Advertisement

Reaction Kinetics, Mechanisms and Catalysis

, Volume 126, Issue 1, pp 31–48 | Cite as

Mathematical modeling and simulation of an industrial adiabatic trickle-bed reactor for upgrading heavy crude oil by hydrotreatment process

  • Ignacio ElizaldeEmail author
  • Fabián S. Mederos
  • Ma. del Carmen Monterrubio
  • Ninfa Casillas
  • Hugo Díaz
  • Fernando Trejo
Article
  • 35 Downloads

Abstract

The mathematical modeling of a trickle-bed reactor at particle and catalytic bed levels for the hydrodesulfurization and hydrodemetallization of heavy crude oil was carried out. The kinetic model parameters were estimated from experimental data. Thermodynamic and transport properties were calculated based on existing correlations and equations of state. Simulations of isothermal small scale and large scale adiabatic reactor were carried out and concentration and temperature profiles were obtained. It was demonstrated that temperature affects the catalyst utilization as the effectiveness factor is diminished at higher temperatures. Effectiveness factors undergo changes as reaction mixtures passes through catalytic bed describing different profiles for HDM and HDS.

Keywords

Modeling TBR Scaling reactor Hydrotreatment process Upgrading oil 

Abbreviations

API

The American Petroleum Institute gravity, dimensionless

ac

Peng–Robinson EoS parameter, dimensionless

aL

Gas–liquid interface area, cm2/cm3

aS

Liquid–solid interface area, cm2/cm3

BCDE

Coefficients of Lee–Kesler EoS, dimensionless

b

Peng–Robinson’s EoS volume parameter, cm3/mol

ci, S

Molar concentration of i species on catalyst surface, mol/cm3

ci, L

Molar concentration of i species in liquid mixture, mol/cm3

cPG

Gas heat capacity, J/mol/K

cPL

Liquid heat capacity, J/mol/K

Di

Molecular diffusivity of i compound, cm2/s

De

Effective diffusivity, cm2/s

fw

Peng–Robinson’s EoS alpha parameter, dimensionless

GL

Mass superficial velocity of liquid, g/cm2 s

Hi

Henry’s coefficient for i compound, Pa cm3/mol

\(HDM\)

Hydrodemetallization

HDNi

Hydrodenickelation

HDV

Hydrodevanadization

\(HDS\)

Hydrodesulfurization

KW

Watson characterization factor, dimensionless

kapp, i

Apparent reaction rate constant for i species, (cm3/mol)−n mol/g/s

\(K_{{H_{2} S}}\)

Equilibrium adsorption constant of H2S on catalyst, cm3/mol

kin, j

Intrinsic reaction rate constant for j reaction, (cm3/mol)−n mol/g/s

ki, L

Gas–liquid mass transfer coefficient for i compound, cm3/cm2/s

ki, S

Liquid–solid mass transfer coefficient for i compound, cm3/cm2/s

LHSV

Liquid hourly space velocity, h−1

n

Hydrodemetallization reaction order, dimensionless

pi

Partial pressure of i compound in the gas phase, MPa

Pr

Reduced pressure, dimensionless

R

Ideal gas constant, J/mol/K

RP

Equivalent radius of catalyst particle, cm

r

Radial coordinate for catalyst particle, cm

ri

Reaction rate for i, mol/g/s

sg

Specific gravity, dimensionless

T

Reaction temperature, K

T0

Temperature at reactor inlet, K

Tc

Critical temperature, K

Tr

Reduced temperature, dimensionless

uG

Superficial gas velocity, cm3/cm2/s

v

Molar volume, cm3/mol

vr

Reduced molar volume, dimensionless

uL

Liquid superficial mass in catalytic bed, cm3/cm2/s

Z

Compressibility factor, dimensionless

z

Axial coordinate in catalytic bed, cm

Greek letters

αc

Peng–Robinson’s EoS parameter, dimensionless

ai

Coefficients for CPL in Eqs. 1719, dimensionless

β

Parameter of Eq. 3, dimensionless

β′, γ

Lee–Kesler’s EoS parameters, dimensionless

\({{\Delta }}C_{PH}\)

Residual heat capacity of hydrogen, J/mol/K

ΔCPL

Residual liquid heat capacity at constant pressure, J/mol/K

\(\Delta C_{v}\)

Residual liquid heat capacity at constant volume, J/mol/K

\(\Delta H_{i}\)

Reaction heat, J/mol

ɛG

Gas holdup, dimensionless

ɛL

Liquid holdup, dimensionless

κ

Peng–Robinson’s EoS parameter, dimensionless

υi

Stoichiometric number in chemical HDS reaction, dimensionless

ρb

Bulk catalyst density, g/cm3

ρP

Catalyst particle density, g/cm3

η

Effectiveness factor, dimensionless

ξ

Radial position in catalyst particle, dimensionless

ΨNi

Nickel compounds dimensionless concentration in catalysts particle

ΨS

Sulfur compounds dimensionless concentration in catalysts particle

ΨV

Vanadium compounds dimensionless concentration in catalysts particle

ω

Acentric factor for EoS, dimensionless

Ϛ

Axial position in reactor, dimensionless

Notes

Acknowledgements

I.E. thanks CONACyT (Research projects 246176 and 274276) and Secretaría de Investigación y Posgrado - IPN (research project 20180385) by support. N. Casillas thanks CONACyT by doctoral fellowship.

References

  1. 1.
    El-Gendy NS, Speight JG (2016) Handbook of refinery desulfurization. Taylor Francis Group, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mederos FS, Elizalde I, Ancheyta J (2009) Steady-state and dynamic reactor models for hydrotreatment of oil fractions: a review. Catal Rev 51(4):485–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ancheyta J (2011) Modeling and simulation of catalytic reactors for petroleum refining. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tsai MC, Chen YW, Li C (1993) Restrictive diffusion under hydrotreating reactions of heavy residue oils in a trickle bed reactor. Ind Eng Chem Res 32(8):1603–1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang Z, Chen S, Pei J, Chen A, Zhang J, Xu Z, Benziger JB (2014) Insight into the intraparticle diffusion of residue oil components in catalysts during hydrodesulfurization reaction. AIChE J 60(9):3267–3275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alvarez A, Ancheyta J (2008) Modeling residue hydroprocessing in a multi-fixed-bed reactor system. Appl Catal A 351:148–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jarullah AT, Mujtaba IM, Wood AS (2012) Improving fuel quality by whole crude oil hydrotreating: a kinetic model for hydrodeasphaltenization in a trickle bed reactor. Appl Energy 94:182–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Melkote RR, Jensen KF (1989) Models for catalytic pore plugging: application to hydrodemetalation. Chem Eng Sci 44(3):649–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhang L, Seaton NA (1996) Simulation of catalyst fouling at the particle and reactor levels. Chem Eng Sci 51(12):3257–3272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Long FX, Gevert BS (2004) Modeling initial decay of hydrodemetallization catalyst with simultaneous adsorption and reaction mechanism. J Catal 222(1):1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ancheyta J (2016) Deactivation of heavy oil hydroprocessing catalyst: fundamentals and modeling. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rodríguez E, Félix G, Ancheyta J, Trejo F (2018) Modeling of hydrotreating catalyst deactivation for heavy oil hydrocarbons. Fuel 225:118–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rodríguez MA (2006) PhD thesis (in Spanish). Unpublished. México: UNAMGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Korsten H, Hoffmann U (1996) Three-phase reactor model for hydrotreating in pilot trickle-bed reactors. AIChE J 42(5):1350–1360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jarullah AT, Mujtaba IM, Wood AS (2011) Kinetic model development and simulation of simultaneous hydrodenitrogenation and hydrodemetallization of crude oil in trickle bed reactor. Fuel 90(6):2165–2181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen A, Chen S, Hua D, Zhou Z, Wang Z, Wu J, Zhang J (2013) Diffusion of heavy oil in well-defined and uniform pore-structure catalyst under hydrodemetallization reaction conditions. Chem Eng J 231:420–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Callejas MA, Martínez MT (2002) Evaluation of kinetic and hydrodynamic models in the hydroprocessing of a trickle-bed reactor. Energy Fuels 16(3):647–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Elizalde I, Monterrubio C, Casillas N, Reyes S, Bremauntz P, Ramírez R. Prediction of behavior of a fixed bed chemical adiabatic reactor used in the hydrodesulfurization of petroleum fractions. Adv Sci EngGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Poling BE, Prausnitz JM, O’Connell JP (2001) The properties of gases and liquids. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kesler MG, Lee BI (1976) Improve prediction of enthalpy fractions. Hydrocarb Process 55(3):153–158Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    American Petroleum Institute (1997) Technical data book, petroleum refining, English edn. API, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee BI, Kesler MG (1975) A generalized thermodynamic correlation based on three-parameter corresponding states. AIChE J 21:510–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Riazi MR (2005) Characterization and properties of petroleum fractions. ASTM, ConshohockenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peng D, Robinson D (1976) A new two-constant equation of state. Ind Eng Chem Fundam 15(1):59–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Centro Mexicano para la Producción más Limpia (CMP+L-IPN)Ciudad de MéxicoMexico
  2. 2.Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Escuela Superior de Ingeniería Química e Industrias ExtractivasCiudad de MéxicoMexico
  3. 3.Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Centro de Investigación en Ciencia Aplicada y Tecnología Avanzada-LegariaCiudad de MéxicoMexico

Personalised recommendations