Regarding the layout of the two units in a catalytic cracking unit?
Thread Content
RT, how many common layout patterns are there for the two units in a catalytic cracking unit? Besides the high-low side-by-side type and the coaxial type, what about the pre-combustion tank type? So what is the trend in the development of the layout patterns for these two devices? ? Coaxial type? ? ?
I think the trend in development is towards a parallel high-low configuration, as it allows for a higher processing capacity and utilizes more advanced processes. Although the coaxial configuration has lower costs, its processing capacity is not very high. Moreover, given the increasingly poor quality of raw materials, the parallel high-low configuration is more suitable for heavy oil catalysis.
In addition to the side-by-side and coaxial configurations, as well as the configuration with a pre-coking vessel, there is also two-stage riser catalytic cracking with two regenerators connected in series. Changing the bed reaction to a riser reaction is the trend. However, the riser-based reaction systems, as well as the riser reaction technologies that are classified according to the different relative arrangements and structures of the reactor and regenerator equipment, each have their own characteristics; I’m not sure which direction such technologies should develop in.
I have been working with the coaxial type for many years and am quite familiar with it, so I prefer the coaxial type
It should be in a parallel format; I’m quite optimistic about that approach
:lol :lol I think high and low configurations, as well as coaxial designs, will continue to coexist side by side in the future. . . . There are also quite a number of Central Army units that choose the same axis. . . At present, over 95% of local forces are coaxial. . . . Hahaha. . .
The vertical layout is still the best option – it’s practical, easy to use, and looks good too! !
Indeed, many systems use a coaxial design, but the side-by-side arrangement is also quite good; especially for those with high processing capacities (such as 3 million tons per year), coaxial designs don’t seem to be used. Furthermore, in coaxial settlers, the phenomenon of the regenerator and the settler interpenetrating each other due to reasons such as wear at the loose points seems to occur quite frequently, which is always a source of safety concerns!
In our country, designs created by the Luoyang Design Institute are generally of the coaxial type, while those from the Beijing Design Institute are mainly of the stacked type. I personally believe that if the processing capacity needs to be increased in the future, the stacked type will be necessary; the coaxial type is not suitable for scaling up significantly due to constraints related to the reaction equipment
Coaxial type – it offers greater operational flexibility, but the processing capacity is limited. Our facility switched from a vertical and horizontal configuration to a coaxial design in 2002, with a capacity of 1.4 million tons per year; we plan to install another set by the end of the year
Most large devices are designed to be coaxial, while some smaller devices can be arranged side by side at different heights
In terms of a comparison of production performance, I believe that in terms of development trends: although there is one type of regenerator, due to differences in design characteristics and priorities, the use of one-stage and two-stage regeneration will surely coexist for a long time; those who understand the design features can see this clearly
Our company’s current catalytic unit was designed by the Luoyang Design Institute; it is of the coaxial type and seems to be quite good. But as the person above said. The processing capacity is limited; I don’t know why. When our company installed a new unit for the catalytic processing of heavy oil with an annual capacity of 2 million tons, it too opted for a coaxial design.
Coaxial designs take up less space and allow for a more compact layout. However, plug valves are more reliable than slide valves; moreover, it has been reported that there have been several incidents recently where the settlers in coaxial catalytic units were worn through. A higher safety factor is required in such cases
The coaxial design requires less space, which reduces investment costs. Personally, I think it’s easier to use – it’s like holding a sword; using two swords is definitely more difficult than using just one. This is purely my opinion though
This post was last edited by Shuichangshou on 2009-6-22 21:28. Coaxial arrangements with elements placed side by side, either above or below each other, have their own advantages and disadvantages