Advertisement

Fluid Catalytic Cracking (FCC) in Petroleum Refining

Living reference work entry
  • 2.9k Downloads

Abstract

The catalytic cracking process, commercialized in 1942, has undergone numerous changes. It is the most important refinery process in that it converts the heavy portion of the crude barrel into transportation fuels. The main changes in catalysts, equipment and operations are covered along with the versatility of the process to handle a wide variety of feeds and produce the desired products. The FCCU is the bridge between refining and petrochemicals and the new FCC processes that fill this gap are presented here.

Keywords

Fluid catalytic cracking Catalytic cracking Development of catalytic cracking Catalytic cracking equipment and operation Cracking catalysts and additives 

References

  1. Additives play important role in FCC development. Oil Gas J. 50–52 (1991). 23 Sept 1991Google Scholar
  2. Advanced catalytic olefins (ACO), in KBR Technical Brochure (2013)Google Scholar
  3. Advanced control and information systems 2001, Hydrocarb. Process. 102Google Scholar
  4. American Chemical Society, in The Fluid Bed Reactor (1998)Google Scholar
  5. S.V. Anderson, Improved FCCU feed and catalyst contact. Pet. Technol. Q, Spring, 55–59 (1999)Google Scholar
  6. R. D’Aquino, Refiners get cracking on petrochemicals. Chem. Eng. 106, 30–33 (1999)Google Scholar
  7. L.R. Anderson, H.S. Kim, T.G. Park, H.J. Ryu, S.J. Jung, Operations adjustments can better catalyst cooler operations. Oil Gas J 97, 53–56 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. A.A. Avidan, M. Edwards, H. Owen, Innovative improvements highlight FCC’s past and future. Oil Gas J. 33–58 (1990a)Google Scholar
  9. A.A. Avidan, F.J. Krambeck, H. Owen, P.H. Schipper, FCC closed-cyclone system eliminates post riser cracking. Oil Gas J. 56–62 (1990b)Google Scholar
  10. P.H. Barnes, Tutorial: basic process principles of residue cat-cracking, in AIChE, 1998 Spring National Meeting, New Orleans, 8–12 Mar 1998Google Scholar
  11. S. Benton, Advanced technology for increasing LPG and propylene production, in 2nd Bottom of the Barrel Technology Conference (BBTC 2002), Istanbul, Turkey, 8–9 Oct 2002Google Scholar
  12. D. Bhattacharyya, Convert resid to petrochemicals, in International Conference on Refining Challenges and Way Forward, New Delhi, 16–17 Apr 2012Google Scholar
  13. M.G. Bienstock, D.C. Draemel, P.K. Ladiwig, R.D. Patel, P.H. Maher, A history of FCC process improvement through technology development and application, in AIChE Spring Meeting, Houston, 28 Mar–1 Apr 1993Google Scholar
  14. C.A. Cabrera, Recent innovations UOP RCC/FCC technology, Katalistiks Technology Seminar, New Orleans, 15 Dec 1988Google Scholar
  15. R.J. Campagna, A.S. Krishna, Advances in resid cracking technology, in Katalisticks 5th Annual FCC Symposium, 23–24 May 1984Google Scholar
  16. I.B. Cetinkaya, UOP PetroFCC process, in Grace Refining Seminary, (Singapore), 18–20 Sept 2002Google Scholar
  17. I.B. Cetinkaya, Plug flow vented riser. U.S. Patent 5,449,497Google Scholar
  18. L. Chapin, W. Letzsch, D. Dharia, Deep catalytic cracking for petrochemical and refining application, in Proceedings Petrotech–95, India, 1995Google Scholar
  19. L.E. Chapin, W.S. Letzsch, T.E. Swaty, Petrochemical options from deep catalytic cracking and the FCCU. Harts Fuel Technol. Manag. 30–33 (1998)Google Scholar
  20. Y.-M. Chen, D. Brosten, A new technology for reducing NOx emissions from FCC regenerators, in NPRA Annual Meeting, Paper AM-08-16Google Scholar
  21. Y. Chen et al., Stripper technology – how to get more profits from FCC units, in NPRA Annual Meeting, Mar 2005Google Scholar
  22. Y. Chen et al., U.S. Patent 5,979,799Google Scholar
  23. Complete combustion of CO in cracking process. Chem. Eng. (1975)Google Scholar
  24. K. Couch, FCC propylene production technology integrations to optimize yields, in Grace 13th European Technology Conference, Rome, 4–7 Sept 2007Google Scholar
  25. B. Dahlstrom, K. Ham, M. Becker, T. Hum, L. Lacijan, T. Lorsbach, FCC reactor revamp project execution and benefits, in NPRA Annual Meeting, paper AM-96-28Google Scholar
  26. R. Dean, J.-L. Mauleon, W. Letzsch, Resid puts FCC process in new perspective. Oil Gas J. (1982a)Google Scholar
  27. R. Dean, J.-L. Mauleon, W. Letzsch, Total introduces new FCC process. Oil Gas J. 80, 168 (1982b)Google Scholar
  28. D. Decroocq, Catalytic Cracking of Heavy Petroleum Fractions (Editions Technip, IFP, Paris, 1984)Google Scholar
  29. E.J. Demmel, H. Owen, U.S. Patent 3,791,962Google Scholar
  30. Exxon Research and Engineering Company, Flexicracking IIIR State-of-the-Art Cat Cracking Commercial Brochure, Lummus EngrGoogle Scholar
  31. A. Fu, D. Hunt, J.A. Bonilla, A. Batachari, Deep catalytic cracking plant produces propylene in Thailand. Oil Gas J. 96, 49–53 (1998). 1/12/98Google Scholar
  32. FCC as resid processing option, in Indian Oil R&D Technical Presentation (2012)Google Scholar
  33. Fluid catalytic cracking technology, in KBR Technical Brochure (2013)Google Scholar
  34. Y. Gao, C. Xie, Z. Li, DCC update and its commercial experiences, in 5th Stone and Webster/Axens FCC Forum, May 2002Google Scholar
  35. W. Gilbert, C.A. Baptista, A.R. Pinho, Exploring FCC flexibility to produce mid-distillate and petrochemicals. ACS Div. Petr. Chem. 51(2), 417–420 (2006)Google Scholar
  36. P.E. Glasgow, A.A. Murcia, Process and mechanical design considerations for FCC regeneration air distributors, in Katalistiks 5th FCC Symposium, Vienna Austria, May 1984Google Scholar
  37. R.J. Glendinning, H.L. MCQuiston, T.Y. Chan, Implement new advances in FCC process technology. Fuel Reformulation 3/4, (45–53) (1995)Google Scholar
  38. R.J. Glendinning, H.L. McQuiston, T.Y. Chan, New Developments in FCC Process Technology Google Scholar
  39. J. Haruch, U.S. Patent 5,673,859, Lummus BrochureGoogle Scholar
  40. C.L. Hemler, FCC Historical Perspective and Major Process Changes, CFB-4 FCC Tutorial (1993)Google Scholar
  41. C.L. Hemler, D.A. Lomas, D.G. Tajbi, FCCU reflects technological response to resid cracking. Oil Gas J. 82, 79–86 (1984)Google Scholar
  42. B.W. Hewrick, J.P. Koebel, I.B. Cetinkaya, Improved catalyst stripping from cold flow modeling. PTQ Autumn, 87–95 (2002)Google Scholar
  43. J.M. Houdek, J Anderson, Market Trends and opportunities in petrochemical propylene production, in NPRA Annual Meeting, AM-05-58Google Scholar
  44. R. Hu et al., Effect of hydrocarbon partial pressure on propylene production in the FCCU. Catalagram 103, 21–30 (2008)Google Scholar
  45. D. Hunt et al., Implementation of state of the art FCC technology for improved reliability, in AFPM Annual Meeting, AM-14-28, 23–25 Mar 2014Google Scholar
  46. G.E. Jacobs, C. Santner, W. Letzsch, Regenerator design to minimize catalyst deactivation and reduce emissions, in NPRA Annual Meeting, AM-08-18, San Diego, Mar 2008Google Scholar
  47. D.L. Johnson, FCC Catalyst Stripper, Int. Patent WO96/04353Google Scholar
  48. T.E. Johnson, Improve regenerator heat removal. Hydrocarbon Processing 55–57 (1991)Google Scholar
  49. T.E. Johnson, R.K. Miller, New developments in resid FCC technology. Paper presented at the Institute for International Research, Singapore, 9–10 May 1994Google Scholar
  50. F.H.H. Khouw, M.J.P. C. Nieskens, M.J.H. Borley, K.H.W. Roebschlaeger, The shell residue fluid catalytic cracking process commercial experience and future developments, in NPRA Annual Meeting, Paper AM-90-42Google Scholar
  51. J. Knight, R. Mehlberg, Maximize propylene from your FCC unit. Hydrocarbon Processing reprint, (2011)Google Scholar
  52. K.V Krikorian, J.C. Brice, FCC’s effect on refinery yields. Hydrocarb. Process. 63–66 (Sept 1987)Google Scholar
  53. A.S. Krishna, C.R. Hsieh, A.R. English, T.A. Pecoraro, C.W. Cuehler, Additives improve FCC process. Hydrocarb. Process. 70, 59–66 (1991)Google Scholar
  54. C. Leckenbach, A.C. Worley, A.D. Reichle, E.M. Gladrow, Cracking-catalytic, in Encyclopedia of Chemical Processing and Design, vol 13 (Marcel Dekker, New York), pp. 1–133Google Scholar
  55. W.S. Letzsch, Controlling FCCU dilute phase reactions. PTQ Q2. 49–53 (2005)Google Scholar
  56. W.S. Letzsch, Fluid catalytic cracking in the new millennium, in NPRA Annual Meeting, Paper AM-99-15Google Scholar
  57. W.S. Letzsch, P.A. Minton, FCC revamps. Hydrocarb. Eng. 32–35 (2000)Google Scholar
  58. W. Letzsch, R. Blinkhorn, Maintaining the reliability of the FCC unit. PTQ 8, 1–6 (2003)Google Scholar
  59. W. Letzsch, D. Lawler, Processing resid through FCCUs. PTQ Q2 11, 65–69 (2006)Google Scholar
  60. W. Letzsch, J.-L. Mauleon, G. Jones, R. Dean, Advanced residual fluid catalytic cracking, in Katalistiks 4th Annual FCC Symposium, Amsterdam, May 1983Google Scholar
  61. W. Letzsch, C. Santner, S. Tragesser, More than 60 ways to improve your FCC operation, in NPRA Annual Meeting, AM-09-70, San Antonio, Mar 2009Google Scholar
  62. W. Letzsch, K. Peccatiello, M. Tibbits, Evolution of residual FCC technology, in NPRA Annual Meeting, Paper AM-07-34Google Scholar
  63. W.S. Letzsch, D.J. Dharia, W.H. Wallendorf, J.L. Ross, FCC modifications and their impact on yields and economics, in NPRA Annual Meeting, Paper AM-96-44Google Scholar
  64. W.S. Letzsch, D. Dharia, J.L. Ross, The future of catalytic cracking, in NPRA Annual Meeting, Paper AM-97-65Google Scholar
  65. Z.T. Li, W.Y. Shi, R.N. Pan, F.K. Jiang, DCC flexibility for isoolefins production, in American Chemical Society 206th National Meeting, Chicago, 22–27 Aug 1993Google Scholar
  66. M. Lippman, Innovative technology to improve FCC flexibility, in AFPM Annual Meeting, AM-12-26, San Diego, Mar 2012Google Scholar
  67. J.S. Magee, M.M. Mitchell Jr., Fluid Catalytic Cracking Science and Technology (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1993)Google Scholar
  68. C.R. Marcilly, R.R. Bonifay, Catalytic cracking of resid feedstocks. Arab. J. Sci. Technol. 21(48), 627–651 (1996)Google Scholar
  69. J. L. Mauleon, J. C. Courcelle, FCC heat balance critical for heavy fuels. Oil Gas J. 64–70 (1985)Google Scholar
  70. J.L. Mauleon, J.B. Sigaud, Mix temperature control enhances FCC flexibility in use of wider range of feeds. Oil Gas J. 85, 52–55 (1987)Google Scholar
  71. S.J. McCarthy, M.F. Raterman, C.G. Smalley, J.F. Sodomin, R.B. Miller, FCC technology upgrades: a commercial example, in NPRA Annual Meeting, Paper AM-97-10Google Scholar
  72. R.A. Meyers, Handbook of Petroleum Refining Processes, 2nd edn. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1996). Chapters 3 thru 7Google Scholar
  73. R. Miller, FCC’s role in refinery-petrochemical integration, in Grace Refining Technology Conference, Singapore, 18–20 Sept 2002Google Scholar
  74. R. Miller, Y.-L. Yang, E. Gbordzoe, D.L. Johnson, T. Mallo, New developments in FCC feed injection and stripping technologies, in NPRA Annual Meeting, Paper AM-00-08Google Scholar
  75. J.R. Murphy, Designs for heat removal in HOC operations, in Petroleum Refining Conference, JPI, Tokyo, Oct 1986Google Scholar
  76. J.R. Murphy, Evolutionary design changes mark FCC process. Oil Gas J. 18, 49–58 (1992)Google Scholar
  77. P. Niccum, Maximizing diesel production in the FCC-centered refinery, in AFPF Annual Meeting, AM-12-43, San Diego, Mar 2012Google Scholar
  78. P.K. Niccum, M.J. Tallman, D.H. Grittman, KBR catalytic olefins technologies provide refinery/petrochemical balance, in 25th JPI Petroleum Refining Conference, Tokyo, 26–27 Oct 2010Google Scholar
  79. P.K. Niccum et al., Maxofin: a novel FCC process for maximizing light olefins using a new generation of ZSM-5 additive, in NPRA Annual Meeting, Paper AM-98-18Google Scholar
  80. P.K. Niccum et al., Future refinery-FCC’s role in refinery/petrochemical integration, in NPRA Annual Meeting, Paper AM-01-61Google Scholar
  81. M. Nieskens, Milos-Shell’s ultimate flexible FCC technology in delivering diesel/propylene, in NPRA Annual Meeting, Paper AM-08-54Google Scholar
  82. M.J.P.C. Nieskens, F.H.H. Khouw, M.J.H. Barley, K.H.W. Roebschlaeger, Shell’s resid FCC technology reflects evolutionary development. Oil Gas J. 37, 37–44 (1990)Google Scholar
  83. W.L. Pierce, D.F. Ryan, R.P. Souther, T.G. Kaufmann, Innovations in flexicracking, in API Div. of Refining 37th Midyear Meeting, New York, 10 May 1972Google Scholar
  84. A. Pinho, P.P. Neto, J.G.F. Ramos, J.A.M. Castillero, Double riser FCC: an opportunity for the petrochemical industry, in NPRA Annual Meeting, Paper AM-06-13Google Scholar
  85. Propylene or diesel fuel? Just change the controls. Chem. Eng. 20 (2008)Google Scholar
  86. J.A. Rabo, Zeolite chemistry and catalysis, in ACS Monograph 171, ed. by J.S. Magee, J.J. Blazek, Chapter 11, Preparation and Performance of Zeolite Cracking Catalysts (1979)Google Scholar
  87. M.F. Raterman, U.S. Patent 5, 409,872Google Scholar
  88. J. Ross FCC Technology Seminar Technip/Axens, San Francisco, (2013)Google Scholar
  89. R.E. Ritter, J.C. Creighton, D.S. Chin, T.G. Roberie, C.C. Wear, Catalytic octane from the FCC, Grace Catalagram. No. 74 (1986)Google Scholar
  90. C.Y. Sabottke, Eur. Patent 0444860A1Google Scholar
  91. A.V. Sapre, P.H. Schipper, F.P. Petrocelli, Design methods for FCC feed atomization, in AIChE Symposium Series, vol 88, pp. 103–109Google Scholar
  92. P.R. Satbhai, J.M.H. Dirkx, R.J. Higgins, P.D.L. Mercera, Best practices in shell FCC units, in Akzo Nobel Catalyst Seminar, Mumbai, India, Oct 1998Google Scholar
  93. M.W. Schnaith, D.A. Kauff, Resid FCC regenerators: technology options and experience, in NPRA Annual Meeting, Paper AM-97-13Google Scholar
  94. M.W. Schnaith, A.T. Gilbert, D.A. Lomas, D.N. Myers, Advances in FCC reactor technology, in NPRA Annual Meeting, Paper AM-95-36Google Scholar
  95. A.G. Shaffer Jr., C.L. Hemler, Seven years of operation prove RCC capability. Oil Gas J. 62–70 (1990)Google Scholar
  96. W. Shi, C. Xie, Y. Huo, X. Zhong, DCC family technology for producing light olefins from heavy oils. Chin. Petr. Process. Petrochem. Technol. 2, 15–21 (2001)Google Scholar
  97. D. Soni, Next generation stripper design commercialized, in Lummus Paper (2007)Google Scholar
  98. D. Soni et al., Maximize olefins through catalytic cracking Indmax FCC process (2008). www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000205
  99. A.M. Squires, Circulating Fluidized Bed Technology, in The Study of Fluid Catalytic Cracking: The First Circulating Fluid Bed Google Scholar
  100. J. Stell, Worldwide catalyst report. Oil Gas J. 56–76 (2001)Google Scholar
  101. Superflex, in KBR Technical Brochure (2013)Google Scholar
  102. M.J. Tallman, C. Eng, Catalytic routes to olefins, in Grace European Technical Conference, Rome, 4–7 Sept 2007Google Scholar
  103. M.J. Tallman, C.N. Eng, Propylene on purpose. Hydrocarb. Eng. (2010)Google Scholar
  104. M.J. Tallman et al., Advanced Catalytic Olefins (ACO): first commercial demonstration unit begins operations, in AICHE Spring National Meeting, Chicago, 14–17 Mar 2011, p. 74bGoogle Scholar
  105. A.K. Rhodes, Number of catalyst formulations stable in a tough market. Oil Gas J. 95, 41–72 (1997)Google Scholar
  106. L.L. Upson, H.V.D. Zwan, Promoted combustion improves FCCU flexibility. Oil Gas J. 85, 65–70 (1987)Google Scholar
  107. I.A. Vasalos, E.R. Strong, C.K.R. Hsieh, G.J. D’Souza, New cracking process controls FCCU SOX. Oil Gas J. 75, 141–148 (1977)Google Scholar
  108. P.B. Venuto, E.T. Habib Jr., Fluid Catalytic Cracking with Zeolite Catalysts (Marcel Dekker, Boca Raton, 1979)Google Scholar
  109. P. Walker, R. Peterman, RFCC units set new standard for propylene production. PTQ Q4, 83–92 (2012)Google Scholar
  110. C.C. Wear, R.W. Mott, FCC catalysts can be designed and selected for optimum performance. Oil Gas J. 71–79 (1988)Google Scholar
  111. J.W. Wilson, Modernizing older FCCU’s, in NPRA Annual Meeting, Paper AM-00-09Google Scholar
  112. J.W. Wilson, First Stone and Webster/ IFP Licensors’ Forum (Osaka Revamp) (1994)Google Scholar
  113. J.W. Wilson, Fluid Catalytic Cracking Technology and Operation (Pennwell, Tulsa, 1997)Google Scholar
  114. E.G. Wollaston, W.J. Haflin, W.D. Ford, G.J. D’Souza, FCC model valuable operating tool. Oil Gas J. 87, 87–94 (1975). 9/22/75Google Scholar
  115. L. Wolschlag, K. Couch, UOP FCC design advancements to reduce energy consumption and CO2 emissions, in NPRA Annual Meeting, AM-09-35, San Antonio, Mar 2009Google Scholar
  116. L. Wolschlag, K. Couch, UOP FCC innovations developed using sophisticated engineer tools, in NPRA Annual Meeting, AM-10-109, Phoenix, Mar 2010Google Scholar
  117. R.E. Wrench, P.C. Glasgow, FCC hardware options for the modern Cat cracker, in AIChE National Meeting, Los Angeles, 17–22 Nov 1991, Paper 125CGoogle Scholar
  118. L.C. Yen, R.E. Wrench, A.S. Ong, Reaction kinetic correlation equation predicts fluid catalytic cracking coke yield. Oil Gas J. 86, 67–70 (1988)Google Scholar
  119. O.J. Zandona, W.P. Hettinger Jr., L.E. Busch, Reduced crude processing with Ashland’s RCC process, in API 47th Midyear Refining Meeting, New York, 13 May 1982Google Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technip-Stone & WebsterHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Warren Letzsch Consulting PCEllicott CityUSA

Personalised recommendations