Iranian Journal of Catalysis 12(2), 2022, 115-125

IRANIAN JOURNAL OF CATALYSIS

Lump Kinetic Method in Solving Kinetic Problems and Cracking Reaction

Mechanism: A Review

Hasanudin Hasanudina*, Wan Ryan Asria, Karna Wijayab

a) Biofuel Research Group, Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Universitas Sriwijaya,
Inderalaya 30662, South Sumatra, Indonesia
b) Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta 55281,
Indonesia

Received 9 March 2022; received in revised form 4 May 2022; accepted 8 June 2022 (DOI: 10.30495/IJC.2022.1954673.1921)

ABSTRACT
The development of an appropriate kinetic model for cracking reactions is essential for simulation and process optimization.
These results are to be potentially used for proper reactor design. The complexities of oil gas inlet combinations have led to an
increase in the challenges while defining and depicting kinetics on an intrinsic scale. Hence, complicated chemical reaction
circumstances are characterized by combining many possible pathways into more modest groups of comparable chemical
substances. In addition, cracking kinetic demonstrations is frequently carried out in lumped forms. This is due to the complex
nature of the feedstock, which is known to contain enormous hydrocarbon associated with series and parallel reaction networks.
The representation of complicated compounds by consolidating a large chemical component into small amounts of apparent
components has been generally utilized in industry to generate a straightforward approach to stoichiometry, thermodynamics,
and kinetics. Considering the importance of this lumped method, this study focused on studying the development of a kinetic
lump approach to solve kinetic problems and cracking mechanisms.

Keywords: kinetic modeling, cracking mechanism, complex reaction, lumping method

1. Introduction The second method is aimed at categorizing items based

on the most important chemical derivatives,
The kinetics of catalytic cracking reactions are often encompassing paraffin, olefins, naphtha, and aromatics
demonstrated using the lumped method, in which a [2].
group of chemical substances with comparative
behavior construct a small number of pseudo-species The first lump model proposed was the 3-lump cracking
[1]. There are numerous chemical compounds involved type for petroleum [3], which was utilized to explain the
in this system, and these reduce the ease to solve breaking carbon chain of palm oil [4-5]. This approach,
reaction rate equations. This problem is potentially however, has a disadvantage, as the gas and coke,
resolved by the lumped method, which is estimated to known to have distinct properties, are combined into one
help in the modeling process. lump. These reaction orders depend on the intrinsic
In addition, two essential adaptable strategies are abilities of the cracking process. The feed conditions
applying this approach, including the primary strategy, with a mixture of different compounds, known as the
characterized by grouping molecules (lumping) primary reactants, suggest a second-order reaction law.
according to the boiling point of the group of Meanwhile, products, assumed to experience
compounds. This usually consists of feed and products elementary and further reactions with limited
from the cracking process, including diesel, gasoline, molecules, adopt the first-order reaction law [3]. This
gas, and carbonaceous residue. suggested an assumption reported in several studies [4–
*
Corresponding author: 9].
E-mail address: [email protected] (Hasanudin) The 3-lump model was modified and further developed
with a more rational approach. According to the 4-lump
 H. Hasanudin and et al./ Iran. J. Catal. 12(2), 2022, 115-125

model, the coke and gas formation reactions are are used to carry out kinetic experiments on natural
modeled separately [8], and also the second-order rate liquid product mixes generated by conducting a
law is applied for the oil feed used. The kinetic catalyzed procedure on vegetable oils [13]. The
parameters were evaluated from experimental data and determination of rate coefficient values through
correlated with the feed's characteristics and cracking's conventional kinetic modeling is limited [14]. This
operating conditions. This model is also very effective consequence implicates the lumping of similar chemical
in predicting the coke yield in commercial fixed bed compounds into pseudo components with specific
reactors. Gianetto et al. [10] investigated the influence properties as the best way to manage samples involving
of Y-zeolite crystal size on the gasoline arrangement complex reactions [15].
process. 2.1. 3-Lump Kinetic Model
The 6-lump reaction model is more detailed and is
According to Ayasse et al. [16], the main product is
known to solve the vacuum gas fraction oil cracking
characterized by a lighter liquid residue or gas, and the
reaction [7, 11]. This was performed in a microreactor
3-lump (Fig. 1) is the simplest model capable of
at a reaction temperature of 773 K, and using a
explaining this process. This approach has been well
commercial catalyst. The rate of decomposition and
studied and reported by Weekman and Nace [3] as well
formation is a component of the substance weight
as developed by Wojciechowski [17].
fraction, deactivation function, and reaction rate
Conceptually, the 3 components were lumped into feed
constant. These properties are consequently used to
(oil gas), diesel fuel, and light gas (C1-C4 hydrocarbons)
formulate the reaction rate equation at each step of the
with coke. This model leads to the connection between
6-lump reaction.
the diesel fuel yield and gas oil conversions. Yared et al.
The 6-lump reaction kinetics model is very complicated
[5] used palm oil as a feed for cracking, wherein
to be solved because complex reactions are involved,
aluminosilicate was adopted as a catalyst, and a three-
both in terms of material and process. Therefore,
lump model was used. This included the parallel
specific software is required, and this is achievable
breaking of palm oil into organic liquid, gas, and coke,
using the time-saving function integration method of the
followed by the parallel cracking of organic liquid into
Runga-Kutta algorithm with MATLAB software to
gas and coke. According to the study, there was a
calculate the parameters [12].
constant kinetic increase with an elevation in reaction
The software has been widely utilized in industries to
temperature, specifically in the aspect of organic liquid
provide a direct method in the context of the
formation. Furthermore, this model was estimated to be
thermodynamics and kinetics of these mixtures. This
capable of properly representing the experimental data,
involves combining an enormous number of substances
and the consequent reaction rate equation was
into a small number of apparent components, to
formulated based on equations (1-3) as follows [3]:
formulate a description of complex mixtures.
Furthermore, the cracking process provides a good a. Oil feed cracking reaction
platform to evaluate various approaches to lumping, dCOil
because the mixtures involved contain billions of rOil = dτ
= -ϕ(k12 + k13 )C2Oil (1)
individual compounds, and the technology includes b. Gasoline formation reaction
numerous types of chemical reactions and physical
dCoil
separations. Several techniques have been developed rgasoline = dτ
=ϕ(k12 C2oil - k23 Coil ) (2)
specifically in this context and continue to motivate new
emerging methods, and are aimed at facilitating more c. Gas and coke formation reaction
fundamental approaches and achieving a deeper dCgas and coke
understanding of chemical reactions in complex rgas and coke = dτ
=ϕ(k13 C2oil + k23 Coil ) (3)
processes. Considering the significance of lumping, this Previous studies adopted 3-lump in the evaluation of
study focuses on studying the development of kinetic product distribution according to the sample boiling
lump methods to solve kinetic problems and cracking points. Callejas and Martínez [18] conducted the
mechanisms. hydrocracking of Maya residues and investigated the
2. Process and Model product yield distribution as well as the kinetics. The
experiment was carried out in an Autoclave blended
The lumping technique is the most widely recognized
reactor and was heated continuously in an oven by H2
strategy for building kinetic models. This approach
atmosphere with a pressure of 12.5 MPa and at varied
generates dependable outcomes in predicting product
temperatures and weight hourly space velocity.
distribution and has been generally applied in cracking
Consequently, the resulting product was divided into
conventional hydrocarbon oils. Furthermore, the models
 H. Hasanudin and et al./ Iran. J. Catal. 12(2), 2022, 115-125

Fig. 1. 3-lump cracking reaction model

various boiling points fractions, and a kinetic model was 2.2. 4-Lump Kinetic Model
developed. These included lumped fractions above and
Cristina [19] observed lump kinetics higher than 3-lump
below the boiling point of 343 ˚C (oil) and gas as well.
can provide a more correct description of the catalytic
The thermal cracking rate rise to 400 and 415 ˚C
cracking process, with better gasoline recovery and
increased the lightest liquid and gaseous fraction yield.
lower coke yield. Wu et al. [20] studied the fluid
This confirmed the influence of temperature and the cracking catalytic with a riser and downer reactor. The
decreasing space velocity of the feed mixture on water 4-lump kinetic model was evaluated using a literature
cracking. The model was evaluated and compared with review and the result showed satisfactory data fit. These
the experimental data and a decent portrayal was varieties are suggested for distinct heavy oil feedstocks
observed. Singh et al. [13] investigated the catalytic and catalysts. In addition, the four-lump type was
cracking of rubber seed oil (RSO) to biogasoline, constructed to portray crude oil cracking, which
wherein Cu/ZSM5 was used as a catalyst. According to produced gasoline, heavy oil, light gas, and coke, where
the study, RSO is primarily transformed into an organic LPG and diesel, for instance, are classified as light gas
liquid, characterized by a few undesirable coke and gas and crude oil lumps, respectively [21]. Yen et al. [8]
with a high R2 value. The most significant rate constant designed a simple variant of this model to lessen the
was observed in k1 at 5.8079. Furthermore, difficulties of scaling up techniques.
modifications to the 3-lump model have investigated an Fig. 2 shows the cracking model mechanism, where the
expanding component of lumps, detachment of coke oil is potentially cracked down into various substances.
from light gases, and the proposal of several However, gasoline is more capable of being broken
characteristics relevant in the classification of reaction down into gas and coke. The desired reaction product in
products into gasoline, LCO, LPG, light gas, and coke. this process is gasoline, which is possibly used as motor

Fig. 2. 4-lump cracking reaction model

 H. Hasanudin and et al./ Iran. J. Catal. 12(2), 2022, 115-125

fuel. According to Hernández-Barajas et al. [22], a lump were assumed to adsorb hydrogen while breaking down
with a boiling temperature of n-C12 is expected to be into lighter molecules. The amount utilized was more
cracked with second-order-kinetics. The first-order accurately predicted compared to the value calculated
conversely applies to lighter lumps. Previous reports from the experimental data. There was also further
showed the five rate constant characteristics of the 4- investigation into the modified four-lump model,
lump model [23], with the rate equation formulated in comprising unconverted gasoil, mixed naphtha, and
equations (4-7) as follows [8]: light gas [22].
a. Oil decrease reaction rate 2.3 5-Lump Kinetic Model
dCOil
rOil = dτ
= -ϕ(k12 + k13 + k14 )C2Oil (4) A five lump kinetic model was developed to illustrate
the catalytic cracking of fuel oil. Fig. 3 shows the
b. Gasoline formation reaction rate specific application with gas oil, dry gas, petrol, LPG,
dCoil and coke, and seven kinetic constants were identified,
rgasoline = dτ
=ϕ(k12 C2oil - (k23 + k24 ) Coil ) (5) including for the deactivation of catalysts [28]. Guerra
et al. [29] investigated the reaction characteristics with
c. Gas formation reaction rate
three types of raw petroleum oil, including medium,
dCgas
rgas = dτ
=ϕ(k14 C2oil + k24 Cgasoline ) (6) improved heavy crude, enhanced variant, and those
diluted with bitumen at high temperature. The 5-lump
d. coke formation reaction rate model was initially illustrated using 10 different
dCcoke reaction pathways.
rcoke = =ϕ(k13 C2oil + k23 Cgasoline ) (7)
dτ According to Ancheyta-Juárez [28], the primary
Meier et al. [24] proposed a 4-lump model by HBO, advantage is the ability to foresee coke production. This
WCO, BG, and LBO stoichiometry, representing product contributes to the temperature needed to
chemical lumps of heavy bio-oil, waste cooking oil, endothermically heat and decomposes the raw material,
biogas, as well as light bio-oil, respectively. including liquified petroleum gas, hydrocarbons, and
Consequently, a regression analysis was performed to dry gases. Consequently, there is a higher possibility to
develop a kinetic model and an understanding of predict the outcome, irrespective of other lumps. The
thermal cracking in biomass-based triglycerides. These rate equation of the 5-lump model is formulated in
operations were performed in a persistent mode and equations (8-13) as follows:
under isothermal conditions. Periyasamy [25] reported
a. Oil
a comparative study regarding the high temperature
cracking models of used cooking oil through lumped (r1 ) = -(k1 + k2 + k3 + k4 ) y21 ϕ (8)
monomolecular kinetics, and the chemical lumps were
characterized according to the number of carbon atoms b. Gasoline
in the hydrocarbon. This study revealed greater (r2 ) = (k1 y21 + k5 y2 - k6 y2 )ϕ (9)
dominance in the parallel observed compared to the
series reaction, and further cracking was also detected. c. Gas LP
The regression findings revealed a decent acceptance (r3 ) = (k2 y21 + k5 y2 - k7 y3 )ϕ (10)
between the predicted and observed values. Schubert et
al. [26] utilized a 4-lump model with six reactions to d. Dry gas
portray the cracking process during the co-pyrolysis of
(r4 ) = (k3 y21 + k6 y2 - k7 y3 )ϕ (11)
HPR and LDPE, assuming the reactions were
monomolecular, irreversible, and first-order. Also, this e. Coke
approach is grouped based on boiling point ranges. The
study demonstrates the potential for 4-lump models to (r5 ) = (k4 y21 )ϕ (12)
reduce difficulties in modeling by considerably f. Decay function
reducing the number of components and reactions
contrasted with general simulation. Hence, a remarkably ϕ = e-kd tc (13)
reduced handling power is observed. Sadighi et al. [27] The process of gas oil cracking accompanies a reaction
employed this model with vacuum gas oil (VGO), and of second-order while diesel fuel and LPG follow first-
the component of the blended distillate and naphtha order. Furthermore, the most reactive molecules from
including kerosene and diesel, as well as light and heavy the raw material lumps tend to vanish first, while the
naphtha. These samples used as a hydrocracking feed leftovers demonstrate a lower kinetic constant. This
 H. Hasanudin and et al./ Iran. J. Catal. 12(2), 2022, 115-125

outcome is directly proportional to the transformation occurred through a secondary reaction. Al-Sabawi et al.
increments and underlies the reason LPG follows a first- [34] depicted the vacuum catalytic cracking of gas oil
order [30]. A sequential methodology of the 5-lump using a 5-lump kinetic model, which illustrated the
model has been proposed [31]. In the context of diffusion constraints observed by hydrocarbon species
cracking reaction, separation into three models is after a link is established with the porous zeolite
possible and further characterized by three lumps, network. Moreover, the secondary cracking of products
respectively. Previous studies also showed the potential to coke is not considered in this model because the
for splitting into three other models with four kinetic constant for these stages is of a lower magnitude
combinations to evaluate the corresponding parameters. order compared to the initial reaction. The resulting
The respective parameters are possibly connected to model, which included the impacts of intra-crystallite
observing the first kinetic model constants. In addition, hydrocarbon molecule transport, proved to be
a portion of the pathway reactions developed is appropriate in determining the overall significance of
considered equivalent to the first, and the kinetic the species' intrinsic and diffusional kinetics. Zheng et
constants consequently demonstrate similar and al. [35] used the 5-lump kinetic model in the pyrolysis
comparative values. Sertić-Bionda et al. [32] evolved a of vegetable oil asphalt. The reaction was then separated
five lump kinetic model for gas oil catalytic cracking. into a raw material lump and four pyrolytic product
The predicted product results were in great concurrence lumps, including biogas, charcoal, and hydrocarbons.
with the experimental data. Hence, this approach was Based on the findings, proper forecasts of the Arrhenius
simulated for predictions with fluid materials. parameters were observed, alongside a strong ability to
Approximately five common oil and gas portions were predict pyrolytic product concentration.
involved in observing the cracking reactions as well as
2.4. 6-Lump Kinetic Model
predicting the conversions and possible fractions. The
investigation of distillate fuel oil as separate lumps is Mu et al. [36] employed a 6-lump model to explain the
proved vital because of the intrinsic inability to adhere cracking of residual fuel oil into diverse product
to similar principles as other products [15]. The model distributions, including gas and oil. Another form was
based on separation is suitable for local limit stock also presented, with distinction in the subsequent
analysis in factories as well as to split liquefied cracking reaction of LPG and dry gas to coke [37]. This
petroleum and dry gas lumps, to match up with property was based on the premise indicating the
commercial applications. Quintana-Solórzano [33] used possibility of ignoring the additional cracking from one
five lumps, a kinetic model, on bench-scale cracking, lump to another in an attempt to limit the number of
and the primary reaction resulted in the quickest kinetic factors to be considered. In addition, this
conversion of gas oil to gasoline, where about 23 % of approach estimates the heat of the reaction and further
the product is capable of undergoing secondary presents kinetic data [38]. Fig. 4 shows the cracking
cracking, and over 90 % yield LPG. The coke formed mechanism of the 6-lump proposed by Takatsuka [11].

Fig. 3. 5-lump cracking reaction model

 H. Hasanudin and et al./ Iran. J. Catal. 12(2), 2022, 115-125

Fig. 4. 6-lump cracking reaction model

The 6-lump model for cracking is formulated in yield prediction. Furthermore, the 6-lump model can
equations (8-13) as follows [11]: simultaneously represent the properties of products
engaged in the fluid catalytic cracking. Previous studies
a. Oil decrease reaction rate
also showed the potential to function properly in model
dCOil
rOil = dτ
= -ϕ(k1 +k2 +k3 +k4 +k5 )C2Oil (8) justification, which is attributed to the apparent rapid
simulation and representative concluding data. Sadighi
b. Gasoline formation reaction rate et al. [41] used a variant of this component system,
dCgasoline characterized by VGO, diesel, kerosene, heavy and light
rgasoline = = -ϕ(k1 C2Oil -(k6 +k7 +k8 +k9 )COil (9) naphtha as well as gas, while Hernández-Barajas [22]
dτ
achieved a determination by heavy cycle oil, light cycle
c. C4 formation reaction rate
oil, light naphtha, heavy naphtha, butane-butylene, and
dCC4
rC4 = = -ϕ(k2 C2Oil +k6 Coil -(k10 +k11 )C24 ) (10) light gas. Despite the high range variations in boiling
dτ
point, which was dependent on operation, this definition
d. C5 formation reaction rate relates to the approximate cut-off boiling point. Xiong
dC5 et al. [42] simplified the 6-lump kinetic equation by
rC5 = dτ
= -ϕ(k3 C2Oil +k7 Cgasoline + k10 CC4 + k12 CC5 ) generating various assumptions, where Time-on-flow-
(11) based functions and coke-on-catalyst-based functions
e. Gas formation reaction rate were the two sorts of descriptions for deactivating FCC
catalysts.
dCOil
rgas = dτ
= ϕ(k4 C2Oil +k8 Cgasoline +k11 CC4 +k12 C5 )(12) 2.5. 7-Lump Kinetic Model
f. coke formation reaction rate Due to the high complexity of the charge stocks in the
dCcoke cracking process, particularly in the aspect of
rcoke = dτ
= -ϕ(k5 C2Oil + k9 Cgasoline ) (13) classifying and explaining at the molecular level, efforts
Souza et al. [39] used 6-lump kinetics and two- were made to group a wide range of chemical mixtures
dimensional fluid flow to approximate the catalytic into kinetic species. This was performed to portray the
cracking of gas oil. This model takes into consideration difficult processes. Xu et al. [43] present a 7-lump
VGO (unconverted gas oil lump), light cycle oil, petrol, kinetic model for commercial residual catalytic cracking
gas fuel, LPG, and coke. Accordingly, the definition (RCC) units. The two crude products in the kinetic
identifies gas oil encompasses all lumps, including scheme were handled as byproducts and mixed with
VGO. Based on a report by Du et al. [40], these kinetic vacuum residue and vacuum gas oil as residual fuel oil
methods have various advantages, including coking and (RFO) and heavy fuel oil (HFO), respectively.
gas cracking as two discrete outcomes, which allow for According to the findings of this study, the 7-lump
model has the tendency to estimate LPG, dry gas, and
 H. Hasanudin and et al./ Iran. J. Catal. 12(2), 2022, 115-125

coke production, individually, which is suitable for absolute variation of 5% between the simulated and
commercial uses. Also, previous reports showed the experimental data.
appropriateness of offline process simulation and online
2.6. 8-Lump Kinetic Model
soft sensor applications, which serve as the foundation
for improved process optimization and control. Wang et Catalytic cracking is a sophisticated chemical system
al. [44] proposed another 7-lump kinetic model, which involving high numbers of molecules and causes
represents a reaction pathway involving residual complexities in the characterization and description of
vacuum (VR), diesel, gasoline, gas oil, liquified kinetics at this level. The 8-lump kinetic model has
petroleum gas, dry gas, and carbon residue (Fig. 5). In received much attention, as observed in Gao et al. [47],
addition, a fixed fluidized bed reactor with an isothermal where the catalytic cracking of VR was investigated.
piston flow was utilized. The results revealed a This approach includes 20 kinetic constants, with
substantially lower secondary cracking rate constant in catalyst deactivation, which improves the suitability for
gas oil than in VR, with an activation energy of 86 to an application. Fig. 6 shows the VR lumps in this study
155 kJ mol -1 and 56 to 100 kJ mol-1, respectively. The were categorized into three sub-lumps, whereas the
model's estimated product outcomes properly matched reaction products are classified into five components
the experimental data. based on the intrinsic carbon quantity and boiling point
range. The investigation identified an overlap between
The mathematical equation of the 7-lump kinetic model
the cracking capabilities of alkyl carbon, as well as
is formulated in equations (14-20) as follows [44]:
naphthenic carbon with light oil as the primary product.
dy1 ̅̅̅̅̅̅
PMW Simultaneously, aromatic carbon is also considered a
dz
=- S (k1 +k2 +k3 +k4 +k5 +k6 )y1 (14)
WH RT significant constituent of coke and crude oil.
dy2 ̅̅̅̅̅̅
PMW
dz
=S [v12 k1 y1 -(k7 +k8 +k9 +k10 +k11 )y2 ] (15) Several assumptions are utilized to develop the
WH RT

dy3 ̅̅̅̅̅̅
mathematical model, including (1) the raw material
PMW
dz
=S (v13 k2 y1 +v23 k7 y2 ) (16) evaporates instantly; (2) plug flow for gas and catalyst
WH RT
as well as spiral scattering in the reactor is neglected; (3)
dy4 ̅̅̅̅̅̅
PMW
=S (v14 k3 y1 +v24 k8 y2 ) (17) isothermal or adiabatic reactor; and (4) the catalyst
dz WH RT deactivation is non-specific. The mathematical equation
dy5 ̅̅̅̅̅̅
PMW of the model is shown in equations (21-28) as follows:
dz
=S (v15 k4 y1 +v25 k9 y2 ) (18)
WH RT
dC1 ̅̅̅̅̅̅
PMW
dy6 ̅̅̅̅̅̅
PMW =- (k +k2 +k3 +k4 +k5 )C1 ϕ (21)
= (v k y +v26 k10 y2 ) (19) dX SWH RT 1
dz SWH RT 16 5 1
dC2 ̅̅̅̅̅̅
PMW
y7 =(1-y1 MW1 -y2 MW2 -y3 MW3 -y4 MW4 -y5 MW5 - =- (k +k7 +k8 +k9 +k10 )C2 ϕ (22)
dX SWH RT 6
y6 MW6 )/MW7 (20)
dC3 ̅̅̅̅̅̅
PMW
A mass balance was used to calculate the coke's dX
=- SWH RT 11
(k +k12 +k13 )C3 ϕ (23)
concentration lump, and the raw material or the catalyst
properties were not considered. This limits the model's dC4
dX
=-
usefulness, despite its significant usage. ̅̅̅̅̅̅
PMW
Sheng et al. [45] described the asphaltene conversion [(v14 k1 C1 +v24 k6 C2 +v34 k11 Cc -(k14 +k15 +k16 +k17 )C4 ]ϕ
SWH RT
behavior using a 7-lump kinetic model, where the (24)
activation energy was observed between 106.07 and
237.50 kJ mol−1. The asphaltene demonstrated the most dC5
dX
=-
predominant reaction, which produces heavy and ̅̅̅̅̅̅
PMW
medium oil, characterized by lower activation energies [(v15 k5 C1 +v25 k10 C2 +v35 k13 C3 -(k18 +k19 +k20 C5 ]ϕ
SWH RT
in contrast with the results from thermal cracking. (25)
However, coke and gas generation generated higher
activation energy than asphalt thermal cracking. The 7- dC6 ̅̅̅̅̅̅
PMW
lump model accurately predicts product outputs dX
=- (v k C +v26 k7 C2 +v46 k17 C4 +v56 k18 C5 )ϕ
SWH RT 16 2 1
assumed to be congruent with experimental evidence. (26)
Olafadehan et al. [46] discovered outstanding results
dC7 ̅̅̅̅̅̅
PMW
following the application in industrial residual search =- (v k C +v27 k9 C2 +v47 k15 C4 +v57 k20 C5 )ϕ
dX SWH RT 17 4 1
catalytic mediation, which was characterized by a mean
(27)
 H. Hasanudin and et al./ Iran. J. Catal. 12(2), 2022, 115-125

C8 =(1-C1 M1 -C2 M2 -C3 M3 -C4 M4 -C5 M5 -C6 M6 )/M7 primary product yield are minimal and meet industrial
(28) application needs. Wang et al. [49] described the
incidental reaction of FCC gasoline using the 8-lump
The model proposed by Gao et al. [47] exhibited minor model. Based on Sani et al. [50], this method is possibly
differences between the predicted and experimental data utilized to explain the catalytic cracking of olefins,
while adopting the 8-lump kinetic model. Jiang [48] where predictions match the experimental results.
utilized this approach to describe catalytic cracking for
maximizing the isoparaffin process and propylene yield.
It demonstrated the potential to precisely predict the
main product fraction with varying raw oil
compositions. Therefore, relative inaccuracies in the

Fig. 5. 7-lump cracking reaction model

Fig. 6. 8-lump cracking reaction model

 H. Hasanudin and et al./ Iran. J. Catal. 12(2), 2022, 115-125

2.7. More Than 8-Lump Kinetic and 65.198 kJ/mol, respectively. You [53] reported the
potential for this approach, employing a confined
The development of higher-level lump kinetic models
fluidized bed reactor, to estimate yields after exposure
has been reported. Zhang et al. [51] studied the cracking
to varying reaction temperatures and room rates per
accomplishment of six Canadian SCO gas oils and built
hour (WHSV), as well as a catalyst, and temperatures
a nine-lump kinetic model along with three lump feeds
modulated by FCC gasoline. Furthermore, a 10-lump
for the catalytic pyrolysis of gas oil (Fig. 7). These
kinetic model was also employed to simulate the
feedstocks provide a considerable impact on product
cracking reaction. Arandes [54] acclaimed the tendency
distribution and are expected to be split into lumps, to
for an outstanding simulation of the FCC with
broaden a range of suitable models. The materials,
laboratory-calculated kinetic constants to confirm the
therefore, have the potential to be separated into three
correctness of the development model in the simulation
components, including paraffin carbon, naphthenic
program. Du et al. [55] simplified the reaction network
carbon, and aromatic carbon. In addition, light olefins
in fluid catalytic cracking using a riser reactor, and the
are one of the products of catalytic pyrolysis, while the
results featured the split-up of raw materials and
by-products include some low molecular weight
products into ten lumps. This outcome reveals the
substances. Studies also showed the occurrence of 24
models’ capacity to forecast the major output, and also
rate constants as well as catalyst deactivation constants
the intrinsic composition with high accuracy, thus
in the 9-lump model. The diesel fuel lump reaction
increasing the value in the aspect of propylene yield
performance is thought to be equivalent to the 7-lump
maximization.
model because the gasoline product exhibits comparable
reaction accomplishment. This is considered a reason 4. Conclusions
for the expected findings to be highly similar to the
The lump kinetics cracking model was designed to be
experimental data.
useful in petrochemical processes. These approaches
Another work reported the catalytic cracking of VGO have demonstrated the significance of thoroughly
utilizing a 9-lump through equilibrium liquid catalytic understanding cracking reaction mechanisms in solving
cracking with a porous catalyst [52]. According to the important kinetic problems, and also provided a
findings, the resulting products estimated by the model theoretical framework for petrochemical plants. Hence,
were assumed to be in good concurrence with the there is a need to recognize the potential applications in
experimental data. The Arrhenius model describes the current situations, and also the various computer
temperature-dependent catalyst deactivation constant, framework configurations to handle, process, and
with a frequency factor and activation energy of 2.695 monitor cracking reactions in real-time.

Fig. 7. 9-lump cracking reaction model

 H. Hasanudin and et al./ Iran. J. Catal. 12(2), 2022, 115-125

References [23] H. Hasanudin, A. Rachmat, M. Said, K. Wijaya,

Period. Polytech. Chem. Eng. 64 (2019) 238–247.
[1] P.G. Coxson, K.B. Bischoff, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
26 (1987) 1239–1248. [24] H.F. Meier, V.R. Wiggers, G.R. Zonta, D.R. Scharf,
E.L. Simionatto, L. Ender, Fuel 144 (2015) 50–59.
[2] I. Pitault, D. Nevicato, M. Forissier, J.R. Bernard,
Chem. Eng. Sci. 49 (1994) 4249–4262. [25] B. Periyasamy, Fuel 158 (2015) 479–487.
[3] V.W. Weekman Jr, D. M. Nace, AIChE J. 16 (1970) [26] T. Schubert, A. Lechleitner, M. Lehner, W. Hofer,
397–404. Fuel 262 (2020) 116597.
[4] F.A.A. Twaiq, A.R. Mohamad, S. Bhatia, Fuel [27] S. Sadighi, A. Ahmad, M. Rashidzadeh, Korean J.
Process. Technol. 85 (2004) 1283–1300. Chem. Eng. 27 (2010) 1099–1108.
[5] I. Yared, H. Kurniawan, N. Wibisono, Y. [28] J. Ancheyta-Juárez, F. López-Isunza, E. Aguilar-
Sudaryanto, H. Hindarso, S. Ismadji, ARPN J. Eng. Rodríguez, Appl. Catal. A Gen. 177 (1999) 227–
Appl. Sci. 3 (2008) 55–61. 235.
[6] A. Corma, B.W. Wojciechowski, Catal. Rev. 27 [29] A. Guerra, R. Symonds, S. Bryson, C. Kirney, B. Di
(1985) 29–150. Bacco, A. Macchi, R. Hughes, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
58 (2019) 16417–16430.
[7] J. Ancheyta, R. Sotelo, J. Mex. Chem. Soc. 46
(2002) 38–42. [30] F. Van Landeghem, D. Nevicato, I. Pitault, M.
Forissier, P. Turlier, C. Derouin, J.R. Bernard, Appl.
[8] L.C. Yen, R.E. Wrench, A.S. Ong, Oil Gas J. 86 Catal. A Gen. 138 (1996) 381–405.
(1988) 67-70.
[31] J. Ancheyta-Juárez, R. Sotelo-Boyás, Energy and
[9] U.A. Sedran, Catal. Rev. 36 (1994) 405–431. Fuels 14 (2000) 1226–1231.
[10] A. Gianetto, H.I. Farag, A.P. Blasetti, H.I. de Lasa, [32] K. Sertić-Bionda, Z. Gomzi, M. Mužic, Chem. Eng.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 33 (1994) 3053–3062. Commun. 197 (2009) 275–288.
[11] T. Takatsuka, S. Sato, Y. Morimoto, H. Hashimoto, [33] R. Quintana-Solórzano, A. Rodríguez-Hernández,
Int. Chem. Eng 27 (1987) 107–116. R. García-de-León, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48 (2009)
[12] P. Ch, S. Sinha, Pet. Coal 51 (2009) 193-195. 1163–1171.
[13] H.K.G Singh, S. Yusup, A.T. Quitain, B. Abdullah, [34] M. Al-Sabawi, J.A. Atias, H. De Lasa, Ind. Eng.
A. Inayat, M. Ameen, K.W. Cheah, M. Sasaki, T. Chem. Res. 45 (2006) 1583–1593.
Kida, Y.H. Chai, Renew. Energy 171 (2021) 1445– [35] Y. Zheng, Q. Tang, T. Wang, J. Wang, Energy and
1453. Fuels 29 (2015) 1729–1734.
[14] G.F. Froment, Catal. Rev. - Sci. Eng. 47 (2005) 83– [36] S.J. Mu, H. Su, W. Li, J. Chu, J. Chem. Eng. Chinese
124. Univ. 19 (2005) 630.
[15] G.M. Bollas, A.A. Lappas, D.K. Iatridis, I.A. [37] Y. Zhang, Z. Wang, Y. Jin, Z. Li, W. Yi, Chem. Eng.
Vasalos, Catal. Today 127 (2007) 31–43. Res. Des. 119 (2017) 188–197.
[16] A.R. Ayasse, H. Nagaishi, E.W. Chan, M.R. Gray, [38] Y.M. John, M.A. Mustafa, R. Patel, I.M. Mujtaba,
Fuel 76 (1997) 1025–1033. Fuel 235 (2019) 1436–1454.
[17] B.W. Wojciechowski, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 46 (1968) [39] J.A. Souza, J.V.C. Vargas, J.C. Ordonez, W.P.
48–52. Martignoni, O.F. Von Meien, Int. J. Heat Mass
[18] M.A. Callejas, M.T. Martínez, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. Transf. 54 (2011) 1187–1197.
38 (1999) 3285–3289. [40] Y.P. Du, Q. Yang, H. Zhao, C.H. Yang, Appl.
[19] P. Cristina, Procedia Eng. 100 (2015) 602–608. Petrochemical Res. 4 (2014) 423–433.
[20] C. Wu, Y. Cheng, Y. Jin, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48 [41] S. Sadighi, A. Ahmad, A. Irandoukht, J. Chem. Eng.
(2009) 12–26. Japan 43 (2010) 174–185.
[21] P. Khongprom, S. Ratchasombat, W. Wanchan, P. [42] K. Xiong, C. Lu, Z. Wang, X. Gao, Fuel 142 (2015)
Bumphenkiattikul, S. Limtrakul, RSC Adv. 10 65–72.
(2020) 2897–2914. [43] O.G. Xu, H.Y. Su, S.J. Mu, J. Chu, J. Zhejiang Univ.
[22] J.R. Hernández-Barajas, R. Vázquez-Román, M.G. Sci. 7 (2006) 1932–1941.
Félix-Flores, Fuel 88 (2009) 169–178. [44] H.L. Wang, G. Wang, B.J. Shen, C.M. Xu, J. Sen
Gao, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 50 (2011) 12501–12511.
 H. Hasanudin and et al./ Iran. J. Catal. 12(2), 2022, 115-125

[45] Q. Sheng, G. Wang, Q. Zhang, C. Gao, A. Ren, M.

Duan, J. Gao, Energy and Fuels 31 (2017) 5037–
5045.
[46] O.A. Olafadehan, O.P. Sunmola, A. Jaiyeola, V.
Efeovbokhan, O.G. Abatan, Appl. Petrochemical
Res. 8 (2018) 219–237.
[47] H. Gao, G. Wang, C. Xu, J. Gao, Energy and Fuels
28 (2014) 6554–6562.
[48] H. Jiang, S. Huang, Energy and Fuels 30 (2016)
10770–10776.
[49] L. Wang, B. Yang, Z. Wang, Chem. Eng. J. 109
(2005) 1–9.
[50] A.G. Sani, H.A. Ebrahim, M.J. Azarhoosh, Fuel 225
(2018) 322–335.
[51] R. Zhang, L. Li, Z. Liu, X. Meng, Int. J. Chem. Eng.
2016 (2016) 9148925.
[52] A.A. Ebrahimi, H. Mousavi, H. Bayesteh, J.
Towfighi, Fuel 231 (2018) 118–125.
[53] H. You, Energy Sources, Part A Recover. Util.
Environ. Eff. 36 (2014) 54–63.
[54] J.M. Arandes, I. Abajo, J. Bilbao, J. Aokziti, H.I. De
Lasa, Chem. Eng. Commun. 190 (2003) 254–284.
[55] Y. Du, Q. Yang, C. Zhang, C. Yang, Appl.
Petrochemical Res. 5 (2015) 297–303.