Abstract
The main goal of this research is modeling and simulation of ethylene production through naphtha thermal cracking in a coil furnace reactor. The naphtha cracking and decoking processes are modeled based on the mass, energy and momentum balance equations considering a detail kinetic model at pseudo-dynamic condition. To develop a reliable and applicable model, a detail thermal model is considered to predict tube skin temperature. To prove accuracy of developed model and considered assumptions, the simulation results are compared with the plant data. In addition, the results of coke burning in the decoking cycle by mixture of air and steam are presented. It is appeared that ethylene production decreases during the process run time gradually. The simulation results proved that increasing feed temperature, feed pressure and combustion chamber temperature during the process run time is a practical solution to maintain production capacity at an acceptable level. Finally, the optimal operating condition of thermal cracking process is calculated during the process run time based on the time variant feeding policy to achieve maximum ethylene production capacity. It is appeared that applying optimal condition on the system could increase ethylene production capacity from 15.31 ton.h‒1 to 15.49 ton.h‒1.
References
[1] Yoshimura Y, Kijima N, Hayakawa T, Murata K, Suzuki K, Mizukami F, et al. Catalytic cracking of naphtha to light olefins. Catal Surv Jpn. 2001;4(2):157–167.10.1023/A:1011463606189Search in Google Scholar
[2] Reyniers GC, Froment GF, F-D K, Zimmermann G. Coke formation in the thermal cracking of hydrocarbons. 4. Modeling of coke formation in naphtha cracking. Ind Eng Chem Res. 1994;33(11):2584–2590.10.1021/ie00035a009Search in Google Scholar
[3] Pant KK, Kunzru D. Pyrolysis of methylcyclohexane: Kinetics and modelling. Chem Eng J. 1997;67(2):123–129.10.1016/S1385-8947(97)00023-5Search in Google Scholar
[4] Towfighi J, Niaei A, Karimzadeh R, Saedi G. Systematics and modelling representations of LPG thermal cracking for olefin production. Korean J Chem Eng. 2006;23(1):8–16.10.1007/BF02705685Search in Google Scholar
[5] Ghassabzadeh H, Darian JT, Zaheri P. Experimental study and kinetic modeling of kerosene thermal cracking. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis. 2009;86(1):221–232.10.1016/j.jaap.2009.06.006Search in Google Scholar
[6] Belohlav Z, Zamostny P, Herink T. The kinetic model of thermal cracking for olefins production. Chem Eng Process Intensif. 2003;42(6):461–473.10.1016/S0255-2701(02)00062-4Search in Google Scholar
[7] Gao GY, Wang M, Ramshaw C, Li XG, Yeung H. Optimal operation of tubular reactors for naphtha cracking by numerical simulation. Asia-Pacific J Chem Eng. 2009;4(6):885–892.10.1002/apj.351Search in Google Scholar
[8] Ghashghaee M, Karimzadeh R. Dynamic modeling and simulation of steam cracking furnaces. Chem Eng Technol. 2007;30(7):835–843.10.1002/ceat.200700028Search in Google Scholar
[9] Keyvanloo K, Towfighi J, Sadrameli SM, Mohamadalizadeh A. Investigating the effect of key factors, their interactions and optimization of naphtha steam cracking by statistical design of experiments. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis. 2010;87(2):224–230.10.1016/j.jaap.2009.12.007Search in Google Scholar
[10] Keyvanloo K, Sedighi M, Towfighi J. Genetic algorithm model development for prediction of main products in thermal cracking of naphtha: Comparison with kinetic modeling. Chem Eng J. 2012;209:255–262.10.1016/j.cej.2012.07.130Search in Google Scholar
[11] Barazandeh K, Dehghani O, Hamidi M, Aryafard E, Rahimpour MR. Investigation of coil outlet temperature effect on the performance of naphtha cracking furnace. Chem Eng Res Des. 2015;94:307–316.10.1016/j.cherd.2014.08.010Search in Google Scholar
[12] Kumar P, Kunzru D. Kinetics of coke deposition in naphtha pyrolysis. Can J Chem Eng. 1985;63(4):598–604.10.1002/cjce.5450630411Search in Google Scholar
[13] Kumar P, Kunzru D. Modeling of naphtha pyrolysis. Ind Eng Chem Des Dev. 1985;24(3):774–782.10.1021/i200030a043Search in Google Scholar
[14] Zheng S, Zhang X, Qi C, Zhou H. Modeling of heat transfer and pyrolysis reactions in ethylene cracking furnace based on 3-D combustion monitoring. Int J Thermal Sci. 2015;94:28–36.10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2015.02.003Search in Google Scholar
[15] Berreni M, Wang M. Modelling and dynamic optimization of thermal cracking of propane for ethylene manufacturing. Comput Chem Eng. 2011;35(12):2876–2885.10.1016/j.compchemeng.2011.05.010Search in Google Scholar
[16] Seifzadeh Haghighi S, Rahimpour MR, Raeissi S, Dehghani O. Investigation of ethylene production in naphtha thermal cracking plant in presence of steam and carbon dioxide. Chem Eng J. 2013;228:1158–1167.10.1016/j.cej.2013.05.048Search in Google Scholar
[17] Cai H, Krzywicki A, Oballa MC. Coke formation in steam crackers for ethylene production. Chem Eng Process Intensif. 2002;41(3):199–214.10.1016/S0255-2701(01)00135-0Search in Google Scholar
[18] Mitchell M. An introduction to genetic algorithms. Cambridge, MA: MIT press, 1998.10.7551/mitpress/3927.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
[19] Haupt RL, Haupt SE. Practical genetic algorithms. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2004.10.1002/0471671746Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
