂S sulphide
that reduce catalyst activity. Liquid from the cold high-pres-
sure separator is sent to the cold flash drum, then the liquid
from the cold flash drum is sent to the fractionation section
to be separated into LPG, naphtha, kerosene, diesel, and
unconverted oil.
www.digitalrefining.com
RG compressor
H2 make-up 1
H2 mix
H2 make-up 2
RG purge H2 purge
Scrubber
H2S removal
(Optional)
HPS
C3
C4
LNAPH
HPS liquid
HNAPH
DIST
Recycle oil
Bottoms product
Process simulation and analysis
The technical limitation of reactor simulation allows hydro-
processing reactors in the simulation environment to deal
only with process streams defined using the HCRSRK fluid
package. The proposed solution is to try to exchange any
not well-defined and incompatible process streams, espe-
cially WLO and WCO, with an indirect defining method by
transferring a suitable fluid package of Peng-Robinson and
NRTL to the hydrocracker equation of state HCRSRK.
Modelling and simulation usually propose the advantage
of process flexibility that enables us to predict product yields,
reaction conversion, and operating cost based on utility con-
sumption. Product quality can also be predicted using the
simulation model; most of the expected physical properties
are considered good enough, especially molecular weight,
heat transfer properties, boiling range, and API density.
The RefSYS supported packages in HYSYS from V.7 up to
V.11 are generally used to simulate most refining processes
such as the DCU, hydrocracking unit (HCU), naphtha reform-
ing unit (NRU), naphtha hydrotreating unit (NHT), FCC, and
sulphur recovery unit (SRU). This package is an advanced
tool for expecting and calculating reaction kinetics on a lump
sum basis, depending on feed properties, product proper-
ties, product yields, and reaction retention time provided in
the calibration model.
The hydrocracker model is usually built using the built-in
hydrocracker configuration model or using (the hydropro-
cessing bed) to install a given process configuration if it is
widely varied from the built-in configuration (hydrocracker
model). Figure 1 shows the hydrocracker configuration
built-in model. The first step in building any RefSYS model
PTQ Q4 2023 71
 Deviations between actual and calibrated cases

Item UOM Actual case Calibrated case Deviation, %

Hydrogen make-up flow Nm3/hr 105,748.6 104,909.3 0.8
Quench flow B-1/R-1 Nm3/hr 312,645.9 308,025.5 1.5
Quench flow B-2/R-1 Nm3/hr 30,682.5 31,340.7 2.1
Quench flow B-3/R-1 Nm³/hr 54,300.2 53,340.1 1.8
Quench flow B-1/R-2 Nm3/hr 98,982.5 100,592 -1.6
Quench flow B-2/R-2 Nm3/hr 97,326.6 96,172.5 1.2
Purge gas flow Nm3/hr 10,674.6 10,706.7 0.3
Conversion wt% 67.8 67.7 0.1
Naphtha kg/hr 27,829 27,383.7 -1.6
LPG kg/hr 6,976 7,066.7 1.3
Kerosene kg/hr 85,591 84,563.9 -1.2
Diesel kg/hr 74,727 73,905 -1.1
Unconverted oil kg/hr 99,176 98,680.1 -0.5

Table 2

is to solve a calibration case to get activity factors that will
be used to predict product yields, product specifications,
and conversion at different operating parameters and dif-
ferent feedstocks rates and properties.
The model is firstly built using design operating parame-
ters considering feedstock and product properties at start-
of-run (SOR). Building this case enables obtaining the fresh
catalyst activity by extracting calculated and calibrated
global control parameters and individual reaction activities.
These values are the core of the simulation model that will
be modified to simulate the studied feed mixtures over cat-
alyst beds on an industrial scale.
Hydrocarbon streams resulting from oil and gas process
units can easily be described and defined using software
already launched to simulate oil and gas process units, so it
was an easy task to configure and define VGO, HCGO, and
recycle oil process streams. The WLO stream is a hydro-
carbon stream that results from oil and gas process units in
origin but has some changes in chemical and physical prop-
erties resulting from its industrial use. This makes its con-
figuration in a simulation environment easy to some extent,
especially using an oil characterisation tool while transfer-
ring the same composition to the HCU RefSYS model fluid
package called HCRSRK.
WCO is defined as a simple mixture of pure components
such as linoleic acid, stearic acid, and oleic acid using the
NRTL fluid package, then transferring this composition to
HCRSRK. It was noticed that the HCU RefSYS model was
not considered as a deoxygenation reaction of fatty acids
in WCO, so the deoxygenation reaction is added as a sep-
arate reaction set to the HYSYS environment. The resulting
heat of reaction and products is compensated to the HCU
RefSYS model through a spreadsheet. This spreadsheet is
used to modify the composition of the WCO stream with
HCRSRK through component mapping.
Correlation and deviation between the converged calibra-
tion case and the real case are established to determine if
the calibrated hydrocracking case is accepted or not. Based
on the data reported in Table 2, the deviation in the main
parameters is accepted.
The use of a custom model for the hydrocracking reac-
tor has allowed for an interesting analysis that illustrates
the influence of operating parameters and feed properties
on overall reactant conversion and product quality. The
pre-calibrated case is used for providing expected data
when processing feed mixtures experimentally to evaluate
technically and economically the industrial processing of
these mixtures. As performed in experimental work, each

101
Conversion wt%
100
99 Mix 1 Pred. (VGO 80% + WCO 20%)
98
Mix 3 Pred. (VGO 80% + WLO 10% + WCO 10%)
97
Mix 1 act. (VGO 80% + WCO 20%)
Conv. (%)

96
Mix 3 act. (VGO 80% + WLO 10% + WCO 10%)
95
Mix 2 Pred. (VGO 80% + WLO 20%)
94
93 Mix 4 Pred. (VGO 70% + WLO 20% + WCO 10%)

92 Mix 2 act. (VGO 80% + WLO 20%)

91 Mix 4 act. (VGO 70% + WLO 20% + WCO 10%)

370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450
Temp. (˚C)

Figure 2 Predicted and actual reaction conversion

72 PTQ Q4 2023 www.digitalrefining.com

mixture is evaluated at four differ-
ent reaction temperatures (380°C, Physical and chemical properties of VGO, WLO, and WCO feedstock
400°C, 420°C, and 440°C).
Property VGO WLO WCO
Density at 20°C, kg/m³ 923.4 894.7 921.41
Performance of simulation Total sulphur content, ppm 2.72 0.5781 0.24
model Total nitrogen content, ppm 2,751 1,238 110
The hydrocracking unit represented in Total oxygen content, wt% - - 12.27
the simulation case includes two main Iodine number, g I2 /100g - - 73
sections: the reaction section and the
fractionation section. Performance of Distillation, °C:
– IBP 311 260 238
the reaction section in the simulation
– 10% 369 430 412
case can be evaluated by comparing
– 50% 438 497 508
predicted and actual feed conversion. – 90% 506 565 511
Figure 2 illustrates both actual and – 95% 517 585 521
predicted feed conversion weight Flash point, °C 164 194 213
per cent in solid and dash lines, Pour point, °C 6 -12 7
respectively. Water cont. Nil Nil 0.25
There is an obvious positive gap Kinematic viscosity, mm2 /s 21 @ 135ºC 165.1 @ 37.8ºC 48.8 @ 37.8ºC

between actual and predicted values

of conversion. This gap increases by Table 3
increasing the WCO content in the
feed mixture and reaches its minimum value or vanishes The model generates good predictions on the reaction
when WCO is not presented in the feed mixture. This notice temperature and reaction conversion relationship profile of
matches the observation illustrated in our previous work the hydrocracking reactor, which is important for estimat-
results, which states clearly, ‘increasing WCO content in ing product yields and hydrogen consumption. However,
feed mixture increases catalyst acidity and catalyst activity the predictions are less accurate than generally expected
and consequently reaction conversion at the same reaction from strong simulation software, but the predicted values
temperature’. and simulation case are accepted regarding these values.

www.digitalrefining.com PTQ Q4 2023 73

 (generally called Jet fuel or dual-purpose kerosene (DPK)),
Reaction temperature and feed composition diesel (ultra-low sulphur diesel according to Euro 5 specs),
of each run case and unconverted oil (UCO).
Abbreviation Among these seven products, we will focus on LPG, gas-
Case 1 T380-WLO10-WCO10-VGO80 oline, kerosene, and diesel because they account for more
Case 2 T380-WLO20-WCO10-VGO70 than 95 wt% of the overall production. The figures and
Case 3 T380-WLO20-WCO00-VGO80 tables to be discussed show the comparison between the
Case 4 T380-WLO00-WCO20-VGO80
model predictions and actual values of these product yields.
Case 5 T400-WLO10-WCO10-VGO80
Averaging the absolute deviations (AADs) of the 16 runs
Case 6 T400-WLO20-WCO10-VGO70
Case 7 T400-WLO20-WCO00-VGO80 expressed in the following graphs for product property
Case 8 T400-WLO00-WCO20-VGO80 value8,9 is calculated by the following equation:
Case 9 T420-WLO10-WCO10-VGO80
Case 10 T420-WLO20-WCO10-VGO70
Case 11 T420-WLO20-WCO00-VGO80
Case 12 T420-WLO00-WCO20-VGO80
Case 13 T440-WLO10-WCO10-VGO80
These AAD values help in evaluating the degree of varia-
Case 14 T440-WLO20-WCO10-VGO70
Case 15 T440-WLO20-WCO00-VGO80
tion between actual and simulation cases, representing the
Case 16 T440-WLO00-WCO20-VGO80 prediction of the model on each product yield rather than
the overall yield, which is the revenue key of the refinery.
In contrast, absolute deviation indicates how the model
Table 4 affects the estimation of the profit of the refinery by con-
sidering the deviations in the same scale toward overall
A summary table for the input streams is shown in Table 3 production.
and Table 4 for the 16 runs under study. Table 4 illustrates Figure 3 illustrates the comparison between predicted
the abbreviation for each case; for example, Case 1 (T380- gasoline yield (dash lines) and actual gasoline yield (solid
WLO10-WCO10-VGO80) means that for Case 1, the reac- lines) from studied test runs. It is noticed that the predicted
tion temperature was 380°C and the feed mixture consists values are very close to actual values in the range of 380
of 10% WLO, 10% WCO, and 80% VGO. to 400°C, which is the recommended operating window
There are seven products in the simulated hydrocrack- of the commercial catalyst used in this study. This recom-
ing unit, including purge gas, fuel gas, LPG, hydrocracked mended operating window is stated by the catalyst man-
naphtha (represented as gasoline in this study), kerosene ufacturer and process unit licensor. Table 5 illustrates the

30
Gasoline wt%
25
Mix 1 Pred. (VGO 80% + WCO 20%)
AAD = 0.23 wt%
Gasoline (wt.%)

20 Mix 3 Pred. (VGO 80% + WLO 10% + WCO 10%)

Mix 1 act. (VGO 80% + WCO 20%)
15
Mix 3 act. (VGO 80% + WLO 10% + WCO 10%)

10 Mix 2 Pred. (VGO 80% + WLO 20%)

Mix 4 Pred. (VGO 70% + WLO 20% + WCO 10%)
5
Mix 2 act. (VGO 80% + WLO 20%)

0 Mix 4 act. (VGO 70% + WLO 20% + WCO 10%)

370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450
Temp. (˚C)

Figure 3 Predicted and actual gasoline yield in weight per cent

AADs values at different temperatures for each studied product yields and product property value

AAD AAD AAD AAD AAD

@380°C @400°C @420°C @440°C
Gasoline yield 0.43 0.18 0.28 0.38 0.32
Kerosene yield 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Diesel yield 0.79 0.41 0.68 0.94 0.71
(Kerosene + diesel) yield 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.12 0.07

Table 5

74 PTQ Q4 2023 www.digitalrefining.com

 70
Kerosene yield wt%
60 AAD = 0.98 wt%
Mix 1 Pred. (VGO 80% + WCO 20%)
50
Mix 3 Pred. (VGO 80% + WLO 10% + WCO 10%)
40 Mix 1 act. (VGO 80% + WCO 20%)
Kero. (%)

30 Mix 3 act. (VGO 80% + WLO 10% + WCO 10%)

Mix 2 Pred. (VGO 80% + WLO 20%)
20
Mix 4 Pred. (VGO 70% + WLO 20% + WCO 10%)
10
Mix 2 act. (VGO 80% + WLO 20%)

0 Mix 4 act. (VGO 70% + WLO 20% + WCO 10%)

370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450
Temp. (˚C)

Figure 4 Predicted and actual kerosene yield in weight per cent

calculated overall AADs for each studied product yield and
stream property value.
On the other hand, Figure 4 illustrates kerosene yield
distribution in weight per cent for both predicted values in
dash lines and actual values in solid lines.
This figure shows a high deviation between actual
and predicted values with respect to yield deviation val-
ues, resulting in a high AAD value of 0.98 wt%. In addi-
tion, Figure 5, which illustrates diesel yield distribution in
weight per cent for both predicted values in dash lines and
actual values in solid lines, shows a high deviation between
actual and predicted values, resulting in a high AAD value
of 0.71 wt%.
On the other hand, the total middle distillate yield (kero-
sene yield weight per cent + diesel yield weight per cent)
shows good deviation values with an accepted AAD value
of 0.0.07 wt%. This is observed in Figure 6, which illus-
trates middle distillates yield distribution in weight per cent
for both predicted values in dash lines and actual values
in solid lines. There seems to be a significant difference
between the distillation column temperature profile used in
the simulation case, resulting in different boiling ranges of
kerosene and diesel.
This difference in boiling ranges between kerosene
and diesel in simulation cases and actual cases cannot
be solved, as kerosene and diesel boiling ranges are not

10
6-7 NOVEMBER 2023 YEAR
ANNIVERSARY
SHANGRI-LA EROS HOTEL, NEW DELHI

SECURE YOUR SPOT FOR BOOK

REFINING INDIA 2023
Join engineers and senior representatives from global operating and leading refining
YOUR
TICKET
technology companies in person to discover the latest industry developments and
connect with key leaders across the sector at Refining India 2023.

93%
of attendees satisfied
86%
of attendees are likely
80%
of attendees would
with Refining India to attend this event recommend this event to
2022 again friends/colleagues

Book your ticket at: refiningindia.com

GOLD PARTNERS SILVER PARTNER BRONZE PARTNERS

Refining India 178x125 12923.indd 1 12/09/2023 12:52

www.digitalrefining.com PTQ Q4 2023 75

 70
Diesel yield wt%
60 AAD = 0.71 wt%
Mix 1 Pred. (VGO 80% + WCO 20%)
50
Mix 3 Pred. (VGO 80% + WLO 10% + WCO 10%)
40 Mix 1 act. (VGO 80% + WCO 20%)
Diesel (%)

30 Mix 3 act. (VGO 80% + WLO 10% + WCO 10%)

Mix 2 Pred. (VGO 80% + WLO 20%)
20
Mix 4 Pred. (VGO 70% + WLO 20% + WCO 10%)
10
Mix 2 act. (VGO 80% + WLO 20%)

0 Mix 4 act. (VGO 70% + WLO 20% + WCO 10%)

370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450
Temp. (˚C)

Figure 5 Predicted and actual diesel yield in weight per cent

adjustable in the built-in hydrocracker model used in the
calibration step of this simulation case. The temperature
profile of the distillation column is valuable for evaluating
energy consumption and helping plant operation of cut
point and process optimisation. So, it is difficult to adjust
the simulation fractionation column to the actual number of
stages, tray separation efficiency, pumparound rates, and
temperature difference.
The accurate predictions of product yields reflect the
accuracy of the model in predicting product specifications.
Specific gravity and boiling range are expressed as the
most accurate predicted specs through simulation.
Conclusion
Aspen HYSYS V.11 is used to build a simulation case of
an industrial hydrocracking unit utilising the same catalyst
with the same reactor configuration as used in experimen-
tal runs in our previous work.1 This case is a good prediction
tool as it has a minor deviation from actual mass and heat
balance and product specifications. Total reaction conver-
sion values predicted by the simulation model of the 16 run
cases show a good match between the simulation model
and actual values, with a positive gap between the actual
values in most cases.
This gap increases with increasing WCO content in feed
mixtures, ensuring the acidic nature of WCO increases
catalyst cracking activity and hence increases reaction
conversion under the same operating conditions of reac-
tion temperature, hydrogen partial pressure, and LHSV.
The software’s built-in fluid package (HCRSRK) to predict
hydrocracking catalyst activity in the presence of WCO
should be modified to match the actual resulting activity
increased by the acid nature of WCO.
Predicted values of gasoline and middle distillates (kero-
sene yield + diesel yield) product yields from the simulation
case show good matching with actual values from the exper-
imental test run. On the other hand, kerosene and diesel pre-
dicted individual values do not match experimental test run
values that reflect different cut points between experimental
test runs and the fractionator built in the simulation case.
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author (m.sayed1989@
gmail.com) states that there is no conflict of interest.
HYSYS V.11 is a mark of AspenTech.
References
1 El-Sawy M S, Hanafi S A, Ashour F, Aboul-Fotouh T M,
Co-hydroprocessing and hydrocracking of alternative feed mixture
(vacuum gas oil/waste lubricating oil/waste cooking oil) with the aim of
producing high quality fuels, Fuel, Vol 269, 2020, 117437.
2 Elshout R V, Bains C S, Moving up a tier – Part 2: Upgrading the
bottom of the barrel. Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol 97, 2018, 312.
3 Bezergianni, Stella, Athanasios Dimitriadis, Temperature effect on

100
Distillate yields wt.%
90
(Kerosene wt% + Diesel wt%)
80
70 Mix 1 Pred. (VGO 80% + WCO 20%)
Distillates (%)

60 Mix 3 Pred. (VGO 80% + WLO 10% + WCO 10%)

50
Mix 1 act. (VGO 80% + WCO 20%)
40
Mix 3 act. (VGO 80% + WLO 10% + WCO 10%)
30 AAD = 0.07 wt%
Mix 2 Pred. (VGO 80% + WLO 20%)
20
Mix 4 Pred. (VGO 70% + WLO 20% + WCO 10%)
10
0 Mix 2 act. (VGO 80% + WLO 20%)
370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450
Mix 4 act. (VGO 70% + WLO 20% + WCO 10%)
Temp. (˚C)

Figure 6 Predicted and actual middle distillate yield (kerosene yield + diesel yield) in weight per cent

76 PTQ Q4 2023 www.digitalrefining.com

co-hydroprocessing of heavy gas oil-waste cooking oil mixtures for
hybrid diesel production, Fuel 103, 2013, 579-584. Web.
4 Eslam S S, Tamer S A, Predictive modeling and optimization for an
industrial coker complex hydrotreating unit – development and a case
study, Fuel, Vol 212, 2018, 61-76.
5 Naderi H, Shokri S, Ahmadpanah S J, Optimization of kinetic lump-
ing model parameters to improve products quality in the hydrocrack-
ing process, Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol 35, 2018,
757-768.
6 Dagde K K, Puyate Y T, Modelling and simulation of industrial FCC
unit: Analysis based on five-lump kinetic scheme for gas-oil cracking,
Journal International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications,
Vol 2, Issue 5, 2012, 698-714, .
7 Bart J C J, Palmeri N, Cavallaro S, Evolution of biodiesel and alter-
native diesel fuels, Biodiesel Science and Technology, Woodhead
Publishing, 2010, 713-782.
8 Muhamma B, Mohamad B, Abdulhalim M, Enhanced cryogenic
packed bed with optimal CO2 removal from natural gas, Cryogenics,
Vol 105, 2020, 103010.
9 Khair U, Fahmi H, Hakim S, Rahim R, Forecasting error calculation
with mean absolute deviation and mean absolute percentage error,
Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol 930, 2017, 12002.
Mohamed S El-Sawy is a Hydroprocessing Lead Process engineer at
‘Worley’ with a history of working in the oil and energy industry. He
is a unit operations professional with a PhD in chemical engineering
from the Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, focusing on the
co-processing of waste oils targeting premium fuels, and participates
in many projects targeting energy. He recently joined a research group
to develop low-carbon strategies in the oil field.
Email: m.sayed1989@gmail.com
Fatma H Ashour is the former Director of the Center of Hazard
Mitigation, Environmental Studies, and Research at Cairo University
and former chairperson of the Chemical Engineering Dept. at Cairo
University. She holds a BSc with honours and an MSc and PhD from
www.digitalrefining.com
the chemical engineering department of Cairo University. She co-ordi-
nates the PyroBioFuel project LEAP-RE and has more than 60 interna-
tional publications with an h-index of 15 on Scopus and 18 on Google
Scholar. She is an academic reviewer of many reputable journals and
has supervised more than 42 MScs and 10 PhDs. She was awarded
the Chevalier de l’Ordre des Palmes Académiques in 2022 and the
Premio Europeo Capo Circeo Award in 2023.
Ahmed Refaat is an Assistant Professor at Cairo University/King
Salman International University. He has published 12 international
publications and 16 conference papers (mostly in the fields of energy
and environment) as well as an invited book chapter in Elsevier. He
has participated in the submission of several research projects and is a
reviewer of several international journals.
Tarek M Aboul-Fotouh is currently an Associate Professor of
Petroleum Refining Engineering in the Mining and Petroleum
Engineering Department at Al-Azhar University. He holds a PhD from
the chemical engineering department at Azerbaijan State Oil and
Industry University. He has published more than 50 articles on petro-
leum refining engineering and fuel technology.
Samia A Hanafi is the Professor of Petroleum Refining at Egyptian
Petroleum Research Institute. Professor Samia graduated originally with
a BSc with honours and completed her MSc and PhD in the Chemical
Engineering Department from Cairo University. She has more than 30
international publications and supervised more than 20 MSc and 10
PhDs. She has participated as a team member in many international pro-
jects and is currently working on Green Fuel technologies development.
LINKS
More articles from the following categories:
Crude and Vacuum Units
Instrumentation, Automation and Process Control
Lubricants
Process Modelling and Simulation
PTQ Q4 2023 77