Abstract
A diesel hydrotreating (HDT) trickle-bed reactor (TBR) with co- and counter-current streams was simulated using heterogeneous models. The simulation results for the output sulfur concentration agree with the pilot data in both co- and counter-current flows. Also, the effects of major operational parameters were examined on the performance of the reactor. The results show the positive effect of counter-current streams direction, temperature, hydrogen pressure, and negative effect of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) pressure and liquid and gas velocities on the hydrodesulfurization (HDS) reaction. The results of the HDT reactor simulation were then modeled using the adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) method. According to the results, ANFIS is very powerful in predicting the simulation results. Finally, the reactor operating conditions were optimized to maximize sulfur removal from diesel using a new combining the imperialistic competition algorithm (ICA) and ANFIS, called ICA-ANFIS. The ANFIS was adopted to calculate the cost function in the ICA and reduced the run-time of the optimization program by more than 1000 times. In the optimum result, sulfur removal increased by 33% compared with the baseline. The main novelty of this study is modeling and optimizing the heterogeneous simulation results using the hybrid of ANFIS and ICA methods.
Graphical abstract
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The datasets generated during the current study are not publicly available as that could compromise the research participant privacy/consent but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Abbreviations
- \(a_{L}\) :
-
Interfacial area of gas − liquid (cm−1)
- \(a_{s}\) :
-
Interfacial area of liquid − solid (cm−1)
- \(C_{i}\) :
-
Component i molar concentration (gmol.cm−3)
- \(C_{i}^{L}\) :
-
Concentration of i in the liquid phase (gmol.cm−3)
- \(C_{i}^{s}\) :
-
Concentrations of i in the surface of the catalyst (gmol.cm−3)
- \(D_{i}^{L}\) :
-
Component i molecular diffusivity in liquid (cm2.s−1)
- \(d_{P}\) :
-
Particle diameter (cm)
- \(E_{a}\) :
-
Activation energy (J.gmol−1)
- \(G_{L}\) :
-
Superficial mass velocity of liquid (g.cm−2.s−1)
- \(H_{i}\) :
-
Henry’s law coefficient (MPa.cm3.mol−1)
- \(k_{f}\) :
-
Rate constant of forward HDA (s−1.MPa−1)
- \(K_{{H_{2} S}}\) :
-
H2S adsorption equilibrium constant (cm3.mol−1)
- \(k_{i}^{G} a_{L}\) :
-
Gas − liquid mass-transfer coefficient(s−1)
- \(k_{i}^{j}\) :
-
Component i mass-transfer coefficient at the interface j (cm.s−1)
- \(k_{i}^{L} a_{s}\) :
-
Liquid − solid mass-transfer coefficient(s−1)
- \(k_{j}\) :
-
Reaction rate constant for reaction j
- \(k_{r}\) :
-
Reverse HDA rate constant (s−1)
- \(P_{i}^{G}\) :
-
Gaseous i partial pressure (MPa)
- \(R\) :
-
Universal gas constant (J.gmol−1.K−1)
- \(r\) :
-
Catalyst radius (cm)
- \(r_{j}\) :
-
Rate of reaction j
- \(T\) :
-
Absolute temperature (K)
- \(T_{MeABP}\) :
-
Average boiling point (R)
- \(u_{G}\) :
-
Superficial gas velocity (cm.s−1)
- \(u_{j}\) :
-
J phase superficial velocity (cm·s−1)
- \(u_{L}\) :
-
Superficial liquid velocity (cm·s−1)
- \(z\) :
-
Reactor length (cm)
- A:
-
Aromatic compound
- API:
-
American petroleum institute
- NB :
-
Basic nitrogen
- NNB :
-
Non-basic nitrogen
- Np :
-
Naphthenes
- S:
-
Sulfur
- \(\rho_{B}\) :
-
Bulk density of the catalyst
- \(\rho_{0}\) :
-
Density of liquid at standard conditions (lb·ft−3)
- \(\rho_{20}\) :
-
Density of liquid at 20 °C (g·cm−3)
- \(\mu_{L}\) :
-
Viscosity of liquid (mPa·s)
- \({\upeta }_{{\text{j}}}\) :
-
Reaction rate based on catalyst surface concentrations
- \(\lambda_{i}\) :
-
Component i solubility coefficient (Nl·kg−1·MPa−1)
- \(\nu_{c}\) :
-
Gaseous compounds critical specific volume (cm3.mol−1)
- \(\nu_{i}\) :
-
Solute i molar volume at normal boiling temperature (cm3·mol−1)
- \(\nu_{L}\) :
-
Liquid solvent molar volume at normal boiling temperature (cm3·mol−1)
- \(\nu_{N}\) :
-
Molar gas volume at the standard conditions (cm3·mol−1)
- \(\nu_{c}^{m}\) :
-
Critical specific volume (ft3·lbm−1)
- G:
-
Gas phase
- J:
-
Reaction
- L:
-
Liquid phase
- 0:
-
Reactor inlet condition
- S:
-
Solid phase
References
Abdulkadir T, Alhooshani K (2019) Advanced hydrodesulfurization catalysts: a review of design and synthesis. Energ Fuel 33:2810–2838. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b00354
Akbari R, Abbasi M, Faghihi F, Mirvakili SM, Mokhtari J (2018) A novel multi-objective optimization method, imperialist competitive algorithm, for fuel loading pattern of nuclear reactors. Prog Nucl Energ 108:391–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2018.06.016
Alimohammadi S, Sayyad Amin J, Nikooee E (2017) Estimation of asphaltene precipitation in light, medium and heavy oils: experimental study and neural network modeling. Neural Comput Appl 28:679–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-015-2097-3
Azarpour A, Zendehboudi S (2018) A dynamic heterogeneous dispersion model evaluates performance of industrial catalytic hydrotreating systems. Ind Eng Chem Res 57:8267–8282. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.8b01135
Bakhshi Ani A, Ale Ebrahim H (2016) Simulation of naphtha hydrodesulfurization by a heterogeneous model and evaluating the effect of important operating parameters on elimination of the sulfur. Farayandno 10:167–178
Bakhshi Ani A, Ale Ebrahim H, Azarhoosh MJ (2015) Simulation and multi-objective optimization of a trickle-bed reactor for diesel hydrotreating by a heterogeneous model using non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II. Energ Fuel 29:3041–3051. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5b00467
Bhaskar M, Valavarasu G, Sairam B, Balaraman KS, Balu K (2004) Three-phase reactor model to simulate the performance of pilot-plant and industrial trickle-bed reactors sustaining hydrotreating reactions. Ind Eng Chem Res 43:6654–6669. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie049642b
Carmona HDP, Akhmetzyanova U, Tišler Z, Vondrova P (2020) Hydrotreating Atmospheric gasoil and co-processing with rapeseed oil using supported Ni-Mo and Co-Mo carbide catalysts. Fuel 268:117363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117363
Cheng ZM, Fang XC, Zeng RH, Han BP, Huang L, Yuan WK (2004) Deep removal of sulfur and aromatics from diesel through two-stage concurrently and countercurrently operated fixed-bed reactors. Chem Eng Sci 59:5465–5472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2004.09.036
De la Paz-Zavala C, Burgos-Vázquez E, Rodríguez-Rodríguez JE, Ramírez-Verduzco LF (2013) Ultra low sulfur diesel simulation. Appl Commer Units Fuel 110:227–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.09.085
Elizalde I, Mederos FS, Monterrubio MdC, Casillas N, Díaz H, Trejo F (2019) Mathematical modeling and simulation of an industrial adiabatic trickle-bed reactor for upgrading heavy crude oil by hydrotreatment process. React Kinet Mech Catal 126:31–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11144-018-1489-7
Fan X, Li D, Feng X, Dong H, Liu X, Dan Y, Zheng H, Fan A, Li W (2020) Modelling and simulation of industrial trickle bed reactor hydrotreating for whole fraction low-temperature coal tar simultaneous hydrodesulfurisation and hydrodenitrification. Fuel 269:117362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117362
Fooladi Toosi A, Samie MS, Dashti A, Atarian Shandiz M (2014) Simulation of a non-isothermal industrial hydrotreating reactor using simulink. Energ Fuel 28:4828–4834. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef500701q
Froment GF, Bischoff KB, De Wilde J (1990) Chemical reactor analysis and design. Wiley, New York
Gheni SA, Awad SA, Ahmed SM, Abdullah GH, Dahhan MA (2020) Nanoparticle catalyzed hydrodesulfurization of diesel fuel in a trickle bed reactor: experimental and optimization study. RSC Adv 10:33911–33927. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0ra05748g
Ghiasi M, Noorollahi Y, Aslani A (2018) CO2 hydrate: Modeling of incipient stability conditions and dissociation enthalpy. Pet Sci Technol 36:259–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/10916466.2017.1402036
Kashani AR, Gandomi AH, Mousavi M (2016) Imperialistic competitive algorithm: a metaheuristic algorithm for locating the critical slip surface in 2-dimensional soil slopes. Geosci Front 7:83–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2014.11.005
Khajeh A, Modarress H (2010) QSPR prediction of flash point of esters by means of GFA and ANFIS. J Hazard Mater 179:715–720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.03.060
Korsten H, Hoffmann U (1996) Three-phase reactor model for hydrotreating in pilot trickle-bed reactors. AIChE J 42:1350–1360. https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690420515
Mederos FS, Ancheyta J (2007) Mathematical modeling and simulation of hydrotreating reactors: Cocurrent versus countercurrent operations. Appl Catal A-Gen 332:8–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcata.2007.07.028
Mederos-Nieto FS, Elizalde-Martínez I, Trejo-Zárraga F, Hernández-Altamirano R, Alonso-Martínez F (2020) Dynamic modeling and simulation of three-phase reactors for hydrocracking of vegetable oils. React Kinet Mech Catal 131:613–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11144-020-01896-4
Mederos FS, Rodríguez MA, Ancheyta J, Arce E (2006) Dynamic modeling and simulation of catalytic hydrotreating reactors. Energ Fuel 20:936–945. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef050407v
Mederos FS, Ancheyta J, Elizalde I (2012) Dynamic modeling and simulation of hydrotreating of gas oil obtained from heavy crude oil. Appl Catal A-Gen 425:13–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcata.2012.02.034
Mollajan A, Memarian H, Quintal B (2019) Imperialist competitive algorithm optimization method for nonlinear amplitude variation with angle inversion. Geophysics 84(3):N81–N92. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2018-0507.1
Neto ATP, Fernandes TCRL, da Silva Junior HB, de Araújo ACB, Alves JJN (2020) Three-phase trickle-bed reactor model for industrial hydrotreating processes: CFD and experimental verification. Fuel Process Technol 208:106496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2020.106496
Oliviero L, Maugé F, Afanasiev P, Pedraza-Parra C, Geantet C (2021) Organic additives for hydrotreating catalysts: a review of main families and action mechanisms. Catal Today 377:3–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2020.09.008
Ramírez-Castelán CE, Hidalgo-Vivas A, Brix J, Jensen AD, Kjøbsted Huusom J (2019) Mathematical modelling and simulation of a trickle-bed reactor for hydrotreating of petroleum feedstock. Int J Chem React Eng. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijcre-2018-0176
Rodríguez E, Félix G, Ancheyta J, Trejo F (2018) Modeling of hydrotreating catalyst deactivation for heavy oil hydrocarbons. Fuel 225:118–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.02.085
Saleh TA (2021) Carbon nanotube-incorporated alumina as a support for MoNi catalysts for the efficient hydrodesulfurization of thiophenes. Chem Eng J 404:126987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.126987
Shafiq I, Shafique S, Akhter P, Yang W, Hussain M (2022) Recent developments in alumina supported hydrodesulfurization catalysts for the production of sulfur-free refinery products: A technical review. Cataly Rev 64:1–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/01614940.2020.1780824
Silva AO, Monteiro CAA, De Souza VP, Ferreira AS, Jaimes RP, Fontoura DVR, Nunhez JR (2017) Fluid dynamics and reaction assessment of diesel oil hydrotreating reactors via CFD. Fuel Process Technol 166:17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2017.05.002
Wang Y, Shang D, Yuan X, Xue Y, Sun J (2020) Modeling and simulation of reaction and fractionation systems for the industrial residue hydrotreating process. Processes 8:32. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr8010032
Yadav A, Roy S (2021) Modelling of hydrodesulphurization in industrial trickle bed reactor using mixing cell network approach. Can J Chem Eng. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.24280
Yui SM, Sanford EC (1991) Kinetics of aromatics hydrogenation of bitumen-derived gas oils. Can J Chem Eng 69:1087–1095. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.5450690507
Zhang Y, Ji Y, Qian H (2021) Progress in thermodynamic simulation and system optimization of thermochemical conversion process of biomass. Gr Chem Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gce.2021.06.003
Funding
The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
HE was involved in HDT reactor simulation, sensitivity analysis, writing (original draft). HAE contributed to supervision and writing (review and Editing). MJA was involved in supervision, modeling the simulation results with ANFIS, HDT reactor optimization using ICA-ANFIS, writing (review and Editing).
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interests
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Eshghanmalek, H., Ebrahim, H.A. & Azarhoosh, M.J. Simulation and optimization of a hydrotreating reactor using a new hybrid imperialistic competition algorithm-based adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ICA-ANFIS). Chem. Pap. 76, 6247–6261 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11696-022-02310-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11696-022-02310-0