Delayed Coking

Part of the Springer Handbooks book series (SPRINGERHAND)


Thermal processing is the most common refining technique for heavy residues. Thermal processing techniques include delayed coking, fluid coking , flexicoking , and visbreaking ; of these, delayed coking is by far the most common method of thermal processing, with the ability to produce motor fuels from vacuum tower bottoms with a minimum of capital expenditure. Delayed coking capacity has increased greatly in recent years, mostly due to the heavier crude slates being used in refineries. Although delayed coking is an old process, there are many challenges associated with it, especially as crude slates continue to change and greater throughput is required of delayed coking units.


  1. 30.1
    P.J. Ellis, C.A. Paul: Tutorial: Delayed coking fundamentals, Proc. AICHE 1998 Spring Natl. Meet., New Orleans (1998), Google Scholar
  2. 30.2
    S. Skogestad, T. Gundersen, O. Johnsen: Compositional simulation of a refinery coker furnace, Model. Identif. Control 7, 25–44 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 30.3
    R. DeBiase, J.D. Elliott: Delayed coking: Latest trends, Hydrocar. Process. 61, 99–104 (1982)Google Scholar
  4. 30.4
    A.P. Watkinson: Deposition of crude oils in heat exchangers, Heat Transfer Eng. 28, 177–184 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 30.5
    I.A. Wiehe: The pendant-core building block model of petroleum residua, Energy Fuels 8, 536–544 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 30.6
    I.A. Wiehe: A phase-separation kinetic model for coke formation, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 32, 2447–2454 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 30.7
    P.E. Savage, M.T. Klein, S.G. Kukes: Asphaltene reaction pathways. 1. Thermolysis, Ind. Eng. Chem. Proc. Des. Dev. 24, 1169–1174 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 30.8
    P.E. Savage, M.T. Klein: Asphaltene reaction pathways. V. Chemical and mathematical modeling, Chem. Eng. Sci. 44, 393–404 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 30.9
    N.P. Lieberman: Troubleshooting Process Operations, 3rd edn. (PennWell Publishing Co., Tulsa 1991)Google Scholar
  10. 30.10
    W.S. Louie, D. Ogren, G.L. Hamilton: Delayed coker projects – Design innovation and project execution, Proc. AICHE 1998 Spring Natl. Meet., New Orleans (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 30.11
    J.D. Elliott: Optimize coker operations, Hydrocar. Process. 9, 85–90 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 30.12
    J.H. Gary, G.E. Handwerk: Petroleum Refinery Technology and Economics (Marcel Dekker, New York 1975)Google Scholar
  13. 30.13
    B.P. Castiglioni: How to predict coker yield, Hydrocar. Process. 9, 77–79 (1983)Google Scholar
  14. 30.14
    R.E. Maples: Petroleum Refinery Process Economics (PennWell Publishing Co., Tulsa 2000)Google Scholar
  15. 30.15
    M.J. Bagajewicz, A. Smith, M. Frow, J. Quddus, D. Howell, T. Reed, C. Landrum, B. Clifton: Refinery Modeling, Advanced Chemical Engineering Design (University of Oklahoma, Norman 2006)Google Scholar
  16. 30.16
    M. Volk, K. Wisecarver, C. Sheppard: Fundamentals of Delayed Coking Joint Industry Project (University, of Tulsa, Tulsa 2002)Google Scholar
  17. 30.17
    J.A.D. Muñoz, R. Aguilar, L.C. Castañeda, J. Ancheyta: Comparison of correlations for estimating product yields from delayed coking, Energy Fuels 27, 7179–7190 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. Chemical EngineeringUniversity of TulsaTulsaUSA

Personalised recommendations