0263±8762/97/$10.00+0.

00
q Institution of Chemical Engineers

MODELLING AND CONTROL OF A RISER TYPE FLUID

CATALYTIC CRACKING (FCC) UNIT
H. ALI, S. ROHANI and J. P. CORRIOU*
Department of Chemical Engineering, University Of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
*Laboratoire des Sciences du GeÂnie Chimique, Nancy Cedex, France

A
model for a ¯ uid catalytic cracking (FCC) unit which describes the dynamic behaviour
of the riser, particle separator vessel, and the regenerator is developed. The model
consists of coupled ordinary differential equations. This facilitates the solution of the
equations and makes the model particularly suitable for control studies. A sensitivity study is
carried out to determine the interactions between the three controlled and manipulated
variables and the elements of the Bristol1 relative gain array matrix. The relative gain array
analysis suggested that the temperature at the top of the riser, the pressure drop between the
particle separator vessel and the regenerator, and the catalyst holdup in the particle separator
vessel should be controlled by manipulation of the ¯ ow rates of the regenerated catalyst, ¯ ue
gas from the regenerator, and the spent catalyst leaving the particle separator vessel,
respectively. Three PI-controllers were used to achieve reasonable control of the process.

Keywords: dynamic modelling; FCC unit; riser-regenerator modelling; FCC control;

numerical simulation

INTRODUCTION and El-Hennawi7 and Elshishini and Elnashaie8 described the

Fluid catalytic cracking process is one of the most
extensively used operations for the conversion of gas oil
and certain atmospheric residues to higher octane gasoline.
The unit consists of two reactors, the riser reactor, where
almost all the endothermic cracking reactions and coke
deposition on the catalyst occur, and the regenerator reactor,
where air is used to burn off coke. The regeneration process,
in addition to reactivating the catalyst pellets, provides the
heat required by the endothermic cracking reactions. The
development of new, highly active cracking catalysts, and
the introduction of the additives which greatly enhance the
productivity and the selectivity of the catalyst, allow the
cracking reactions to be completed in the riser. The particle
separator vessel acts as a disengaging chamber to separate
the catalyst from the gaseous products by stripping steam.
The complexity of the FCC unit, from both the process
modelling and control points of view, is attributed to the
strong interactions between the riser and the regenerator
reactors, and the uncertainty in the cracking reactions, coke
deposition and coke burning kinetics. This complexity
together with the important economic incentives, provide
reasons for the extensive research work being performed on
the design and operation of the FCC units.
The literature is relatively rich in the modelling and
simulation investigations of the ¯ uid catalytic cracking
units2 ± 6 . Most of these investigations are based on empirical
or semi-empirical models, and present a number of con¯ ict-
ing views. The empirical nature of these models limits their
predictive capabilities, and their use in studying and
analysing the behaviour of industrial FCC units. Elnashaie
401
kinetics of cracking and recognized the two phase nature of
the reactor and regenerator ¯ uidized beds. The cracking
reactor investigated in these models, is a ¯ uidized bed instead
of a transported bed (riser) as exists in most of the modern
FCC units. Arandes and de Lasa9 incorporated the kinetics of
coke combustion over cracking catalysts. These models are
considered valuable tools for the simulation and investigation
of the multiplicity behaviour of the FCC units over their
operating range.
The steady-state analysis is not suf® cient for the
development and testing of control schemes. Nevertheless,
very few dynamic modelling and simulation investigations
have been carried out on FCC units. McFarlane et al.1 0
presented a dynamic simulator which includes a number of
empirical correlations to be used to capture the major
dynamics of the model IV reactor regenerator. Elnashaie
and Elshishini1 1 extended their steady-state model to an
unsteady state model and investigated the dynamic
responses of the unit in open-loop and closed-loop feedback
controlled modes. Lopez-Isunza and Ruiz-Martinez1 2
investigated the dynamic response of a riser type FCC
unit. In this model, the open-loop transient behaviour was
used to ® nd the optimum operating conditions that give
maximum gasoline yield in the open-loop mode. Zheng1 3
presented another dynamic model for the riser type FCC
unit. This model simulates the start-up, shut-down and
routine operation of the unit.
Grosdidier et al.1 4 discuss the implementation of a three-
level hierarchy control system on a commercial FCC unit
including the main fractionator and the air and wet gas
compressors. PI controllers are used for the lowest level
402 ALI et al.

control and the commercially available IDCOM-SETPOITS

model predictive control software is used for the second
level control. The highest level control consists of a steady-
state plant wide optimization algorithm which incorporates
economical and operational constraints. Six manipulated
variables are used to control seven controlled variables.
Process identi® cation is used to obtain linear ® rst and
second order dynamics with and without time delays among
the input and output variables. No attempt is made to derive
rigorous models based on ® rst principles to explain the
process behaviour. Consequently, the results are speci® c to
the unit studied and have little general signi® cance.
Khandalekar and Riggs1 5 implemented a cascade con-
troller on a type IV FCC model. The reactor temperature,
regenerator temperature and the ¯ ue gas oxygen concentra-
tion were controlled by the feed temperature entering the
riser reactor, the catalyst circulation rate, and the regen-
erator air ¯ ow rate, respectively. A nonlinear Generic Model
Control (GMC) algorithm was used for the high level
control and PI controllers for the regulatory level. The
model uses the three-lump kinetics for the hydrocarbon
cracking. In the riser model, an empirical correlation is used
to estimate gas oil conversion. A nonlinear least squares Figure 1. Simulation schematic diagram of the ¯ uid catalytic cracking unit.
method is used to obtain a model constant and the activation
energy of the reaction by minimizing the the difference
between the model predictions and the steady-state plant a minimum and retains the dominant dynamic character-
conversions. Another parameter is treated as adjustable and istics of the unit. The selection of this type of the ¯ uid
is continuously updated during the control runs to minimize catalytic cracking process is due to its popularity in industry.
the difference between the model and process reactor The kinetic parameters for coke burning over cracking
temperatures. Two more adjustable parameters are also catalysts obtained by Morely and de Lasa1 9 - 2 0 were used.
updated continuously in the regenerator model by minimiz- There are ® ve kinetic schemes available in the literature for
ing the difference between model and process regenerator the cracking reactions. Two schemes were investigated in a
temperature and the ¯ ue gas oxygen concentration. In brief, previous contribution2 1 , the three-lump scheme2 2 and the
the use of a three-lump kinetics scheme and three adjustable four-lump scheme2 3 . Our conclusion was that the use of the
parameters limit the applicability of the model. four-lump scheme gives more reliable and better prediction
Arbel et al.1 6 ,1 7 , in a two part article, developed a model of the plant data.
for the current generation FCC units and studied the stability A sensitivity study utilizing the open-loop responses of
and existence of multiple steady-states of such units. Their major process variables is carried out to verify the
model predicts both the steady-state and dynamic behaviour interactions between the three controlled and manipulated
of the FCC units. It incorporates a complete description of variables and the elements of the Bristol’ s relative gain
CO and CO2 combustion kinetics (partial and full combus- array matrix1 . The calculated values of the relative gain
tion) including the effects of combustion promoters. The array showed that the existing control con® guration at the
reactor kinetics are described by the ten-lump kinetic model unit under investigation has the appropriate pairing of the
of Gross et al.1 8 . The model assumes plug ¯ ow, quasi manipulated variables and the controlled variables. Three
steady-state adiabatic operation with no slip velocity PI-controllers with parameters estimated by Lee’ s method2 4
between the catalyst particle and the gas phase and a are used to evaluate the control scheme. In what follows a
constant super® cial velocity in the riser. The stripper is brief description of the model and the open-loop and closed-
modelled as a well-mixed tank with a linear stripping loop simulation results are presented.
function and a constant temperature drop. The regenerator is
modelled as a dense bed and a dilute phase. The gas is
assumed to be in plug ¯ ow and the catalyst in the dense bed THE MODEL
is well-mixed. The entrained catalyst in the dilute phase is The FCC unit model is based on the schematic ¯ ow
assumed to be in plug ¯ ow. Quasi steady-state is assumed diagram presented in Figure 1. It is assumed that gas oil is
for the gas composition and the bed properties. The effects converted to gasoline range hydrocarbons, light gases and
of uncertainties and new catalyst are also included in the coke in the riser reactor, which is considered to be a
model. The stability of new generation FCC units is transported bed. The ¯ uidized bed (the particle separator
discussed and at least three steady-states are identi® ed. vessel) immediately above the riser acts as a disengaging
The upper and the lower steady-states are stable and the chamber where vapour products and heavy components are
intermediate one is always unstable. Operation with complete separated from the catalyst using stripping steam. It is
combustion results in a stable condition, while the partial assumed that the stripping process completely removes the
combustion mode can lead to the unstable steady-state. hydrocarbon gases adsorbed inside the pellets before the
The present study aims at developing a reliable and spent catalyst is sent to the regenerator. The ¯ ow rate of the
simple model that limits the use of empirical expressions to stripping steam is small compared to those of the feed oil

Trans IChemE, Vol 75, Part A, May 1997

 MODELLING AND CONTROL OF A RISER TYPE FLUID CATALYTIC CRACKING (FCC) UNIT 403

and the catalyst (the ratio is usually less than 0.25%). four-lump reaction scheme is as follows:
Therefore, the effect of the stripping steam on the energy
balance of the particle separator can be neglected. The
regenerator is divided into a dense region and a dilute
region. The dense region is further divided into two phases,
an emulsion phase and a bubble phase. The effect of the
dilute region (freeboard region) is not included in the
model.

The Riser Reactor

The riser reactor can be divided into three zones. Fresh where A, B, C, and D represent gas oil, gasoline, coke, and
gas oil is brought into contact with the hot regenerated light hydrocarbon gases respectively. The riser bed acts as a
catalyst at the entrance of the riser which leads to the transported bed, with a high combined stream velocity and a
vaporization of gas oil. The inlet zone is considered to be the short residence time in the order of a few seconds. Thus it
most complex part of the riser. This is attributed to the can be assumed that the dynamics of the riser in comparison
presence of high turbulence, large temperature and with the coke burning and temperature changes in the dense
concentration gradients, and ¯ ow inhomogeneity. In phase of the regenerator are negligible. Therefore, the mass
modern FCC units, studies have shown that a continuous and energy balance equations in the riser are considered at
liquid stream ¯ owing through a number of nozzles coats the quasi steady-state. In addition, the concentrations of various
catalyst particles and provides an intimate contact between hydrocarbon gases in the riser are normalized with respect
the feed and the catalyst pellets which leads to rapid to the gas oil feed concentration, and the riser temperature is
vaporization of the feed. According to plant data (Con- normalized with respect to the steady-state regenerator
sumers’ Co-operative Re® neries Ltd., Regina, SK)2 5 , it dense phase temperature (tr e f ). Based on these assumptions,
takes about 0.1 sec to fully vaporize the feed. This time applying the conservation principles and assuming plug
represents about 3% of the mixture residence time in the ¯ ow in the riser, the mass and energy balances in
riser. Therefore, it is justi® able to assume instantaneous dimensionless form are:
vaporization of the feed. Vaporized feed then pneumatically Gas oil:
conveys the solid particles from the bottom to the top of the dyA w R AR e gR LR q gR
riser. An energy balance equation is developed to describe + [kAB + kAC + kAD ] y2A = 0 (2)
the heat exchange between the hot regenerated catalyst and dZ FgR
the gas oil feed. The energy balance at steady-state can be Gasoline:
used to determine the dimensionless inlet temperature to the
dyB w R AR e gR LR q
[(kBC + kBD )yB - kAB yA ] = 0
dZ +
gR 2
riser, TR (0), by: (3)
FgR
FsR cp s [Td (t) - TR (0)] = FgR [cp l (TB - Tf ) Light Hydrocarbon Gases:
D Hvap dyD w R AR e gR LR q gR
+ t + cpgR (TR (0) - TB )] [kBD yB + kAD y2A ] = 0
dZ -
(1) (4)
ref FgR
A detailed three-dimensional two-phase modelling study Coke:
of the ¯ ow patterns and heat transfer in FCC riser reactors dyCR w R AR e gR LR q
[kBC yB + kAC yA ] = 0
dZ -
gR 2
was performed by Theologes and Markatos2 6 . They (5)
FgR
concluded that the overall performance of the riser can be
predicted using simple one-dimensional mass, energy, and Energy Balance:
chemical species balances. Moreover, the presence of the dTR w R e gR q gR LR AR
high ef® ciency feed injection systems in modern units + (F cp F cp )t
dZ s +
justi® es the assumption of plug ¯ ow in the riser. The feed SR gR gR ref

phase change and the molar expansion as the reactions ´ (yA [kAB (D HRAB ) + kAC (D HRAC )
2
(6)
proceed in the intermediate and the ® nal zone of the riser,
results in typically a 3±4 fold increase in the gas super® cial + kAD (D HRAD )] + yB [kBC (D HRBC )
velocity along the riser. The change in gas super® cial
velocity due to the phase change was considered in this + kBD (D HRBD )])+ HIR = 0
model, whereas changes due to molar expansion were not with the boundary conditions, at Z=0:
accounted for. This contributes to the discrepancy between
yA (0) = 1
the model predictions and the plant data. A ® xed value for
the gas super® cial velocity, calculated immediately after the yi (0) = 0 i = B and D
inlet zone, is used throughout the riser intermediate and top
sections. yCR (0) = yCG (s )
Most of the previous FCC modelling attempts have TR (0) = TRf
employed the three-lump scheme proposed by Weekman
and Nace 2 2 . In this paper, the reaction scheme developed by The regenerated catalyst ¯ ow rate, Fs R , varies based on
Lee et al.2 3 is used to simulate the cracking reactions. The the regenerator pressure. This ¯ ow rate is calculated in

Trans IChemE, Vol 75, Part A, May 1997

404 ALI et al.

terms of the pressure drop between the regenerator and the proposed by Kunii and Levenspiel2 7 :
riser, PG - Pf , and the valve opening, X1 . The equation for 150(1 - e mf ) dp Umf q
( ) ( )
2
1.75 dp Umf q gG
+
gG
the regenerated catalyst ¯ ow rate is as follows:
----------------
(e mf ) h s
3
l (e mf )2 h 2s l
FsR = K X ÖP - P
1 1 G f (7)
d 3p q (q -q )g
=
gG s gG
where K1 (=310 kg sec atm -1 - 0 .5
) is the valve constant. (10) 2
l
where the volumetric ¯ ow rate in the emulsion phase, GI G ,
The Particle Separator Vessel and in the bubble phase, GC G , are:
In a stacked UOP FCC con® guration, the particle GIG = Umf AG (11)
separator vessel or the steam stripper is the upper ¯ uidized
GCG = (Ua AG ) - GIG (12)
bed on the top of the riser. In this vessel, the vapour products
and heavy components are separated from the catalyst using and the volume fraction of bubbles is:
stripping steam. The ¯ ow rate of the stripping steam is small G t
and its effect on the energy balance of the reactor is assumed e bG = CG a (13)
A G LG
to be negligible. Accordingly, it is assumed that the sole The regenerator catalyst bed level is calculated by
effect of the particle separator is to introduce a time lag performing a mass balance on the catalyst in the
between the riser outlet and the regenerator. This is regenerator. The resulting dimensionless equation is as
modelled as an ideal continuous stirred tank. A material following:
balance incorporating the catalyst level inside the particle
dLG1 FsG - FsR
ds = AG (1 - e dG )q s Ua
separator vessel and normalized with respect to the steady- (14)
state catalyst level in the regenerator bed describes the
particle separator dynamics: with the initial condition at s = 0:
dhrv 1
LG1 (0) = 1
ds = Arv (1 - e rv )q S Ua sR - sG
(F F ) (8)
The regenerator pressure is calculated assuming ideal gas
with the initial condition at s = 0: behaviour. This is justi® able since the operating pressure is
hrv (0) = hrv,ss about 2.75 - 3 atm (the compressibility factor was found to
be close to unity). Furthermore, in a ¯ uidized bed the
The ¯ ow rate of the spent catalyst to the regenerator, FsG , pressure drop across the bed is within 5% of the total
is calculated from the following equation: pressure and hence it is ignored. The volume of gases inside
the regenerator is calculated as follows:
-----------------
FsG = K X ÖP - P
2 2 G R (9) VG =AGG ZG - AGG LG (1 - e dG ) (15)
-1 - 0 .5
where K2 (=310 kg sec atm ) is the spent catalyst valve The total number of moles of gases inside the regenerator is
constant, and X2 is the spent catalyst valve position. calculated as follows:
V G q gG
NGT = (16)
The Regenerator Reactor MWgG
The regenerator reactor consists of two regions, the dense The change in the regenerator pressure with respect to
region and the freeboard dilute region. The freeboard region time is calculated based on the ideal gas law from the
is de® ned as the section of the vessel between the top following equation:
surface of the dense region and the exit of the regenerator
dPG R dTb dN PG dV G
vessel. In this section, the gas stream carries some catalyst
particles. The amount of solids entrainment in this region is ds =V G
NGT
ds
+ Tb GT
ds - V ds
G
(17)
usually very small compared to the total amount of catalyst The ¯ ow rate of the ¯ ue gases to the stack, Ff g , is calculated
retained in the regenerator vessel. Most of the coke on the based on the regenerator pressure:
catalyst pellets in this region have already been combusted -------------------
in the dense region. That is, full combustion of coke to Ffg = K X ÖP - P
3 3 G atm (18)
cabon dioxide in the dense regions is assumed. Accordingly, -1
where K3 (=1.5 kg sec atm ) is the ¯ ue gas valve - 0 .5
the effect of the freeboard region on the overall performance constant, and X3 is the corresponding valve opening.
of the regenerator is ignored. The kinetics of coke burning are simulated using the work
The dense region is further divided into two phases (Kunii done by Morley and de Lasa 1 9 - 2 0 . It is assumed that coke
and Levenspiel2 7 ): a bubble phase and an emulsion phase. only consists of carbon and the overall rate is controlled by
The latter is assumed to be like a bed at incipient ¯ uidization the intrinsic kinetics of combustion. The suggested expres-
(air ¯ ows at minimum ¯ uidization velocity Um f ). The sions for the coke burning, catalytic and homogeneous CO
bubbles move in plug ¯ ow and exchange mass and heat with combustion rates are:
the emulsion phase. In the emulsion phase the air
kW C
distributors, the spent catalyst, and the cyclones recycle rc = c CG O2d (19)
pipes produce enough turbulence to justify a continuous MWc
stirred tank reactor behaviour (see Figure 1).
The minimum ¯ uidization velocity, Um f , of the emulsion
rcod =k cod
0 .5
CCOd CO2d (20)
phase can be calculated from the following equation rcob =k cob
0 .5
CCOb CH2Ob 0.5
C02b (21)

Trans IChemE, Vol 75, Part A, May 1997

 MODELLING AND CONTROL OF A RISER TYPE FLUID CATALYTIC CRACKING (FCC) UNIT 405

The assumptions imposed on the model equations have Table 1. FCCU dimensions.
been previously used by Elnashaie and Elshishini1 1 and are
Length (m) Diameter (m)
also recommended by Lopez-Isunza and Ruiz-Martinez1 2 .
The energy and coke combustion dynamic terms in the Riser Reactor 33 0.8
emulsion phase are taken into consideration, while the Regenerator Reactor 11 5.8
dynamic terms associated with the bubble phase are
assumed negligible due to low solids density in this phase.
Therefore, the bubble phase is considered thermally at quasi
steady-state. Moreover, the homogenous CO combustion Energy balance:
reaction taking place in the bubble phase is assumed to be Bubble phase:
negligible in comparison with the catalytic CO combustion Tb = T + e-
d
a hz
(Tairf - Td ) (29)
in the emulsion phase1 1 ,1 2 , 2 0 . Based on these assumptions, Emulsion phase:
the bubble phase equations were solved analytically.
dTd [GIG + GCG (e a h z - 1)]q gG cp gG
ds =
Furthermore, the integral terms appearing in the equations
describing the emulsion phase were evaluated analytically. AG LG1 (1 - e dG )q s Ua cpS
(Tairf - Td )
The concentrations of various gaseous species in the FsG
regenerator were normalized with respect to the oxygen + A L (1 e )q U (TR - Td )
feed concentration, and both the bubble phase and the G G1 - dG s a
emulsion phase temperatures were normalized with respect F L C k
- HlG + F U cp t yCG yO2d (D HRC )
gR Gss O2f C
to the emulsion phase temperature. The ® nal form of the (30)
sR a S ref
regenerator model equations is:
1.5
Coke balance(Emulsion phase): 2LGss q b CO2f
+ (1 e )q U cp t
dyCG (FsG yCR - FsR yCG LGss - dG S a S ref
ds = AG LG1 (1 - e dG )q S Ua - Ua 02f c CG O2d
C ky y
Td dLG1
.5
* kCOd yCOd y0O2d (D HRCOd ) -
yCG dLG1 LG1 ds
-L (22)
with initial conditions, at s = 0:
G1 ds

CO balance: yCG (0) = yCGSS

Bubble phase:
Td (0) = TdSS
yCOb = y + e-
COd
a1 z
(yCOf - yCOd ) (23)
Emulsion phase:
THE OPEN-LOOP RESPONSE OF THE FCC UNIT
[GIG + GCG (1 - e - 1 )](yCOf - yCOd )
a

Plant data from the Universal Oil Products (UOP) riser

- 2AG LG1 LGssq b k 9COd yCOd y type ¯ uid catalytic cracking unit located at Consumer’ s Co-
0 .5
C0d (24)
Operative Re® neries Ltd., Regina, Saskatchewan2 5 , were
AG LG1 LGss q s (1 - e dG )FgR k 9C used to verify the model. The unit dimensions and operating
+ yCG yO2d = 0
MW F C sR conditions are listed in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. The
CO2 balance: physical properties of the reacting species and the catalyst
Bubble phase: and the heats of reactions are listed in Table 3. The air and
hydrocarbons physical properties are calculated from the
yCO2b =y CO2d + e - 1 (yCO2f - yCO2d )
a z
(25) API Data Book2 8 and the Chemical Engineering Hand-
Emulsion phase: book2 9 . The kinetic parameters of the cracking reactions for
the four-lump kinetic scheme were obtained from Lee
[GIG + GCG (1 - e - 1 )](yCO2f - yCO2d ) et al.2 3 and the coke combustion kinetics from Morley and
a

de Lasa1 9 - 2 0 . These are presented in Tables 4 and 5,

- 2AG LG1 LGssLGss q b k 9COd yCOd yO2d . 05
(26) respectively.
AG LG1 LGss q s (1 - e dG )FgR k C9 9 The non-linear algebraic equations were solved by the
- yCG YO2d = 0 Newton-Raphson method and the set of ordinary differential
MW F C sR equations was solved numerically by Gear’ s method3 0 with
O2 balance: adaptive step size.
Bubble phase: The regenerator level equation is solved ® rst. The
estimated value of the regenerator bed catalyst level is
yO2b = y + e-
O2d
a 1z
(yO2f - yO2d ) (27) then used to determine the volume of gases, regenerator

Emulsion phase:
Table 2. FCCU operating conditions.
[GIG + GCG (1 - e - a 1 )](yO2f - yO2d )
Flow Rate (kg sec - 1 ) Inlet Temperature (K)
+ 2AG LG1 LGssq b kC9 Od yCOd y
0 .5
O2d (28)
Gas oil 20 494
AG LG1 LGss q s (1 - e dG )FgR kC9 9 9 Air 16 378
+ MWC FsR
yCG yO2d =0 Catalyst 144 ±

Trans IChemE, Vol 75, Part A, May 1997

406 ALI et al.

Table 3. Physical properties and heats of reactions of the reacting species. Table 5. Kinetic parameters (coke burning) (Morley and de Lasa19).

Hydrocarbons: Reactions Pre-exponential Activation Energy

Density: 8.4 kg m ±3 constant (kJ / mol±1)
Speci® c heat (gas): 3.299 kJ kg- 1 K- 1
Speci® c heat (liquid): 2.671 kJ kg- 1 K- 1 Coke combustion 1.4 ´ 108 (m3 kmol- 1 sec- 1 ) 224.99
Heat of vaporization: 156 kJ kg- 1 CO catalytic 247.75 70.74
Vaporization temperature: 698 K Combustion ((m3)1.5 kmol0.5 sec - 1 kg- 1 )
Heat of reactions:
gas oil to gasoline ±710 Cal g- 1
gas oil to light hydrocarbons ±2328 Cal g- 1
gas oil to coke 5693 Cal g- 1 followed by a step decrease to the three valve openings is
gasoline to light hydrocabons ±1618 Cal g- 1
gasoline to coke 5403 Cal g- 1 also investigated. Dynamic simulations of the open-loop
system to changes in the regenerated catalyst ¯ ow rate, the
Air:
Density: 1.03 kg m ±3 riser temperature, the spent catalyst ¯ ow rate, the catalyst
Speci® c heat: 1.206 kJ kg- 1 K- 1 bed level in the particle separator vessel, the ¯ ue gas ¯ ow
Bubble-emulsion mass transfer coeff.: 0.5 sec ±1 rate and the pressure difference between the regenerator and
Bubble-emulsion heat transfer coeff.: 0.84 kJ sec- 1 m ±2 K- 1 the particle separator vessel are illustrated.
Catalyst:
Bulk density: 970 kg m ±3 Response to Changes in the Regenerated Catalyst Valve
dp (particle size): 75 ´ 10 ±6 m Stem Position
Heat capacity: 1.15 kJ kg- 1 K- 1
Inventory in the regenerator: 50000±70000 kg Figure 4 shows the response of the regenerated catalyst
rate, and the riser temperature to a step increase in the
regenerated catalyst valve position with a magnitude of 2%
and a duration of 11 hrs followed by a step decrease with a
pressure, regenerator temperature, coke on the regenerated magnitude of 5%.
catalyst, and the ¯ ue gas stream composition, respectively. The increase in the regenerated catalyst valve opening
The regenerated catalyst ¯ ow rate to the riser is then results in a higher regenerated catalyst ¯ ow rate, according
determined and the riser reactor mass and energy balances to equation (7). On the other hand, the increase in the
are solved. The catalyst hold-up and the level of the spent regenerated catalyst ¯ ow rate is associated with a lower
catalyst bed in the particle separator vessel are evaluated, catalyst bed level (equation (14)). As the catalyst level in the
from which the spent catalyst ¯ ow rate entering the regenerator drops, the volume occupied by the gases inside
regenerator vessel is determined. the regenerator vessel increases. In accordance with
equation (17), the regenerator pressure decreases which in
turn reduces the regenerated catalyst ¯ ow rate. The ® nal
The Steady-State Results steady state value of the regenerated catalyst ¯ ow rate is
The deviations between the model predictions and the higher than the original value before introducing the step
plant data are shown in Table 6. The model predictions of increase.
the gasoline yield and the regenerator temperature are in The higher regenerated catalyst ¯ ow rate due to the
closer agreement with the plant data. The percent deviations increase in the valve opening is associated with more heat
of the oxygen concentration at the exit of the regenerator input and active sites available for the endothermic cracking
from the plant data obtained is relatively high. The steady- reactions. Thus, the cracking reactions are accelerated.
state temperature and the reactant and products pro® les are Initially, the heat associated with the catalyst dominates,
shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. and the temperature at the exit of the riser increases
(Figure 4a). The higher riser temperature together with the
presence of more catalyst favour the cracking reactions. The
The Dynamic Response increased reaction rates produce more coke, and the
In this section the responses of the regenerated catalyst, combustion of higher quantities of coke increases the
spent catalyst, and ¯ ue gas ¯ ow rates due to a step increase regenerator temperature. Subsequently, this results in a
in their valve positions are presented. The subsequent slight elevation in the regenerator pressure which compen-
changes in the riser temperature, the catalyst bed level in the sates the effect of the level drop and maintains the
particle separator vessel, and the pressure difference regenerator pressure at a steady value.
between the regenerator and the particle separator vessels
are also discussed. The effect of introducing a step increase
Table 6. Models predictions and percent deviation from reported plant data.

Table 4. Kinetic parameters (four-lumped scheme) (Lee et al.23). Model Plant %dev.

Reactions Pre-exponential Activation Energy Riser reactor

constant (kJ/mol- 1 ) Gasoline yield, wt% 42.7 43.9 ±2.7
Coke wt% 6.1 5.8 4.4
Gas oil to gasoline 554 (m3 kg- 1 sec- 1 ) 68.2495 Riser temp, K 749 795 ±5.8
Gas oil to coke 10.45 (m3 kg- 1 sec - 1 ) 64.5750 Regenerator reactor
Gas oil to light gases 1895.4 (m3 kg- 1 sec - 1 ) 89.2164 Regen. temp, K 939 960 ±2.2
Gasoline to coke 2210.28 (sec- 1 ) 115.458 CO2, Mol% 17.4 17.7 ±1.6
Gasoline to light gases 0.904 (sec- 1 ) 52.7184 O2, Mol% 3.7 3.0 18.5

Trans IChemE, Vol 75, Part A, May 1997

 MODELLING AND CONTROL OF A RISER TYPE FLUID CATALYTIC CRACKING (FCC) UNIT
Figure 2. Steady-state temperature pro® le in the riser.
On the other hand, the endothermic cracking reactions
cause a reduction in the riser temperature. Furthermore, the
increase in the fresh regenerated catalyst ¯ ow rate results in
a higher catalyst level in the particle separator vessel. As the
catalyst level in the particle separator increases, it exerts
hydrostatic pressure and the spent catalyst ¯ ow rate
increases at the same valve opening (equation (9)). As a
result of lower riser temperature and higher rates of spent
catalyst ¯ owing back to the regenerator at lower tempera-
ture, the regenerator temperature and pressure decline. This
continues until they eventually settle at steady-state values.
For the step decrease in the valve opening, the
regenerated catalyst ¯ ow rate oscillates before reaching
steady-state. Initially, the closure of the valve results in
> (4)). As a result of the higher regenerated catalyst
Figure 3. Steady-state components pro® les in the riser.
Trans IChemE, Vol 75, Part A, May 1997
407
Figure 4. Transient response of the regenerated catalyst ¯ ow rate and the
riser temperature to step increase and decrease in the regenerated catalyst
valve position.
lower catalyst ¯ ow rate which has two effects. First the
amount of catalyst and the heat available for the cracking
reactions decreases. This in turn lowers the cracking
reaction rates. On the other hand, the amount of catalyst
withdrawn from the regenerator is reduced and the catalyst
level increases. The higher catalyst level in the regenerator
reduces the volume of the gases inside the vessel which,
subsequently, elevates the regenerator pressure. This results
in an increase in the regenerated catalyst ¯ ow rate (equation
withdrawal rate from the regenerator, the bed level inside
the vessel drops (equation (14)), the gas volume expands
and the regenerator pressure is lowered. Again the decrease
in the regenerator pressure decreases the regenerated catalyst
¯ ow. This cycle is repeated, and as it proceeds the magnitude
of the oscillation decreases until eventually the regenerated
catalyst ¯ ow rate settles at a new steady state value.
An observation obtained from Figures 4a and 4b is that
the dynamic responses of either the regenerated catalyst
¯ ow rate or the riser exit temperature to a step decrease in
the regenerated catalyst valve opening are not mirror images
of those obtained from a step increase which demonstrate
the dynamic nonlinearity of the unit.
Response to Changes in the Spent Catalyst Valve Stem
Position
Figure 5 shows a step increase in the spent catalyst valve
position with a magnitude of 4% and a duration of 11 hrs
followed by a step decrease with a magnitude of 5%. The
resulting responses in the spent catalyst ¯ ow rate and the
catalyst level in the particle separator catalyst bed level to
these changes are shown in Figures 5a and 5b.
408 ALI et al.

Figure 5. Transient response of the spent catalyst ¯ ow rate and the catalyst Figure 6. Transient response of the ¯ ue gases ¯ ow rate and the regenerator
bed level in the particle separator vessel to step increase and decrease in the pressure to step increase decrease in the ¯ ue gases valve position.
spent catalyst valve position.

The increase in the spent catalyst valve opening results in
a higher spent catalyst ¯ ow rate (Figure 5a). Accordingly,
the catalyst level in the particle separator catalyst bed level
sharply decreases (Figure 5b). The loss of the hydrostatic
head above the valve reduces the spent catalyst ¯ ow rate. On
the other hand, as there is more catalyst coming to the
regenerator, the regenerator catalyst bed level increases.
This has more than one effect on the unit. First, the
regenerator pressure rises. Subsequently, the regenerated
catalyst ¯ ow rate increases for the same regenerated catalyst
valve opening. The higher regenerated catalyst rate to the
particle separator vessel compensates the higher withdrawal
rate from the latter and eventually the catalyst bed level
reaches a new steady-state value. Furthermore, the increase
in the regenerator pressure negates the increase in the spent
catalyst ¯ ow rate which in turn allows the catalyst bed level
in the particle separator to remain at its steady-state.
The introduction of a step increase or a step decrease to
the valve opening produces similar trends in the spent
catalyst ¯ ow rate and the catalyst hold-up in the particle
separator. This suggests that the system dynamics with
respect to changes in the spent catalyst ¯ ow rate are

Figure 7. The control con® guration used for the FCC unit.

Trans IChemE, Vol 75, Part A, May 1997

 MODELLING AND CONTROL OF A RISER TYPE FLUID CATALYTIC CRACKING (FCC) UNIT 409

Table 7. The PI controller parameters.

Lee’ s Method Fine Tuned

Loop Kc s I, min Kc s I, min D t, min

Riser temperature ±0.001 762.11 ±0.0009 504.32 1.24

Particle separator ±0.0007 101.36 ±0.0003 120.3589 0.41
level
Pressure drop ±0.064 3.91 ±0.0015 8.884 0.083

approximately linear. It is also noticed from the simulation

results that the ® nal steady-state value of the spent catalyst
¯ ow rate is almost the same.

Response to Changes in the Flue Gas Valve Stem Position

Figure 6 shows the response of the system to a step
increase in the ¯ ue gas valve stem position with a small
magnitude of 0.75% and a duration of 11 hrs followed by a
step decrease with a magnitude of 0.85%. Even these small
changes exert relatively large effects on the controlled
variables.
In Figure 6a, the ¯ ue gas ¯ ow rate initially increases as
the step increase is introduced. Consequently, the pressure
inside the regenerator vessel decreases (Figure 6b). How-
ever, according to equation (18), the ¯ ue gas ¯ ow rate is a
function of the regenerator pressure. Therefore, it is
expected even for a wider valve opening that the ¯ ue gas
rate drops as the regenerator pressure decreases. On the
other hand, the lower ¯ ue gas rate helps the regenerator
pressure to boost again and eventually settle at a new
steady-state value. Figure 8. Closed loop response to a step increase and decrease in the riser
The ¯ ue gas ¯ ow rate exhibits a large peak before it temperature set-point.
settles at the new steady-state value in response to an
increase in the ¯ ue gas valve opening. However, when
introducing a step decrease to the valve opening, the ¯ ue gas gain matrix, K, of the process was determined:

é ùé ùé ù
¯ ow rate does not show this peak. The regenerator pressure
pro® le also does not show similar pro® les in response to step TR - 4.02 119347 23800 FSR
ï Hrv = ï ½ï

ë ûë ûë û
½ ½
increase and decrease in the ¯ ue gas valve position. A ® nal 0.1 - 3565 - 655 FSG (31)
remark is that although the valve position is not the same,
the ® nal value of the ¯ ue gas ¯ ow rate is similar to the
D P 0 0 - 147 Ffg
original steady-state value. This is attributed to the higher
which results in the following Bristol relative-gain array
regenerator pressure which compensates for the smaller
matrix:
valve opening.

é
= - 4.87
ï
5.87 - 4.87 0
ù
ë û
SELECTION OF THE APPROPRIATE CONTROL ½
K 5.87 0 (32)
CONFIG URATION
0 0 1
The existing control scheme at the Consumer’ s Co-
Operative Re® neries Ltd., Regina, Saskatchewan2 5 It is noticed that the regenerated catalyst ¯ ow rate should
(Figure 7) consists of three control loops. The riser exit be used to control the riser temperature. Similarly, the spent
temperature is controlled by the amount of hot regenerated catalyst ¯ ow rate is the appropriate variable to control the
catalyst entering the riser. The level of catalyst bed in the catalyst level in the particle separator. The ¯ ow rate of the
particle separator vessel is maintained by the ¯ ow rate of the ¯ ue gas should be used to maintain the pressure difference
spent catalyst leaving the particle separator vessel. The ® nal between the regenerator and the particle separator vessel.
control loop maintains the pressure difference between the One important observation from the relative gain array is the
particle separator and the regenerator vessels by manipulat- strong interaction between the ® rst and the second loops and
ing the ¯ ue gas ¯ ow rate. no interaction with the third loop.
A sensitivity study based on Bristol’ s relative gain array
matrix was carried out to verify the pairing of the three
controlled and manipulated variables. Based on the results THE CLOSED-LOOP RESPONSE OF THE FCC UNIT
obtained from the open-loop step increases in the three Three PI-controllers were designed using the method
control valves at their half-open positions the steady-state proposed by Lee2 4 . The controller parameters obtained from

Trans IChemE, Vol 75, Part A, May 1997

410
Figure 9. Closed loop response to a step increase and decrease in the level
of catalyst in the particle separator vessel set-point.
IAE set-point tracking are listed in Table 7. The velocity
form of the discrete PI-controller was used:
K D t
Xi,k+ 1 = Xi,k + Kc ,i (ei,k+ 1 - ei,k ) + c,i ei,k+ 1 (33)
s I, i
The controller parameters listed in Table 7 resulted in
highly oscillatory response which required ® ne tuning of the
controller parameters. The controller parameters after ® ne-
tuning are also listed in Table 7.
Figures 8 to 10 show the response of the individual
controllers to step changes in the set-point of the riser
temperature, the catalyst level in the particle separator, and
the pressure drop between the regenerator and the particle
separator vessel, respectively. The initial decrease in the
riser temperature as a result of a step increase in its set-point
is an artifact of the computational order used in this study.
An increase in the riser set-point temperature increases the
error which in turn increases the corresponding valve
opening, X1 . This will increase Fs R according to equation
(7). This increase in Fs R decreases the regenarator pressure,
PG , as is evident in Figure 8c, which initially causes a drop
in FsR , i.e. smaller ¯ ow of hot regenerated cataltst to the
riser and hence a drop in the riser temperature. Moreover,
Figures 8b and 9b indicate that the particle separator level
controller and the riser temperature controller are not able to
bring these variables to their desired set-points despite the
integral action. In fact, both controllers were saturated at
valves open position. This suggests the necessity of an
advanced multivariable controller which can handle
ALI et al.
Figure 10. Closed loop response to a step increase and decrease in the
regenerator pressure set-point.
constraints to overcome this problem. It is also noticed
that changes in the regenerator pressure are independent of
the other two loops. This observation con® rms the pairing
suggested by the relative gain array analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
A simple overall dynamic model for the riser, particle
separator vessel, and the regenerator of an FCC unit was
developed. The steady-state results predicted by the model
were compared with the industrial data and showed good
agreement. Some of the distinctive features of the model
are: it incorporates the four-lump kinetic scheme to simulate
the cracking reactions, it introduces a catalytic kinetic rate
for the CO along with the coke combustion over cracking
catalysts, it does not involve any partial differential
equations, and it minimizes the use of empirical
correlations.
The model simulates the entire FCC unit and internally
calculates all the manipulated and controlled variables.
Bristol relative-gain array method supported the current
pairing of the manipulated and the controlled variables at
the Consumers’ Co-operative re® nery Ltd., (Regina, SK)2 5 .
Strong interactions between the riser temperature and the
level of the catalyst in the particle separator vessel were
observed. The regenerator pressure drop was found to be
independent of the other two loops.
Trans IChemE, Vol 75, Part A, May 1997
 MODELLING AND CONTROL OF A RISER TYPE FLUID CATALYTIC CRACKING (FCC) UNIT 411

NOMENCLATUR E VG volume of gases in the regenerator, m3

WCG coke mass fraction from the regenerator, kg coke kg catalyst - 1
A gas oil feed WCR coke mass fraction from the riser, kg coke kg catalyst - 1
AG area of the emulsion phase in the regenerator, m2 X valve stem position
AGG cross sectional area of the regenerator, m2 ya dimensionless weight percent of hydrocarbons in the riser, where
AR area of the riser, m2 (a=A, B, C, and D)
Arv cross sectional area of the particle separator vessel, m2 yCG coke on regenerated catalyst / feed mass rate, kg coke kg feed - 1
av speci® c hear transfer area, m2 m ±3 yCR coke on spent catalyst / feed mass rate, kg coke kg feed- 1
B gasoline range lump yij dimensionless Concentration of component i in the j phase, where
C coke lump (i = CO, CO2, H2O, and O2) and ( j= bubble and emulsion)
Cjb concentration of jth component in the bubble phase, where j=CO, yif dimensionless concentration of component i at the feed, where
CO2, H2O, and O2 , kmol sec- 1 (i = CO, CO2, and O2)
Cjd concentration of jth component in the emulsion phase, where Z dimensionless axial distance in the riser, ZR/LR
j=CO, CO2, and O2 , kmol sec - 1 ZR axial distance in the riser, m
CO2f concentration of the oxygen at the feed stream, kmol m ±3 ZG regenerator length, m
cpl heat capacity of the liquid gas oil, kJ kg- 1 . K- 1 ZG1 axial distance in the regenerator bed, m
cpgG heat capacity of gases in the regenerator, kJ kg- 1 K- 1 z dimensionless axial distance in the regenerator, ZG1/LG
cpgR heat capacity of gases in the riser, kJ kg- 1 K- 1
cps heat capacity of catalyst, kJ kg- 1 K- 1 Greek letters
D light hydrocarbon gases lump a 1 (AG e dG(1-ebG) LGss kg /GCG), see equation (25)
dp catalyst particles a h (AG (1-e bG) av h LGss /GCG rgG cpgG), see equation (29)
ei, k error signal of the ith loop at the kth sampling interval b intrinsic molar ratio of CO2 to CO, kmol CO2 / kmol CO
Ffg ¯ ue gases ¯ ow rate, kmol sec- 1 D HRAB heat of reaction for cracking of lump A to lump B, kJ kg- 1
FgR hydrocarbon gases mass ¯ ow rate in the riser, kg sec- 1
D HRC heat of reaction for coke burning, (kJ kmol- 1 ), see equation (30)
FsG spent catalyst mass ¯ ow rate, kg sec- 1 D HRCOj heat of reaction for CO combustion in the j phase, kJ kmol- 1
FsR regenerated catalyst mass ¯ ow rate, kg sec- 1 D t sampling interval, min
GIG gas ¯ ow rate in the regenerator emulsion phase, m3 sec - 1 e gR hydrocarbon gases void fraction in the riser
GCG gas ¯ ow rate in the regenerator bubble phase, m3 sec- 1 e bG bubbles void fraction in the regenerator bed
g gravitational constant, m sec ±2 e dG emulsion phase void fraction in the regenerator
HlR dimensionless heat losses from the riser e mf bed voidage at minimum ¯ uidization velocity
HlG dimensionless heat losses from the regenerator e rv bed voidage in the particle separator vessel
h bubble to emulsion phases heat transfer coef® cient, kJ m ±2 sec- 1 w catalyst activity
K- 1 l air viscosity, kg (m- 1 sec- 1 )
Hrv catalyst level inside the particle separator vessel, m K relative gain matrix
hrv dimension less catalyst level inside the particle separator vessel q b catalyst bulk density, kg m ±3
K steady-state gain matrix q gG density of gas phase in the regenerator, kg m ±3
Ki the valve constant , where i=1 for regenerated catalyst, 2 for spent q gR density of gas phase in the riser, kg m ±3
catalyst, 3 for ¯ ue gas q s density of catalyst particles, kg m ±3
Kc,i the controller proportional gain of the ith loop hs catalyst particle sphericity
kij reaction rate constant between species i and j s dimensionless time, t Ua /LGss
kc reaction rate constants for coke burning, m3 kmol- 1 sec- 1 s I,i integral time of the ith loop, min
kcob reaction rate constant for the homogeneous CO combustion,
(m3)1.5 kmol0.5 kg of solids- 1 sec- 1 Subscripts
kcod reaction rate constant for the catalytic CO b bubble phase in the regenerator
combustion,(m3)1.5 kmol ±0.5. kg of solids- 1 sec- 1 CO carbon monoxide
k9 c (1/b +1)kc, see equation (24) CO2 carbon dioxide
k9 c 9 (b /b +1)k c, see equation (26) d emulsion phase in the regenerator
k9 c9 9 (b +2/2b +2)kc, see equation (28) f feed
k9 cod CO2f kcod, see equation (26) G regenerator reactor
kg bubble and emulsion phases overall mass transfer coef® cient , g gas phase
sec ±1 H2O water vapour
LG regenerator catalyst bed level, m O2 oxygen
LGss steady-state regenerator catalyst bed level, m R riser reactor
LG1 dimensionless regenerator bed level rv particle separator vessel
LR riser length, m S catalyst solid particles
MSG catalyst retention in the regenerator, kg ss steady-state
MWC carbon molecular weight, kg kmol- 1
MWgG average molecular weight of gases in the regenerator, kg kmol- 1
NGT total number of moles in the regenerator, kmol
Patm atmospheric pressure, atm REFERENCES
Pf riser feed pressure, atm 1. Bristol, E. H., 1966, On a new measure of interaction for multivariable
PG regenerator pressure, atm process control, IEEE Trans Autom Control, AC-11: 133±134.
PR particle separator vessel pressure, atm 2. Kurihara, H., 1967, Optimal control of ¯ uid catalytic cracking
R universal gas constant processes, PhD Thesis, (MIT, Cambridge, USA).
rc rate of coke combustion in the regenerator bed, kmol sec- 1 3. Iscol, L., 1970, The dynamic and stability of a ¯ uid catalytic cracker,
rcod rate of catalytic CO combustion in the regenerator bed, kmol sec- 1 Proc Joint Automatic Control Conf, Atlanta, Georgia, 602±607.
rcob rate of homogeneous CO combustion in the regenerator bed, 4. Lee, W. and Kugelman, A. M., 1973, Number of steady-state operating
kmol sec- 1 points and local stability of open-loop ¯ uid catalytic cracker, Ind Eng
Tairf dimensionless air to the regenerator feed temperature Chem Proc Des Dev, 12 (2): 197±204.
Tj dimensionless temperature 5. Lee, E. and Groves, F. R., 1985, Mathematical model of the ¯ uidized
TB dimensionless boiling point of gas oil bed catalytic cracking plant, Trans Soc Comp Sim, 2: 219±236.
TR dimensionless temperature of the riser 6. Edwards, W. M. and Kim, H. N., 1988, Multiple steady state in FCC
tref reference temperature, K unit operations, Chem Eng Sci, 43: 1825±1830.
t time, sec 7. Elnashaie, S. S. E. H and El-Hennawi, I. M., 1979, Multiplicity of the
ta air space time, sec steady state in ¯ uidizied bed reactors-IV. Fluid catalytic cracking
Ua air velocity, m sec - 1 (FCC), Chem Eng Sci, 34: 1113±1121.
Umf minimum ¯ uidization velocity, m sec- 1 8. Elshishini, S. S. and Elnashaie, S. S. E. H., 1990, Digital simulation of

Trans IChemE, Vol 75, Part A, May 1997

412 ALI et al.
industrial ¯ uid catalytic cracking units ± I. Bifurcation and its
implications, Chem Eng Sci, 45: 553±559.
9. Arandes, J. M. and de Lasa, H. I., 1992, Simulation and multiplicity of
steady states in ¯ uidized FCCUs, Chem Eng Sci, 47: 2535±2540.
10. McFarlane, R. C. , Reineman, R. C. , Bartee, J. F. and Georgakis, C.,
1993, Dynamic simulator for a model IV ¯ uid catalytic cracking unit,
Comp Chem Eng, 17: 275±300.
11. Elnashaie, S. S. E. H and Elshishini, S. S., 1993, Digital simulation of
industrial ¯ uid catalytic cracking units ± IV. dynamic behaviour, Chem
Eng Sci, 48: 567±583.
12. Lopez-Isunza, F. and Ruiz-Martinez, R., 1991, Dynamic modeling of a
¯ uid catalytic cracking unit, AIChE Ann Conf, Los Angeles, USA.
13. Zheng, Y.-Y., 1994, Dynamic modeling and simulation of a catalytic
cracking unit, Comp Chem Eng, 18: 39±44.
14. Grosdidier, P., Mason, A., Aitolathi, A., Heinonen, P., and Vanhamaki,
V., 1993, FCC unit reactor-regenerator control, Comp Chem Eng,
17(2): 165±179.
15. Khandalekar, P. D., and Riggs, J. B., 1995, Nonlinear process model
based control and optimization of a model IV FCC unit, Comp Chem.
Eng, 19(11): 1153±1168.
16. Arbel, A., Huang, Z., Rinard, H., Shinnar, R. and Sapre, A. V., 1995,
Dynamic and control of ¯ uidized catalytic crackers. 1. Modeling of the
current generation of FCCs, Ind Eng Chem Res, 34: 1228±1243.
17. Arbel, A., Rinard, H., Shinnar, R. and Sapre, A. V., 1995, Dynamics
and control of ¯ uidized catalytic crackers. 2. Multiple steady state and
instabilities, Ind Eng Chem Res, 34: 1228±1243.
18. Gross, B., Jacob, S. M., Nace, D. M. and Voltz, Z. E., 1976, Simulation
of catalytic cracking process, US Patent 3960707.
19. Morley, K. and de Lasa, H. I., 1987, On the determination of kinetic
parameters for the regeneration of cracking catalyst, Can J Chem Eng,
65: 773±777.
20. Morley, K. and de Lasa, H. I., 1988, Regeneration of cracking catalyst
in¯ uence of the homogenous CO post combustion reaction, Can J
Chem Eng, 66: 428±432.
21. Ali, H. K. A., Rohani, S., 1995, Effect of cracking reactions kinetic
scheme selection on the model prediction of an industrial ¯ uid catalytic
cracking unit, Chem Eng Commun, (in print).
22. Weekman, V. W. and Nace, D. M., 1970, Kinetics of catalytic cracking
selectivity in ® xed, moving, and ¯ uid bed reactors, AIChE J, 16: 397±
404.
23. Lee, L-S. , Chen, Y-W. , Haung, T-N. and Pan, W-Y. , 1989, Four lump
kinetic model for ¯ uid catalytic cracking process, Can J Chem Eng, 67:
615±619.
24. Lee, J., 1989, On-line PID controller tuning from a single, closed-loop
test, AIChE J, 35: 329±331.
25. Consumers’ Co-operative re® neries Ltd., Regina, Saskatchewan,
Canada, 1994, (private communications).
26. Theologos, K. N. and Markatos, N. C., 1993, Advanced modeling of
¯ uid catalytic cracking riser-type reactors, AIChE J, 39: 1007±1017.
27. Kunii, D. and Levenspiel, O., 1991, Fluidization Engineering,
(Butterworth±Heinemann Publishers, MA, USA).
28. API Technical Data Book Petroleum Re® ning, 1967, (American
Petroleum Institute (API)).
29. Perry, R. H. and Chilton, C. H. (Eds), 1973, Chemical Engineer’s
Handbook, (McGraw Hill, New York, USA).
30. Gear, C. W., 1971, Numerical Initial-Value Problems in Ordinary
Differential Equations, (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA).
ADDRESS
Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Professor
S. Rohani, Laboratoire des Sciences du GeÂnie Chimique, BP451-1, rue
Grandville, Nancy Cedex, France.
The manuscript was communicated via our International Editor for
Canada, Professor M. H. I. Baird. It was received 28 February 1996 and
accepted for publication after revision 8 November 1996.
Trans IChemE, Vol 75, Part A, May 1997