Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 25(2)2023 DOI: 10.21608/jpme.2024.217836.

1168

Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering

Optimization of Delayed Coker Unit Process Variables for Enhancement of

Product Yields
Samy Nabil Mohamed*a and Mohamed Hassan b
aEPROM Company, MIDOR Refinery, Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources, Alexandria, 21934, Egypt
bRefining and Petrochemical Department, Faculty of Petroleum and Mining Engineering, Suez University, Suez 43512, Egypt
*Corresponding author e-mail: sinm2@pme.suezuni.edu.eg

Abstract

Article Info This study has been constructed using Aspen HYSYS ver.12.1 and regression analysis had
been performed by MICROSOFT EXCEL 2010 to obtain new correlations to predict the
Received 2 Jul. 2023 product yields from delayed coker unit with a wide applicable range of operating variables
Revised 21 Oct. 2023 which is more reliable with refineries data and a simulation molding of delayed coker unit
Accepted 28 Jan. 2024 has been accomplished to maximize the gas oil yield for a refinery data by optimization of
process variables. The findings from optimization by linear programming performed by
Keywords MICROSFT OFFICE EXCEL 2010 indicated that gas oil yield could be increased by 4 wt%
instead of coke byproduct by lowering the recycle ratio to 5% wt from fresh feed and
"Delayed coker simulation; increasing the heater outlet temperature to 510°C. Also the results showed that the change
HYSYS, DCU optimization;
in coke drum pressure has a minimal effect in product yield. The outcome from the
Regression analysis; Economic
study"
modified process conditions has been studied and a profit estimated at approximately 40
million dollar yearly.

Introduction run. Up to the 1880s, crude was distilled using single

horizontal shell stills, albeit the process was
There is an issue with heavier crude oils with a high occasionally terminated before the bottoms coked to
density that have been available over the lighter produce heavy lubricating oil. Running the stills in
crudes in recent decades as the oil industry requires series while the first still produced the coke allowed
more gasoline and diesel products today. In all for the processing of additional fractions. The bubble
refineries, the necessity to process heavy oil has taken cap distillation trays, which Koch had developed, were
precedence. Processing heavy oils calls for more used in tube furnaces with distillation columns that
advanced physical separation, conversion, and were constructed in the 1920s. The bottoms of these
distillation equipment. The delayed coker unit, which stills, which were made of wrought iron, were in direct
transforms the heaviest and least desirable contact with the flue gases over their entire exterior.
components of crude bottoms, such as heavy sour The most heavy gas oil was generated as a result. After
vacuum residue, into marketable products that are World War II, several of these units continued to be
further processed to higher economic value products used [1].
like jet fuel, gasoline, and diesel fuel that are highly
demanded in global markets, is one of the most The vertical coke drum likely developed as a result
significant conversion units. The delayed coking of the thermal cracking of gas oil used to make
process yields coke, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), gasoline and diesel fuel. The Burton process, created
light gas oil (LGO), heavy gas oil (HGO), naphtha by Standard Oil in Whiting, Indiana, transformed gas
(gasoline), and sour fuel gas. It has been come to oil to gasoline while also producing petroleum coke
consider ways to reduce coke formation while from 1912 to 1935. Petroleum coke was also made by
increasing the liquid yields of gasoline and gas oil from thermal cracking technologies such as Dubbs [2].
delayed coker units. Due to a shortage of crude oil supply and a heavy
In the 1860s, the first oil refineries in oil market, landlocked Middle American refineries
Northwestern Pennsylvania produced petroleum used a delayed coker to process heavy fuel oil
coke. These ancient, rudimentary refineries used (atmospheric distillation bottoms and vacuum
crude oil to make kerosene, a valuable and essential distillation bottoms) to create additional gasoline and
fuel, in tiny iron stills. The oil towards the bottom of diesel fuel [3].
the stills was heated and coked by wood or coal fires
that were built underneath. The still was allowed to
cool once evaporation was finished so the workers Delayed coking incorporated several elements and
could remove the coke and tar before the subsequent advancements from the development of the thermal

Page|45
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 25(2)2023 DOI: 10.21608/jpme.2024.217836.1168

cracking process. The combination of pressure and Delayed coking is an endothermic reaction, with
heat for cracking and separating the heater from the the furnace generating the necessary heat for the
coker, as well as the use of two drums, allowed the reactions to occur. The reactions in the delayed coker
delayed coker to work continuously. The number of are complex and were initially random, with no
cokers built prior to 1955 was minimal, with a 6% studies or predictions for the product yields. Today,
annual increase in delayed coker building from 1955 many researchers are concerned with the product
to 1965 and an 11% growth rate from 1965 to 1970 yields from the delayed coker process. Using
[4]. equations or simulated instances, you can target
proximity for your coking yields [6].
The saviour delayed coker unit is a low-pressure
thermal cracking technique. It gets its name from the Process description:
fact that coke is formed in coke drums rather than
furnace tubes, where it may be stored and removed Fresh feed to the coker fractionator:
as a saleable product. During this thermal process, the The delayed coker unit usually receives fresh residue
vacuum residue from vacuum crude distillation is feed from the hot vacuum unit residue and cold feed from
batch-heated in a furnace, which is considered the storage. The two feed streams are then merged,
unit's cornerstone, and then confined in a reaction preheated in heat exchangers, and introduced at
zone or coke drum under proper operating conditions around 290°C to the bottom of the main fractionator,
of temperature and pressure until the unvaporized which serves as a surge drum for the coker furnace Figure
portion of the furnace effluent is converted to vapors (1) [7].
and coke [5].

Figure 1 Delayed Coker Unit Distillation section simple process flow diagram [7].

Page|46
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 25(2)2023 DOI: 10.21608/jpme.2024.217836.1168

Coker furnace and coke drums variable in the coker process. It is controlled by altering the
coker heater temperature, which has a substantial effect
The liquid that gathers at the bottom of the on both the yield and quality of coke and liquid yields.
fractionator is pushed to the coker furnace from the Heater temperatures should be kept between 480°C and
bottom of the tower. Just before entering the furnace 520°C.
cells, a recycle naphtha or middle distillate heavy gas oil
stream may join the main hydrocarbon stream. The blend At lower temperatures, tarry coke with a high volatile
mixture is then heated to the coking reaction temperature component matter VCM% and a large increase in coke
(about 500° C) [8]. Each pass has a high pressure steam yield and gas plus gasoline are generated. An increase in
pipe called the velocity steam that connects to it. The temperature within the temperature range discussed for a
velocity steam role is critical since it is utilized to improve particular feedstock will enhance the gas oil yield rather
velocity in each pass and lower coking rate in the furnace than coke and gas plus gasoline yield [17].
[9]. Figure (1) shows a coke drum charge entering the
Coke drum pressure
bottom of one of the coke drums. The cracking and
condensation reactions start to take place inside the drum The thermal cracking reactions in coking process are a
forming coke and lighter components that exit the top of function of time and temperature. The effect of the two
the drum in a vapor state [10]. variables is related. The drum pressure which determines
the degree of vaporization inside the drum and the
Fractionator section
velocity through the heater can be used to vary the
The coke drum vapors are introduced in the flash zone residence time inside the heater passes. By increasing the
part of the fractionator. Heavy heavy gas oil (HHGO) or coke drum pressure, the residence time increased through
fresh feed hoover residue is sprayed on the vapors. Some the heater and also lowering the velocity of vapors inside
of the flash zone gas oil condenses and falls into the flash the coke drums which allow more condensation reactions
zone draw pan as a result of the spray. The flash zone gas to occurs that lead to increase in coke yield with high
oil (FZGO) runs from the flash zone draw pan to the FZGO VCM% and decrease in the liquid gas oil yields produced.
pump suction filters, which remove the entrained coke The fractionator overhead receiver pressure controls the
from the coke drum and transport it to the main pressure of the coke drum. Changing in coke drum
fractionator. The FZGO is then recycled to the bottom of pressure has a low effect on delayed coking process
the fractionator with the fresh feed vacuum residue [11]. product yields [18-19].
Heavy gas oil (HGO) product withdrawn from the tray Recycle ratio
is stripped with steam in the HGO stripper to modify the
Recycle ratio wt% considered a critical factor
product flash point before being supplied hot to the
influencing delayed coker process yields wt%. By
Hydrocracker unit or cooled to storage, as shown in figure
increasing the recycle ratio wt%, the heavy gas oil yield
(1) [12].
draw will be reduced, as would the total fresh feed pulled
Light gas oil (LGO) withdrawn from the tray and sent to the unit reduced by taking up unit capacity. The flash
to the LGO stripper, where it is steam stripped before zone temperature where the coke drum vapors effluent
being transferred to storage or the distillate Hydrotreater. enters the fractionation section is the most effective factor
Part of the LGO product stream is used as lean oil in the in recycling ratio flow rate. A lower flash zone temperature
gas recovery unit (GRU) sponge oil absorber tower [13]. allows more condensation to form initially in the bottom
of the fractionator, increasing the recycle flow rate and
At the top of the tower, unstabilized naphtha is
lowering its temperature. It’s noted that increasing in
produced, separated in the fractionator overhead
recycle wt% will produce coke with a high hardgrove
receiver, and then transferred to the Gas Recovery Unit.
grindability index HGI and lower coker liquid yields [20].
The endpoint of the naphtha is determined by the
temperature and pressure at the top of the tower [14]. Fractionation section
Process variables The end point of each product cut (naphtha, light gas
oil and heavy gas oil), flash zone point, tower refluxes,
The key process variables are [15]:
pump around and side strippers steam flow rate are the
 Type of Feedstock primary elements that determine the fractioning section
 Coke Drum Temperature operation. Any product end point can be changed by
 Coke Drum Pressure modifying the tray temperature and varying the pump and
 Recycle ratio reflux flow rates. For example, increasing the temperature
 Fractionation Section. of the LGO draw tray will raise the end point of the LGO
and increase its yield while decreasing the HGO yield. As a
Type of feedstock result, changes in any of the variables in the fractionation
The crude source and kind of charge stock, as stated in section will have an influence on the other variables [21].
the process description, have a significant impact on coke
yield and quality. The primary property controlling coke
Correlations
yield is the feedstock's Conradson carbon content: the Coking reactions assumptions
higher the feed's Conradson carbon concentration, the
higher the coke yield. The composition of the feedstock, The delayed coker receives its feed from the crude oil
specifically the relative proportions of asphaltenes, resins, delivered to the refinery, and it is integrated with the
aromatics, and contaminants, influences coke quality [16]. other refinery operations. One of the main benefits of the
coking process is that a refinery with a coker unit is
Coke drum temperature commonly referred to as a "zero-resid refinery". The
inherent adaptability of this process for converting a range
After the type of feedstock, the coke drum
of feedstocks is another benefit. This allows the refinery to
temperature is regarded the second most effective

Page|47
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 25(2)2023 DOI: 10.21608/jpme.2024.217836.1168

address the issue of a declining residual fuel demand and American Petroleum Institute (API) gravity, it is exclusively
benefit from the attractive economics of upgrading it to employed for the mass balance [28].
more value lighter products.
Coking Correlations
Due to the complexity of coking processes, it is
challenging to derive an accurate kinetic model. The Hankwert and Gary correlaions
capacity to accurately characterize the massive, Hankwert and Gary, A number of correlations are
multifunctional molecules involved is the fundamental provided in the book by Gary and Hankwert to determine
challenge in modelling a delayed coker. A brilliant model the yields of coke, gas (C4--), gasoline (C5-400 °F), and gas
for product distribution was created by Xiao et al. It is oil (400-925 °F) in weight percent and gasoline and gas oil
assumed that every reaction is a first-order reaction that in volume percent, respectively. Along with the API
the cracked products do not participate in secondary gravity, they also reported a typical split of naphtha and
reactions and the condensation reaction does not involve gas oil. The yield data from commercial and pilot plants
a subsequent process [22]. with a coke drum pressure of 35–45 psig were utilized to
Zhou et al. created a 12 lumped reaction model for create the correlations. The feed was a straight-run
product distribution in the thermal conversion of heavy residual with an API of less than 18°. There are correlations
stock. In order to modeling delayed coking, they created a created as following [29]:
predictive kinetic model and looked at group composition, Gas (wt %) = 7.8 + 0.144(CCR, wt %)
including residue. The six-component strategy was found
to be suitable to employ as a lumped species for residual Naphtha (wt %) = 11.29 + 0.343(CCR, wt %)
stock [23]. Coke (wt %) = 1.6(CCR, wt %)
Bozzano and Dente discuss the particular Gas oil (wt %) = 100 − gas − naphtha – coke
characteristics of this process as well as the adaptation of
a mechanistic approach to liquid-phase pyrolysis of The weight and volume percent are based on the net
hydrocarbon mixtures to delayed coking modelling. A fresh feed to the coking unit. To transform naphtha and
kinetic diagram with around 1600 equivalent reactions gas oil yields from weight to volumetric basis, the
and 450 equivalent components was first created [24]. following equations were used:

Tian et al. characterized the delayed coking process' Naphtha (vol %) = 186.5/ (131.5 + API) (naphtha, wt %)
response behaviors by employing the structure-oriented Gas oil (vol %) = 155.5/ (131.5 + API) (gas oil, wt %)
lumping (SOL) idea. To describe the residue, they offered
46 varieties of multicore seed molecules and 92 types of Where API is the gravity of the feed. To split the coker
single-core seed molecules. To describe the molecular naphtha into light and heavy, the authors proposed:
makeup of residues, 7004 different types of molecular
Light naphtha = 35.1 vol %, 65° API
lumps were created. These illustrations demonstrate the
difficulty of the assignment, as was previously stated [25- Heavy naphtha = 64.9 vol %, 50° API
26].
Similarly, to split the coker gas oil, they proposed
As a result, empirical modelling methods seem to be
Light gas oil (LCGO) = 67.3 vol %, 30° API
the most effective way to determine product yields and
are preferred in refining practice. Different correlations Heavy gas oil (HCGO) = 32.7 vol %, 13° API
for calculating delayed coker yields have been developed
by petroleum industry companies and consultants; Gary and Handwerk’s correlations do not include
however, these correlations have recently been applied to terms to account for the operating conditions, and the
take into account yields and product characteristics that only independent variable is the CCR of the feedstock. The
are useful in preliminary studies for deciding when a application of this method, in general, leads to very
delayed coker is desired to be incorporated in an existing unpractical and inaccurate results [30].
or new refining scheme [27]. Maples correlaions
A delayed coker may be modelled using an empirical This approach also uses the residual carbon content of
technique, which is based on the fact that the coke yield the feed as a single independent variable. Correlations
and the feed's CCR have a strong correlation, as shown in were obtained from an extensive database collected in
Table (1). delayed coking plants at typical operating conditions for a
Table 1 Typical Coke Yields from Delayed Coking [28]. wide range of feeds Figure (2). Feed properties range
between 1.4 and 21.5° API gravity and CCR content
Carbon residue API gravity Coke yield between 2.84 and 25.5 wt %. The correlations are [31]:
(wt%) (deg) (wt%)
Gas yield (wt %) = 0.2745(CCR, wt %) + 4.1264
1 NRa 0
5 26 8.5 Naphtha yield (wt %) = −0.0082 (CCR, wt %) + 17.025
10 16 18
Gas oil yield (wt %) = −1.9418 (CCR, wt %) + 79.225
15 10 27.5
20 6 35.5 Coke yield (wt %) = 1.6755(CCR, wt %) − 0.3765
25 3.5 42
aNR = not reported

It is found that the coke yield and the other product

yields correlate more favorably to the CCR because it has
been shown that CCR is a superior predictor than feed

Page|48
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 25(2)2023 DOI: 10.21608/jpme.2024.217836.1168

Volk et al correlaions
Volk et al. proposed a set of linear correlations to
predict the product yields as function of the micro carbon
residue (MCR, in wt %), temperature (T, in °F), pressure (P,
in psia), and liquid space velocity (LSV, in min−1). The range
of operating conditions used to develop the correlations is
900−950 °F, 6−40 psig, and MCR from 16 to 29 wt %. The
correlations are [35]:
Liquid (wt %) = - 1.1139MCR + 0.0419T - 0.2897P +
1103.08LSV + 41.59
Coke (wt %) = 0.9407MCR - 0.0609T + 0.1529P -
319.759LSV + 65.075
Gas (wt %) = 0.1729MCR + 0.0191T + 0.13646P -
786.319LSV - 6.762
Naphtha (wt %) = - 0.3086MCR + 0.0137T + 0.1571P -
819.63LSV + 16.461
Diesel (wt %) = - 0.3339MCR - 0.02635T - 0.0392P +
70.957LSV + 50.452
Gas oil (wt %) = - 0.4714MCR + 0.0546T - 0.4076P +
1851.76LSV - 25.315

Figure 2 Maples yields of the delayed coking plant [31]. The authors stated that the correlations could not be
used to predict yields from industrial cokers, because of
Castiglioni correlaions: the lower liquid yields obtained in the micro reactor, as
A graphical technique was given by Castiglioni to compared to those observed in refineries, which becomes
calculate delayed coker yields as a function of two feed worse at the lowest feed rate. Also, the correlations
characteristics (API gravity and CCR) and three operating include the effects of LSV, which has a different meaning
factors (combined feed rate, drum pressure, and drum than that for commercial units. For these reasons, the
temperature). Dry gas, gasoline, gas oil and coke are the following correction was proposed to derive product
products of the delayed coker. The lighter fraction and yields [35]:
propane are the two components of dry gas, whereas Coke* (wt %) = 0.91coke
butanes and the C5-400 °F fraction are the two Gas* (wt %) = 0.82gas
components of gasoline. The process consists of three Liquid* (wt %) = 100 − (coke* + gas*)
steps. Using the feed CCR and the operation temperature, Naphtha* (wt %) = 0.75Naphtha (liquid*/liquid)
the coke yield is first estimated using a reference pressure Diesel* (wt %) = 0.90diesel (liquid*/liquid)
of 0 psig and the actual drum pressure. A number of Gas oil* (wt %) = liquid* − (gasoline* + diesel*)
correction factors are calculated in the second stage based
on the calculated combined feed rate (CFR). In the third Previous researches show many correlations that
stage, a second series of correction factors are obtained as examined the applicable functions to estimate the
a function of the operation CFR. Finally, gasoline and coke products yield of the delayed coking process; they are
factor corrections are obtained as a function of the yield mainly connected to conradson carbon residue CCR wt%
of gasoline and coke, respectively. Castiglioni’s charts do value as a feed properties and operational variables
not allow for prediction at pressures above 30 psig or (Recycle Ratio wt% , Heater outlet Temperature °C and
feedstocks with CCR higher than 25%; therefore, for such Coke drum pressure KPa ).
conditions, extrapolation is necessary, which is an
important limitation of this approach [32-33]: Delayed coker unit simulation:
Smith et al correlaions: This study has been constructed using Aspen HYSYS
ver.12.1 and regression analysis by MICROSOFT EXCEL
The basis of the Smith et al. correlation comes from 2010 to obtain a new correlations to predict the product
Gary and Handwerk. They developed equations based on yields from delayed coker unit with a wide applicable
the feed CCR to estimate the yields of coke, gas, gas oil, range of operating variables which is more reliable with
and naphtha. The effect of pressure (P) was considered in refineries data and a simulation molding of delayed coker
the correlations as seen as follows [34]: unit has been accomplished to maximize the gas oil yield
for the Middle East Oil Refinery by optimization of process
Gas (wt %) = 7.4 + 0.1CCR + 0.8((P − 15)/20)
variables at the expense of decreasing the coke product
Naphtha (wt %) = 10.29 + 0.2CCR + 2.5((P − 15)/20) yield that is lead to a net economic profits.
Coke (wt %) = 1.5CCR + 3((P − 15)/20) To optimize the delayed coking process variables, it
has been studied the effects of each process variable on
Gas oil (wt %) = 100 − gas − naphtha – coke
product yields while keeping the essential concepts of
Where P is the coke drum pressure in psig. process safety terms in mind. The Aspen HYSYS modelling
simulation technology tool Ver 12.1 and MICROSOFT
OFFICE 2010 Linear programming were used for this
study's evaluation of process factors and their influence on
delayed coker unit product yields to find the optimal

Page|49
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 25(2)2023 DOI: 10.21608/jpme.2024.217836.1168

conditions for maximization of gas oil yield wt% and receives its crude oil from a blend of 50%: 50 % of Arabian
minimization of coke yields wt%. Light Crude Oil and Arabian Heavy Crude Oil. The vacuum
residue produced with the following composition and
Feed properties and compositions: properties shown in Table (2) the feed cut point is 538 C°
The simulated feed to delayed coker unit based on the and fed with a temperature average 200 C° to the delayed
Middle East Oil Refinery at Alexandria in Egypt which coker unit.

Table 2 Design feed properties and composition.

Rate Viscosity Sulfur, Nitrogen, Nickel, Vanadium,
Item API ° Conradson, wt%
Kg/hr @99C°,Cst wt% wt% wppm wppm
Value 5.22 156169 2500 5 0.43 44 143 22.87

Product specifications: Table 4 C3 / C4 product compositions.

The running delayed coker unit in Middle East Oil Component LPG, wt%
refinery product specifications was constructed in the H2 O 0.002
simulation tool to fit the refinery policies as following in H2 0.0
Table (3-4): H2 S 5.5
Methane 0.0
Table 3 Design products distillation.
Ethylene 0.004
Light Gas Oil, Heavy Gas Ethane 1.2
Distillation Naphtha, C°
C° Oil, C° Propylene 14.7
IBP 17 167 255 Propane 33.8
5% 55 194 358 1-butene 18.6
10% 64 203 385 i-butane 4.8
30% 83 228 433 n-butane 19.9
50% 101 261 463 C5+ 1.5
70% 120 293 489 TOTAL 100.0
90% 148 331 507
Completed modeling of delayed coker unit:
95% 162 344 516
EP 179 358 549 The process of building a delayed coker model covered in
the starting guide, which will include setting up a heavy crude
feed with a petroleum assay, configuring a delayed coker unit
operation, calibrating the coker unit, and putting together a
recycle network [36].

Figure 3 Completed flowsheet for a delayed coker process Combined Feed Ratio.

Page|50
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 25(2)2023 DOI: 10.21608/jpme.2024.217836.1168

The completed modelling of the delayed coker unit in

Compatibility of HYSYS results
Figure (3), the study targeted the optimization of process The design conditions that were relevant to the study,
variables in order to maximize the gas oil yield produced such as Feed rate, Feed specifications, Product
by the delayed coker unit by evaluating the effect of specifications, Drum outlet temperature, Drum pressure,
changing of each variable on the coker product yields. The Recycle ratio, and Cycle time provided into the delayed
design conditions were used based on the Middle East Oil coker complex simulation and solving it. As shown in Table
refinery data, then finding and logging the results product (5) the provided design process variables and the design
yields. product yields wt% shown in Table (6). The outcomes are
depicted in Figure (4).

Table 5 Design condition of process variables.

Coke Drum
Feed Rate, Coke Drum Recycle
Variable Overhead Cycle Time, hr
m3/hr Pressure, barg Ratio, wt%
Temperature, C°
Value 156 1.034 446 20 16
Table 6 Design product yields.
Product Gases + Naphtha, wt% Gas Oil, wt% Coke, wt%
Value 19.99 54.88 25.13

Figure 4 Product yields resulted from simulation using the design parameters by HYSYS.

Page|51
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 25(2)2023 DOI: 10.21608/jpme.2024.217836.1168

The indicated product yields mass % from HYSYS The Aspen HYSYS simulation results from changing the
simulation of delayed coker unit with design basis of recycle ratio wt% on the delayed coker product yields
Middle East Oil refinery concluded as follow Table (7) while maintaining all other variables as constant shown in
which is similar to the actual design product yields. Figures (5-6).
Table 7 Product yields from delayed coker unit simulated The effect of the recycle ratio wt% showed in Table (8)
by HYSYS at design conditions. and Figures (5-6). It’s indicated that lowering the recycle
ratio wt% increases the gas oil yield wt% produced by the
(C5--) + (C5 - 350 F) (350-650 F) +
delayed coker unit. It had been noted that further more
Product ,Gases + Naphtha, (650+), Gas Oil, Coke, wt%
lowering in the recycle ratio wt%, the gas oil yield wt%
wt% wt% increases more rabid.
Value 19.99 54.88 25.13
It is noted that keeping the recycle ratio as close to 3
Research Methodology to 5% would add a benefits from the delayed coker
cracking. There are also concerns about running delayed
The effect of change in process variables: coker heaters without a distillate recycle stream because
The study involved a change in each process variables the velocity of flows inside the heater passes will begin to
(Recycle ratio wt%, Heater outlet temperature C° and Coke drop, but this can be solved by increasing the steam flow
drum pressure KPa) and log out the resulted product yields rate or decreasing the heater passes diameter.
from simulation.
Recycle ratio

Table 8 Recycle ratio wt% change versus delayed coker product yields wt%.
Recycle Ratio, wt % 20% 15% 10% 5% 3%
Gases + Naph Yield, wt% 19.99 19.75 19.47 19.23 19.14
Gas Oil Yield, wt% 54.88 55.12 55.58 56.10 56.34
Coke, wt% 25.13 25.13 24.95 24.67 24.52

Gas Oil Yield Wt%

56.5

56

55.5

55

54.5

54
3 5 10 15 20
Recycle Ratio Wt%

Figure 5 The effect of change in recycle ratio wt% to delayed coker gas oil yield produced wt%.

Coke Yield Wt%

25.2
25.1
25
24.9
24.8
24.7
24.6
24.5
24.4
24.3
24.2
3 5 10 15 20
Recycle Ratio Wt%
Figure 6 The effect of change in recycle ratio wt% to delayed coker coke yield produced wt%.

Page|52
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 25(2)2023 DOI: 10.21608/jpme.2024.217836.1168

Temperature effect on thermal cracking product yields wt% while holding all other variables as
constant.
One of the essential variables in the delayed coker
process is the cracking temperature, more specifically the The Results from changing of heater outlet
furnace outlet temperature. Some processes are temperature C° of the delayed coker heaters through
dependent on the temperature of the coke drum inlet, but 480°C to 520°C and its effects on the delayed coker
the cracking reaction is endothermic, thus there will be a product yields wt%. From Table (9) and Figures (7-8) it’s
temperature difference between the coil outlet or furnace indicated that by raising the heater outlet temperature by
output temperature and the temperature of the coke 5°C will increase the gas oil yield wt% by an average of 0.64
drum inlet. wt% with a highest increase rate in the initial of the raising
in heater outlet temperature C° starting from 480°C.
As previously stated, the furnace exit temperature is
Furthermore increase in heater outlet temperature C° will
maintained between 480°C and 520°C. Changing in the
also increase the gas oil yield wt% but with lower rate near
furnace outlet temperature C°, as it rises, the delayed
520°C. It’s also indicated that while increasing in the
coker yields begin to fluctuate. The gas oil yield will
heater outlet temperature by 5°C, the gases plus naphtha
increase significantly, while the gases and coke outputs
yield increased by an average of 0.26 wt% and coke yield
will decrease.
wt% decreased by an average of 0.9 wt%.
Following this increase in the furnace outlet
The rate of decreasing in coke yield wt% produced
temperature C° beyond the discussed limits, more coke
from delayed coker unit while increasing the cracking
layer will build inside the heater coils as cracking will be
temperature will be higher in the first raising in the
faster and may begin to occur inside the heater coils. To
temperature than in further increasing. From the study,
avoid going via the decoker systems like steam / air
it’s noted that keep the heater outlet temperature as high
decoking or online spalling in short intervals, it’s
as possible within the discussed range will allow higher
recommended to raise the velocity of the flow inside the
degree of cracking reactions to take place for vacuum
heater passes through the velocity steam facilities.
residue while taking care from the coke formation rate
Using Aspen HYSYS simulation and changing in furnace inside the heater passes. It should be noticed and lowered
outlet temperature C° and log out the delayed coker by increasing the velocity a little more by the means of
steam.
Table 9 Heater outlet temperature °C change versus delayed coker product yields wt%.

Heater Outlet
480 485 490 495 500 505 510 515 520
Temperature, °C

Gases + Naph Yield,

19.42 19.71 19.99 20.27 20.53 20.78 21.04 21.28 21.52
wt%

Gas Oil Yield, wt% 53.53 54.21 54.88 55.53 56.18 56.83 57.46 58.09 58.71

Rate of increase in gas

0.68 0.67 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62
oil yield, wt%

Coke, wt% 27.05 26.08 25.13 24.20 23.29 22.39 21.50 20.63 19.77

Rate of decrease in
0.97 0.95 0.93 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.87 0.86 0.85
coke yield, wt%

Page|53
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 25(2)2023 DOI: 10.21608/jpme.2024.217836.1168

Gas Oil Yield Wt%

59

58

57

56

55

54

53
475 480 485 490 495 500 505 510 515 520 525
Heater Outlet Temperature C°

Figure 7 The effect of change in Heater outlet temperature °C to delayed coker gas oil yield produced wt%.

Coke Yield Wt%

27

25

23

21

19

17
480 485 490 495 500 505 510 515 520
Heater Outlet Temperature C°

Figure 8 The effect of change in Heater outlet temperature °C to delayed coker coke yield produced wt%.
because foam is formed based on the amount of VCM and
Pressure effect on thermal cracking
liquid layer inside the coke drum, and these amounts of
The fractionator overhead pressure control valve VCM and liquid layer inside the coke drum are much
could be used to regulate the drum overhead pressure. higher at the end of each cycle. Starting antifoam injection
The cracking reactions get longer residence time inside the and consumption should be raised if the pressure is
coke drum as the drum pressure increases. Condensation dropping towards the end of the drum cycle, thus it is
and polymerization reactions are accelerated, allowing for preferable to make the drum pressure as steady as
more coke formation and a decrease in gas oil production possible during the cycle period.
due to higher condensation inside the coke drum.
The effect of change in coke drum pressure on the
Lowering the coke drum overhead pressure allows vapors
delayed coker product yields wt% modeled by Aspen
of product liquid yields to build more inside the main
HYSYS simulation while keeping all the other variables as
fractionator, resulting in more gas oil wt% and lowering
constant figures.
the volatile component matter (VCM) in coke product,
preventing hydrocarbon liquid loss. Changes in drum It has been observed that adjusting the coke drum
pressure should be closely monitored because a decrease pressure has little effect on product yields wt% when
in drum pressure may result in the initiation of foam level compared to changing other process variables. From Table
appearance, particularly at the end of a coke drum cycle, (10) and Figures (9-10),its noted When the coke drum

Page|54
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 25(2)2023 DOI: 10.21608/jpme.2024.217836.1168

pressure was increased by 50 KPa, The coke yield wt% coker unit product yields it is preferred to keep the
increased by 0.07% on an average, the gas oil yield wt% pressure as constant to prevent any disturbance in coke
declined by 0.025% on an average and the gases wt% drum pressure that might causing foam carry over to main
increased by 0.015% on an average. It is noted that the fractionating section especially at the end of coke drum
pressure be kept as low as feasible in order cycle.
to maximize the gas oil production while lowering the coke
yield produced by the delayed coker unit. Due to the minor
effect of change in coke drum pressure on the delayed
Table 10 Coke drum pressure in KPa change versus delayed coker product yields wt%.
Coke Drum Pressure,
100 150 204.7 250 300 350 400 450
KPa
Gases + Naph Yield,
19.95 19.98 19.99 20 20.02 20.03 20.05 20.05
wt%
Gas Oil Yield, wt% 54.93 54.9 54.88 54.86 54.83 54.82 54.79 54.78
Coke, wt% 25.12 25.12 25.13 25.14 25.15 25.15 25.16 25.17

Gas Oil Yield Wt%

54.94
54.92
54.9
54.88
54.86
54.84
54.82
54.8
54.78
54.76
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Coke Drum Pressure KPa

Figure 9 The effect of change in coke drum pressure KPa to delayed coker unit gas oil yield produced wt%.

Coke Yield Wt%

25.18

25.17

25.16

25.15

25.14

25.13

25.12

25.11
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Coke Drum Pressure KPa

Figure 10 The effect of change in coke drum pressure KPa to delayed coker unit coke yield produced wt%.

Page|55
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 25(2)2023 DOI: 10.21608/jpme.2024.217836.1168

Regression Analysis the delayed coker unit product yields wt%. The table
shows the effect of change in all process variables
The resulted data from the previous simulation together on the delayed coker unit product yieldswt% 50
collected in Table (11) and allow for regression analysis to trials for random change between operating conditions
be performed finding the best fit correlations to predict had been logged out with the resulted yields.
Table 11 The HYSYS results coker product yields wt% while changing in process variables
Gases+Naph,
No. of Trial Recylce Ratio, wt% Temperature, C° Pressure, KPa Gas Oil, wt% Coke, wt%
wt%
1 3 480 100 55.05 26.4 18.55
2 3 480 200 54.97 26.43 18.6
3 3 480 300 54.91 26.46 18.63
4 3 480 400 54.85 26.48 18.67
5 3 480 500 54.8 26.51 18.69
6 3 490 100 56.41 24.49 19.1
7 3 500 100 57.76 22.61 19.63
8 3 510 100 59.1 20.77 20.13
9 3 520 100 60.39 18.97 20.64
10 5 480 100 54.82 26.54 18.64
11 10 480 100 54.29 26.82 18.89
12 15 480 100 53.83 27.02 19.15
13 20 480 100 53.57 27.04 19.39
14 5 490 200 56.11 24.66 19.23
15 5 500 200 57.45 22.79 19.76
16 5 510 200 58.78 20.95 20.27
17 5 520 200 60.08 19.16 20.76
18 10 480 200 54.23 26.84 18.93
19 10 490 200 55.58 24.95 19.47
20 10 500 200 56.91 23.09 20
21 10 510 200 58.21 21.27 20.52
22 10 520 200 59.49 19.49 21.02
23 15 500 200 56.43 23.28 20.29
24 20 500 200 56.19 23.29 20.52
25 15 510 200 57.72 21.48 20.8
26 20 510 300 57.41 21.52 21.07
27 20 520 400 58.62 19.79 21.59
28 3 490 204.7 56.34 24.52 19.14
29 4 490 204.7 56.22 24.6 19.18
30 10 490 204.7 55.58 24.95 19.47
31 15 490 204.7 55.12 25.13 19.75
32 20 490 204.7 54.88 25.13 19.99
33 20 480 204.7 53.53 27.05 19.42
34 20 485 204.7 54.21 26.08 19.71
35 20 490 204.7 54.88 25.13 19.99
36 20 495 204.7 55.53 24.2 20.27
37 20 500 204.7 56.18 23.29 20.53
38 20 505 204.7 56.83 22.39 20.78
39 20 510 204.7 57.46 21.5 21.04
40 20 515 204.7 58.09 20.63 21.28
41 20 520 204.7 58.71 19.77 21.52
42 20 490 100 54.93 25.12 19.95
43 20 490 150 54.9 25.12 19.98
44 20 490 204.7 54.88 25.13 19.99
45 20 490 250 54.86 25.14 20
46 20 490 300 54.83 25.15 20.02
47 20 490 350 54.82 25.15 20.03
48 20 490 400 54.79 25.16 20.05
49 20 490 450 54.78 25.17 20.05
50 3 480 100 55.05 26.4 18.55

Page|56
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 25(2)2023 DOI: 10.21608/jpme.2024.217836.1168

(11:13) it’s allowed to determine the correlations between

delayed coker unit process variables and product yields
From the resulted previous Table (11) with regression
wt%.
analysis using MICORFOST OFFICE EXCEL shown in Figures

Figure 11 Regression analysis results gas oil product yields wt% while changing in process variables.

Figure 12 Regression analysis results coke product yields wt% while changing in process variables.

Page|57
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 25(2)2023 DOI: 10.21608/jpme.2024.217836.1168

Figure 13 Regression analysis results gases plus naphtha product yields wt% while changing in process variables.
Regression analysis resulted correlations Gases + Naphtha wt% = 0.050695 R + 0.05235 T +
0.000339 P – 6.75269
For the same feed properties and in the following
range of operating conditions Furnace outlet temperature Where R = Recycle Ratio wt%, T = Furnace Outlet
(480 – 520 C°), Recycle ratio wt% (3-20) and Coke drum Temperature C°, P = Coke Drum Pressure KPa
pressure (100-500) KPa, The resulted correlations were
obtained to predict the coker product yields wt% as follow: Optimization of the process variables

Gas Oil wt% = 0.131472 T – 0.08547 R – 0.00048 P – Linear Programming were solved by MICROSFOT
7.79018 OFFICE EXCEL 2010 to find the optimum operating
conditions to achieve the maximum gas oil yield wt% and
Coke wt% = 0.034775 R – 0.18382 T + 0.000142 P + minimize the coke yield wt% Figure (14).
114.5429

Figure 14 The optimization using simplex method and linear programming results by MICROSFT EXCEL.

Page|58
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 25(2)2023 DOI: 10.21608/jpme.2024.217836.1168

The results by optimization using MICROSOFT EXCEL delayed coking process operation. Regarding the recycle
2010 for the adjustment in process variables to achieve ratio effect, as shown in Figure (5-6), it’s recommended
the maximization of gas oil yield wt% and minimizing the that the optimum recycle ratio is around 3-5%. According
coke yield wt% from the delayed coker unit in the Middle to Figures (7-8), the ideal heater outlet temperature is the
East Oil Refinery. It’s found that the Furnace outlet maximum temperature ranging from 510-520°C that can
temperature 520 C°, Recycle ratio 3% wt% and Coke drum be attained while maintaining safe operation for delayed
pressure 100 KPa achieving the maximum gas oil yield coker heater. The change in coke drum pressure should be
60.27 wt% and minimum Coke yield 19.07 wt%. as low as possible to avoid any disturbance that might
result in foam carry over of coke drum to the main
Results and discussion fractionator. As a result, it could be concluded that the
optimum coke drum pressure is 150 KPa, which achieves
Optimum operating variables
higher liquid yields and lowers coke yield wt% while
As previously stated the operating conditions that maintaining safe coke drum operation. Table (12) and
achieving the maximum gas oil yield wt% and minimum Figure (15) depicts the most likely outcomes of adjusting
Coke yield wt%, It had been selected the most effective process variables to achieve maximization of gas oil output
points to work in moderate conditions not the severe one wt% and reduction of coke wt%.
as a process safety wise to prevent any disturbances in the

Figure 15 Product yields by HYSYS at the optimum suggested operating conditions.

The indicated product yields mass weight % from Comparison between changing in process
HYSYS simulation with suggested operating conditions for variables:
Middle East Oil Refinery delayed coker unit concluded as
follow Table (12) which is similar to the actual design Table (13) and Figure (16) showed a comparison of the
product yields. current operating conditions and the suggested operating
variables it’s noted that gas oil yield wt% increased by 4
Table 12 Product yields from delayed coker unit simulated wt% at the expense of coke yield wt%.
by HYSYS at suggested conditions.
Table 13 Comparison between design conditions and
(C5--) + (C5 - 350 F) (350-650 F) + suggested conditions.
Product ,Gases + Naphtha, (650+), Gas Oil, Coke, wt%
wt% wt% Design suggested
Operating parameters
condition condition
Value 20.25 58.81 20.94 Furnace Outlet Temp C° 490 510
Drum Press KPa 204.7 150
Recycle wt% 20% 5%
Feed m3/hr 156 156
Gases + Naph Yield wt % 19.99 20.25
Gas Oil Yield wt % 54.88 58.81
Coke wt% 25.13 20.94

Page|59
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 25(2)2023 DOI: 10.21608/jpme.2024.217836.1168

Figure 16 Product yields for design and modified conditions.

Economic study: The average of the prices for products is 992.91 $ per
Ton for diesel oil and 390.54 $ per Ton for petroleum coke
Economic case: based of the world oil prices and the ministry of petroleum
It had been studied the reflection of the suggested and mineral resources in Egypt announcements till August
conditions on the economic case and how the maximizing 2022. [37-38]
of the gas oil yield wt% produced from delayed coker unit It’s calculated the net benefits from increasing the gas
would effect on the economic ways. Table (14) showed the oil yield and decreasing the coke yield from the delayed
amounts of product yields in kg/hr for both design case coker unit while neglecting the minor change in gases plus
and suggested case. naphtha wt%.
Table 14 Product yields in kg/hr in design and suggested
Calculations:
cases.
Gas oil calculations:
Products in
Design Case Modified Case
Kg/hr - The average density of Gas Oil is 926.54 kg/m3.
Gases and
32726.83 33151.82 - The amount of Gas Oil produced per year in design
Naphtha
case is 89,907.37 * 24 * 360 = 776,799.68 Ton per
Gas Oil 89907.37 96349.03
year.
Coke 41176.54 34310.08
- The amount of Gas Oil produced per year in
The average of the prices of gas oil and coke products modified case is 96,349.03 * 24 * 360 = 832,455.62
in 2022 is shown in Table (15). Ton per year.
Table 15 The average of the prices of gas oil and coke - The net difference in Gas Oil Produced in ton is
products in 2022 [37]. 832,455.62 – 776,799.68 = 65,655.94 Ton per year.
Price in - The net profit from increasing in Gas Oil yield is
Coke Diesel HGO
$/Ton 65,655.94 * 992.91 = 65,190,439.39 $ per Year.
May 387.52 1,087.30 837.22
June 401.05 1,285.00 989.45 Petroleum coke calculations:
July 393.50 1,098.05 845.50 - The amount of Coke produced per year in design
August 380.10 997.05 767.73 case is 41,176.54 * 24 * 360 = 355,765.3 Ton per
Average 390.54 1,116.85 868.975 year.
- The amount of Coke produced per year in modified
case is 34,310.08 * 24 * 360 = 296,439.09 Ton per
year.
- The decreasing in coke yield per year is 355,765.3 -
296,439.09 = 59,326.21 Ton per year.
- The net loss from decreasing in coke yield is
59,326.21 * 390.54 = 23,169,258.05 $ per year.

Page|60
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 25(2)2023 DOI: 10.21608/jpme.2024.217836.1168

Utilities consumption calculations: Funding sources

- The estimated amount of Fuel Gas required to None
increase the heater outlet temperature = 300 m3/hr
* 24* 360 = 2,592,000.0 m3 Conflicts of interest
- The amount of Fuel Gas = 2,592,000.0 / 28.32 = There are no conflicts to declare.
91,525.42 MMBtu
- The total cost of Fuel Gas consumption = 91,525.42
Acknowledgements
* 7.27 = 665,389.83 $ per year. The authors would like to express their sincere thanks
and appreciation to the Suez University in Egypt (SUE) for
- The estimated amount of Steam consumption
their continuous encouragement and support. We are
required to increase the pass velocity = 320 Kg/hr *
deeply grateful to all those who contributed to the success
24 * 360 = 2,764,000.0 Kg
of this research project.
- The amount of steam in lbs = 864,000.0 / 0.45 =
6,144,000.0 lbs References
- The total cost of steam consumption = 6,144.0 * [1] J. Fern, Predicting petroleum coke morphology from
12.29 $ = 75,509.76 $ per year. feedstock properties, U.S. Patent 13/117,446, (2012)
Decmber 6.
The total net approximate profit from increasing the [2] R. Larraz, A Brief History of Oil Refining, Substantia. 5
gas oil and decreasing the coke yield is 65,190,439.39 - (2021) 129-152.
23,169,258.05 - 665,389.83 - 75,509.76 = 41,280,281.75 $
[3] P. J. Ellis, C. A. Paul, Tutorial: Delayed coking
per year.
fundamentals", American Institute of Chemical Engineers
(AIChE), New Orleans, (1998).
Conclusion
[4] Raiseupwa.com, Available from:
 The importance of the conversion units in oil https://www.raiseupwa.com/blog/what-is-the-feed-for-
processing usually calls for a challenge in delayed-coking-unit/. [Accessed in: Oct, 2022].
improvement in production, economic, [5] R. W. Bryers, Utilization of petroleum coke and petroleum
environmental and safety studies. This case coke/coal blends as a means of steam raising, Fuel
study is established to enhance the delayed Processing Technology. 44 (1995) 121-141.
coker unit production by increasing the gas oil
[6] H. Kelani, M. Rakib, M. Musharfy, Predictive Model of
yield wt% instead of coke yield wt%. Delayed Coker Unit for Studying Variations in Feed, The
 The study has been done by modeling the 12th European Congress of Chemical Engineering, Florence,
2019, pp. 15-19.
delayed coker unit using Aspen HYSYS Ver 12.1
software with a design condition based on [7] A. N. Sawarkar, A. B. Pandit, S. D. Samant, J. B. Joshi,
refinery data of Middle East Oil Refinery that Petroleum residue upgrading via delayed coking: A review,
provided to study the optimized operating The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering. 85 (2007)
1-24.
variables to achieve the maximization of gas oil
yield from delayed coker unit. Simulation and [8] Delayed Coking Process, Available from:
analysis of each operating parameter has been http://hassanelbanhawi.com/processes/delayed-coking-
performed by Aspen HYSYS Ver 12.1. process/. [Accessed in: Aug, 2022].
[9] K. Catala, A. Faegh, Improving delayed coker heater run
 This work included the study of changing each length, CB&I, Netherlands, 2016.
operating variable and its effect in the delayed
coker unit product yields and regression analysis [10] J. G. Speight, 5 - Thermal cracking, in: J. G. Speight (Ed), The
Refinery of the Future, Second Edition, Gulf Professional
had been performed By MICROSOFT OFFICE
Publishing, UK, 2020, pp. 161-195.
EXCEL 2010 which resulted with new
correlations to predict delayed coker unit [11] N. Abdul Rahman, Steady State Simulation of a Delayed
product yields. Coker Unit, Universiti Teknologi Petronas, Malaysia, 2009.
[12] Is it necessary to steam-strip the heavy coker gas oil
 The study included the optimization selection (HCGO) product? Available from:
of the most appropriate operating variables for https://www.bechtel.com/services/chemicals/bhts/delay
delayed coker unit to achieve maximization of ed-coking/necessary-steam-strip-heavy-coker-gas-oil-
gas oil yield wt%. The optimization has been product/. [Accessed in: Aug, 2022].
performed using linear programming and [13] C. J. Kruse, Fractionator system for delayed coking
Simplex method by MICROSOFT OFFICE EXCEL process," United States Patent: 5,824,194, 1998.
2010.
[14] "Reliability vs recovery for delayed coking fractionators.
The suggested modified operating variables show 2009. Available from:
that it could be achieved to increase the gas oil yield https://www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000593/reliabili
by around 4 wt% instead of coke by-product. ty-vs-recovery-for-delayed-coking-
fractionators#.Yx5Py79BzIV. [Accessed in: Aug, 2022].
Economic study had been performed and the results
showed that it could save up to 40 million $ per year [15] Royal Class Kuwait, The Operating Variables in Delayed
by optimized the operating variables. Coker – Mechanic Engineering, 2022.
[16] B. Clarke, Impact of feed properties and operating
parameters on delayed coker petcoke quality. Canada
Coking Conference, 2012.

Page|61
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 25(2)2023 DOI: 10.21608/jpme.2024.217836.1168

[17] J. Ramezanzadeh, H. Moradi, Coking, in: C. Tye (Ed), Crude https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/prices.php.

Oil-Emerging Downstream Processing Technologies, [Accessed in: Aug, 2022].
IntechOpen, Croatia, 2022, pp. 1-20.
[38] U.S. Department of Energy. How To Calculate The True
[18] X. Zhou, X. Di, G. Yu, R. Lu, and C. Li, Simulation of delayedd Cost of Steam. Available from:
coking reaction in coke drum, Petroleum science and https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/05/f15/te
technology. 28 (2010) 277-285. ch_brief_true_cost.pdf. [Accessed in: Aug, 2022].
[19] D. Varfolomeev, V. Fedotov, A. Stekhun, Effect of pressure
on coke yield in delayed coking. Chemistry and Technology
of Fuels and Oils. 18 (1983).
[20] The University of Tulsa, Delayed Coking Brochure.
University of Tulsa Delayed Coking Project (TUDCP) Phase
VI accomplishments. 2022. Available from:
http://www.tudcp.utulsa.edu/about.htm. [Accessed in:
Aug, 2022].
[21] Y. Lei, B. Zhang, X. Hou, Q. Chen, A Novel Strategy for
Simulating the Main Fractionator of Delayed Cokers by
Separating the De-superheating Process, Chinese Journal
of Chemical Engineering. 21 (2013) 285-294.
[22] J. Xiao, L. Wang, Q. Chen, D. Wang, Modeling for products
distribution in thermal conversion of heavy oil, Petroleum
Science and Technology. 20 (2002) 605−612.
[23] X. Zhou, S. Chen, C. A. Li, Predictive kinetic model for delayed
coking, Petroleum Science and Technology. 25 (2007)
1539−1548.
[24] G. Bozzano, M. Dentea, A mechanistic approach to delayed
coking modeling. in: L. Puigjaner, A. Espuña, (Eds.) Elsevier
Science B.V.: European Symposium on Computer Aided
Process Engineering, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2005.
[25] L. Tian, B. Shen, J. Liu, A delayed coking model built using
the structure-oriented lumping method, Energy Fuels. 26
(2012) 1715−1724.
[26] L. Tian, B. Shen, J. Liu,. Building and application of delayed
coking structure-oriented lumping model, Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Research. 51 (2012) 3923−3931.
[27] R. E. Maples, Petroleum Refinery Process Economics,
scond ed., Penn Well Publishing, Tulsa, OK, 1993.
[28] J. G. Speight, The Desulfurization of Heavy Oils and Residue,
scond ed., Marcel Dekker, New York, 2000.
[29] J. H. Gary, G. E. Handwerk, Petroleum Refining: Technology
and Economics, fourth ed., Marcel Dekker, New York,
2001.
[30] J. A. D. Muñoz, R. Aguilar, L. C. Castañeda, J. Ancheyta
Comparison of Correlations for Estimating Product Yields
from Delayed Coking Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo, Eje
Central Lázaro Cárdenas Norte 152, 07730 Mexico, D.F.,
Mexico. 27 (2013) 7179−7190.
[31] R. E. Maples, Petroleum Refinery Process Economics,
scond ed., Penn Well Publishing, Tulsa, OK, 1993.
[32] B. P. Castiglioni, How to predict coker yields, Hydrocarbon
Process. (1983) 77−79.
[33] R. A. Aguilar, J. Ancheyta, F. Trejo, Simulation and planning of
a petroleum refinery based on carbon rejection processes,
Fuel. 100 (2012) 80−90.
[34] A. Smith, M. Frow, J. Quddus, D. Howell, T. Reed, C.
Landrum, B. Clifton, Refinery Modeling, Advanced
Chemical Engineering Design, University of Oklahoma,
Norman, OK, 2006.
[35] M. Volk, K. Wisecarver, C. Sheppard, Fundamentals of
Delayed Coking Joint Industry Project, Department of
Chemical Engineering, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, 2002.
[36] Aspen Technology, Jump Start: Delayed Coker Model in
Aspen HYSYS® Petroleum Refining A Brief Tutorial (and
supplement to training and online documentation), Aspen
Technology, USA, 2014.
[37] U.S. Energy Information Administration. Daily Prices. 2022.
Avaiable from:

Page|62