Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.

2002, 41, 4765-4776 4765

Multiobjective Optimization of Industrial FCC Units Using Elitist

Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm
Rahul B. Kasat, D. Kunzru, D. N. Saraf, and Santosh K. Gupta*
Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 208016, India

This study provides insights into the optimal operation of the fluidized-bed catalytic cracking
unit (FCCU). A five-lump model is used to characterize the feed and the products. The model is
tuned using industrial data. The elitist nondominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II) is
used to solve a three-objective function optimization problem. The objective functions used are
maximization of the gasoline yield, minimization of the air flow rate, and minimization of the
percent CO in the flue gas using a fixed feed (gas oil) flow rate. The decision variables and
several important state variables corresponding to the optimal conditions of operation are
obtained. The optimal solutions correspond to the unstable, saddle-kind, middle steady states.
The procedure used is quite general and can be applied to other industrial FCCUs. The optimal
results obtained here provide physical insights that can help one in obtaining and interpreting
such solutions.

Introduction focus on the complex, two-phase nature of the fluidized

Increase in the demand for gasoline, LPG, and diesel
over the last several decades have led to major improve-
ments in refinery operations. The fluidized-bed catalytic
cracking unit (FCCU) is an important conversion unit
in most integrated refineries. Several studies have been
reported in the open literature that deal with various
aspects of FCCUs. These include their modeling, simu-
lation, kinetics, multiplicity of steady states, chaotic
behavior, on-line optimization, and control. Avidan and
Shinnar1 reviewed the developments and commercial-
ization of catalytic cracking in detail. Different workers
have discussed the kinetics2-4 in the reactor and the
regenerator and have modeled5,6 these units separately,
whereas a few7-12 have developed an integrated model
for the reactor-regenerator system.
In the case of the reactor, various models are available
that describe the feed and the products in terms of
different kinetic “lumps”. These include describing the
products in terms of two,13 three2, four,14 five,5,6 ten,3
or twelve15 lumps while considering the feed as a single
lump (except the last two studies). The advantage of ten-
and twelve-lump kinetic schemes over the others is that
the apparent rate constants are independent of the feed
composition, but the main problem is that a relatively
large number of kinetic parameters need to be evaluated
using experimental or industrial data. These are not
easily available. Moreover, the feed also needs a more
detailed characterization.
Several models5,6,16,17 are available in the literature
for the regenerator. Several studies7-12,18,19 have been
reported on the integrated models that include both the
reactor and the regenerator. A detailed review on these
several models of the FCCU is provided by Arbel et al.7
It is clear that a considerable amount of effort has been
put into the modeling of this unit. Several approaches
have been taken, extending from relatively empirical
ones,6,20,21 where the hydrodynamics is not too detailed,
to detailed models from the group of Elnashaie,10-12 who
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:
skgupta@iitk.ac.in. Phone: 91 512 598722. Fax: 91-512-
590104.
10.1021/ie020087s CCC: $22.00 © 2002 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 08/24/2002
beds in both the reactor and regenerator. The strengths
and shortcomings of these models are reviewed critically
by Elnashaie and Elshishini.11 A review of the several
models existing at present, suggests that one can
possibly use any reasonable model, even if empirical,
for simulation purposes as well as for optimization,
provided we use experimental or (scarce) industrial data
to tune the parameters usually associated with the
models. The model discrepancies and approximations
made (e.g., use of average values of the specific heats
for the gas, etc.), are usually made up for by the tuning
process, though it restricts the range of applicability of
the model somewhat.
In the past decade, several interesting studies10-12,20-25
have been reported dealing with the multiplicity of
steady states in FCCUs. Indeed, the detailed model of
Elnashaie et al.12,25 has been used to study bifurcation
as well as the chaotic behavior24 of FCCUs under
dynamic conditions. These studies use three kinetic
lumps (Weekman et al.2) with the two-phase model of
Kunii and Levenspiel17 or Davidson et al.26
Several studies have also been carried out on the
optimization of FCCUs.27-34 Most of them use some type
of a profit-function as the objective. Some of the com-
monly used decision variables in these studies are the
regenerator temperature, reactor temperature, catalyst
circulation rate and the air supply rate. These studies
use a single objective function. In the past several years,
more detailed optimization studies using multiple objec-
tive functions and constraints have been reported in the
chemical engineering literature using a variety of
mathematical algorithms. These are reviewed by Bhaskar
et al.35 Besides being more realistic (several noncom-
mensurate objective functions need not be clubbed
together, by scalarization/parametrization, into a single
profit-function), these studies have the added advantage
that they do not miss out the optimal solutions when a
duality gap is encountered due to the nonconvexity of
the objective function.35,36 In such multiobjective studies,
we often obtain a Pareto set of nondominating (equally
good) solutions, and a decisionmaker needs to use his
intuition or additional information to decide upon the
4766 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 41, No. 19, 2002
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the fluid catalytic cracking unit
(FCCU).
Figure 2. Five-lump kinetic scheme19 used in this work.
preferred solution. We use a recent adaptation of genetic
algorithm (referred to herein as NSGA-II), as developed
by Deb and co-workers37 to optimize industrial FCCUs
using more than one objective function. This is the first
attempt in FCCU optimization where more than a single
objective function has been used. This is also the first
study in chemical engineering in which we are using
NSGA-II.37,38
Model of the FCCU
The FCCU consists of two major units, a reactor/riser
and a regenerator, as shown in Figure 1. The description
of the process is available in Avidan and Shinnar.1 In
the present study, the five-lump kinetic scheme of
Ancheyta et al.4 has been slightly modified and used
with the empirical reactor models of Arbel et al.7 and
Krishna and Parkin6 for the riser and the regenerator,
respectively. This has been done because of the simplic-
ity of these models. Indeed, these workers claim that
their reactor models are being used in industry for
simulation purposes. Dave19 modified the original scheme
of Ancheyta et al.4 by assuming that gasoline and LPG
also convert to coke. This modified kinetic scheme, used
in the present study, is shown in Figure 2. Several of
the rate constants and the heats of reaction have been
compiled from earlier sources,7,39,40 and four rate con-
stants have been obtained by Dave19 by tuning some
industrial data available to us. The complete set of
model equations as well as the values of the associated
parameters are given in Appendix 1.
In the modeling study of Dave,19 the reactor/riser has
been modeled as a steady-state plug flow reactor with
the assumption that gas oil cracking follows second-
order kinetics, whereas gasoline and LPG cracking
reactions follow first-order kinetics. The riser unit is
assumed to be working under pseudo-steady-state con-
ditions. This leads to a set of ordinary differential
equations and is simple, as well as quite adequate, given
the significant difference in the characteristic times of
the riser and regenerator.9 We have used an empirical
model primarily because of its simplicity, even though
a more comprehensive, two-phase flow model having
three kinetic lumps2 and incorporating the fact41 that
the solid and gas flows are coupled through the chemi-
sorption process, has been proposed by Elnashaie and
co-workers10-12 and could have been used as well. In
fact, Arandes et al.9 have also used an empirical model
similar to ours very recently for modeling their indus-
trial data.
The catalytic deactivation function for the cracking
of vacuum gas oil is that provided by Yingxun.42 Dave19
assumed the temperature drop around the stripper to
be about 10 °C and adjusted the hydrogen-to-carbon
ratio in the catalyst at the entry point of the regenera-
tor, to match industrial data on the regenerator tem-
perature. The regenerator is modeled using the three-
region model proposed by Krishna and Parkin6 with
some modifications. The first region is the transfer line
carrying spent catalyst to the regenerator. The second
region is the dense bed in which the bulk of the
combustion of coke takes place, and the third zone is
the dilute phase above the dense bed. Simulation studies
indicate that less than about 4% removal of carbon on
the spent catalyst occurs in the transfer line, so model-
ing of the latter is not done. The gas is assumed to be
in plug flow throughout the regenerator bed. The
catalyst is assumed to be well mixed in the dense bed
and in plug flow in the dilute phase. It is also assumed
that coke combustion is kinetically controlled and the
resistance to mass transfer from the gas to the catalyst
phase is negligible. This model also hypothesizes a well-
mixed emulsion phase. In contrast, Elnashaie and co-
workers10-12 propose a two-phase model for the regen-
erator. However, Errazu et al.5 show that the two-phase
model, with realistic parameters, gives results very
similar to those of a stirred tank reactor. The model of
Krishna and Parkin6 uses such empirical correlations
and is used in the present study because of its simplic-
ity, as well as because of its applicability to industrial
units.
The main reactions taking place in the regenerator
are
k10
C + 1/2O2 98 CO (1a)
k11
C + O2 98 CO2 (1b)
k12c
CO + 1/2O2 98 CO2
(heterogeneous CO combustion) (1c)
k12h
CO + 1/2O2 98 CO2
(homogeneous CO combustion) (1d)
The balance equations for O2, CO, CO2, and for H2O
(reaction not listed in eq 1) are given in Appendix 1,
along with other necessary information. Table 1 also
 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 41, No. 19, 2002 4767

Table 1. Design Data for the FCCU Used19 in This Study Table 2. Comparison of Model Results with Industrial
Data
parameter value
data from results from
riser length (m) 37.0
industry the tuned model
riser diameter (m) 0.685
regenerator length (m) 19.4 feed flow ratea (kg/s) 29.11 29.11
regenerator diameter (m) 4.5 catalyst flow ratea (kg/s) 208.33 208.33
inventory of catalyst in regenerator (kg) 34 000 feed preheat temperaturea (K) 625.1 625.1
feed rate (kg/s) 29.0 riser pressurea (atm) 2.546 2.546
riser pressure (kPa) 253.85 regenerator pressurea (atm) 2.68 2.68
regenerator pressure (kPa) 267.23 air flow ratea (kmol/s) 0.5707 0.5707
air preheat temperaturea (K) 493.9 493.9
riser top temperatureb (K) 768.8 770.14
gives the details of the industrial FCCU used in this regenerator temperatureb (K) 937.5 936.88
work. These are very slightly modified from those flue gas temperatureb (K) 948.2 948.4
corresponding to an existing industrial unit,19 for pro- dry gas yieldb (%) 3.4 3.69
prietary reasons. LPG yieldb (%) 12.4 13.05
The Runge-Kutta-Gill method is used to solve the gasoline yieldb (%) 34.0 36.13
gas oil conversionb (%) 54.4 57.4
several ordinary differential equations, because the coke yieldb (%) 4.6 4.52
equations are not too stiff.43 The equations for the riser a
and the regenerator are coupled because of the recycling Fixed variables. b Predicted variables.
of the catalyst, and we have a set of equations similar
to two-point boundary value problems. The procedure shows the comparison for one set of data. This confirms
of solving such equations is similar.43 Values of the coke the validity of our simple though empirical model.
on regenerated catalyst, Crgc, and the temperature, Trgn,
of the regenerated catalyst, are assumed. The equations Optimization
are solved to give new values (iterates) for these. The elitist nondominated sorting genetic algorithm37,38
Convergence is obtained using the Newton-Raphson (referred to, here, as NSGA-II) is used in this study to
method.43 Use of techniques more sophisticated than the obtain Pareto-optimal solutions. This is a robust algo-
Newton-Raphson method was not found necessary. A rithm and incorporates the concept of elitism to make
tolerance of 1.5 °C is used for the convergence of Trgn, it more powerful than the earlier algorithm, NSGA-I.38
whereas a tolerance of 1 × 10-4 kg of coke/kg of catalyst Details of NSGA-II are provided in Appendix II (it is
is used in the case of Crgc. For any prescribed set of assumed that the reader is aware of the preliminary
operating variables (air flow rate, catalyst flow rate, air details35,38 on GA and NSGA-I). It is well established35
preheat temperature and feed preheat temperature), we that GA and its adaptations (like NSGA) are very robust
solve the model equations as described and compute the and give global optima, and several studies are available
output variables (yields of gasoline and other products, that demonstrate that real-life problems are better
coke on regenerated catalyst, temperature of the regen- solved using GA than other techniques such as sequen-
erated catalyst, percentage of CO in the flue gas, etc.). tial quadratic programming (SQP). In fact, SQP has to
These are either used as the objective functions them- be used with the -constraint method and applied
selves or may be used to evaluate them. repeatedly for different values of  to obtain the Pareto,
The model equations form part of the optimization whereas NSGA gives the Pareto in a single application
algorithm. NSGA-II uses random numbers to generate of the algorithm.
sets of operating conditions/decision variables in the
form of coded binary chromosomes. The model equations Formulation
are solved for each chromosome and the corresponding
objective functions evaluated. The chromosomes are Several objective functions can be considered in any
then changed using operations (crossover and mutation) optimization study of FCCU to maximize its profitability
that are similar to those in genetics to evolve toward and satisfy real-life constraints. In this unit, an increase
optimal solutions. It was found that sometimes the in the yields of gasoline, LPG, or diesel always leads to
model does not converge, particularly when the decision/ an increase in the profit. So, it is clear that the
input variables generated by the optimization algorithm maximization of these yields should be taken as the
objective functions. Interestingly, an increase in the
are practically infeasible. In these situations, new
gasoline yield usually leads to an increase in the yield
chromosomes replace the infeasible ones.
of LPG, and of dry gas, and so the use of gasoline yield
It was observed that the computed temperature at the as one of the objective functions is sufficient. The five-
base of the riser was always higher than the industrial lumped model4,19 used here is not detailed enough to
values. Similarly, the model-predicted values of the predict the yield of diesel, and so the latter is not
dense bed temperature, Trgn, differed slightly from included. In contrast, an increase in the yield of gasoline
industrial values. To minimize these two deviations, has an adverse effect on (increase in) the coke formation.
empirical heat loss terms were introduced for the riser This coke decreases the activity of the catalyst and
base (dotted box shown in Figure 1) as well as for the needs to be burnt off in the regenerator, requiring
dense bed of the regenerator. The appropriate equations higher amounts of feed air. Burning of the coke results
are also included in Appendix 1. A similar loss term was in the formation of CO and CO2. The former needs to
incorporated by Elnashaie et al.11 and Han et al.8 be converted to CO2 in the dilute phase before the gases
The model is tuned using three sets of operating, enter the cyclones. This after-burning of CO can produce
steady-state data taken on an industrial FCCU (details very high temperatures. There are usually two options
of the unit are given in Table 1). This tuned model is available: One is to carry out full combustion in the
then tested on three additional sets of industrial data. regenerator, so that the CO emitted in the flue gas is
Good agreement is observed for all three cases. Table 2 very low. The other is to carry out only partial combus-
4768 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 41, No. 19, 2002
tion in the regenerator and allow emission of higher
amounts of CO from this unit. The flue gas is then sent
to a CO reboiler where it is converted to CO2 before
being emitted finally to the atmosphere. The full
combustion mode of the FCCU requires large amounts
of air supply. This automatically increases the operating
costs. In addition, full combustion leads to much higher
amounts of exothermic heat produced, which could
create problems. There is also a need to burn off the
maximum amount of the coke in the regenerator so as
to keep the catalyst activity in the riser at high levels.
On the basis of this discussion, we could select three
objective functions for the study. The first is to maximize
the gasoline yield (profitability), the second is to mini-
mize the CO in the flue gas (pollution), and the third is
to minimize the air flow rate (operating costs). If we
were to study only a single objective function, e.g., the
profit, one would have to assign appropriate weightage
factors to several important objectives while incorporat-
ing them into a single economic objective function. This
would be quite difficult to do if we wish to assign a cost
to the emission of CO. Obviously, use of multiobjective
functions, as in the present study, is a superior and
more detailed option than just minimizing the cost or
maximizing the profit. The algorithm provides a set of
equally good solutions to a plant engineer from which
he can select the preferred solution, using specified
pollution norms or his intuition.
Consideration of all three objective functions simul-
taneously at the start of any multi-objective study is
difficult to attempt and understand, and several sim-
pler, two-objective function problems are first studied
to build insights. Only one such two-objective function
problem is described here for the sake of brevity. This
is given by
Problem No. 1:
Max I1 (Tfeed, Tair, Fcat, Fair) ) gasoline yield (2a)
Min I2 (Tfeed, Tair, Fcat, Fair) ) % CO in the flue gas
(2b)
700 K e Trgne 950 K (2c)
Crgc e 1% (2d)
The following bounds are used on the four decision
variables
575 e Tfeed e 670 K (3a)
450 e Tair e 525 K (3b)
115 e Fcat e 290 kg/s (3c)
11 e Fair e 46 kg/s (3d)
The feed preheat temperature, Tfeed, is selected as a
decision variable because it plays a major role in
controlling the heat balance in the FCCU. The lower
limit of Tfeed is selected so as to supply sufficient heat
required for the cracking and vaporization of the feed.
Too low a value of Tfeed results in a decrease in the riser
temperature, which, ultimately, decreases the yields of
gasoline, LPG, etc. The upper limit7 of Tfeed is decided
so as to prevent coking of the heating coils in the
preheater. The riser top and the regenerator tempera-
tures are functions of the catalyst circulation rate, Fcat,
and the air flow rate, Fair. The lower and upper bounds
of the catalyst flow rate, Fcat, are taken such that the
catalyst-to-feed flow ratio, Fcat/Ffeed (keeping Fair/Ffeed
constant), lies between7 4 and 10, respectively. Simi-
larly, the bounds on the air flow rate, Fair, are taken
such that the air-to-feed flow ratio, Fair/Ffeed (keeping
Fcat/Ffeed constant), lies between7 0.4 and 1.6. Below and
above these ratios, trivial steady states7 exist that have
no relevance in industrial operations. Many work-
ers7,10-12,20-25 have studied the multiplicity of steady
states of industrial FCCUs. It is well-known that
commercial FCCUs operate at the unstable middle
steady state at which point the maximum gasoline yield
is obtained. It is also a well-known fact that because of
the very high capacity of the system, the drift from the
operating unstable middle steady state is relatively
slow. Elnashaie and co-workers10-12,23-25 have studied
this in great detail and have studied the effect of
different parameters. The upper and lower bounds of
Fair and Fcat are selected in this study so as to obtain
optimal solutions in this range of unstable steady states.
The lower and upper bounds of the air preheat temper-
ature, Tair, are determined by the amount of heat that
air can pick up in actual operations. Too low a value of
Tair results in a cooling of the regenerator, and too high
a value has the opposite effect. The first end-point
constraint (eq 2c) on Trgn is incorporated so as to
maintain reasonable temperatures in the dense bed. Too
low a value of Trgn decreases the temperature of the
regenerated catalyst, which causes a decrease in the
riser temperature, which, in turn, leads to a decrease
in the yields of gasoline, LPG, etc. Too high a value of
Trgn reduces the catalyst activity rapidly and also causes
damage to the catalyst in the regenerator. The upper
and lower bounds on the Trgn indirectly forces the
operation toward the middle steady state.7 The second
end-point constraint (eq 2d) is on the coke on regener-
ated catalyst. Too high a coke content on the regener-
ated catalyst results in a decrease in the catalyst
activity, which automatically decreases the yields of
gasoline, LPG, etc. In the present study, the flow rate
of the gas oil feed is kept constant at 29 kg/s. Generally,
the feed rate is taken at a fixed value while industrial
FCCUs are optimized.
Two additional two-objective function optimization
problems studied by us are
Problem Nos. 2 and 3:
Max I1 (Tfeed, Tair, Fcat, Fair) ) gasoline yield (4a)
Min I2 (Tfeed, Tair, Fcat, Fair) ) Fair (4b)
subject to (s.t.):
CO in flue gas e 8% (Problem 2)
or
CO in flue gas e 1000 ppm or 0.1% (Problem 3)
(4c)
In addition, eqs 2c,d and 3a-d are incorporated. The
above optimization problems are solved to obtain opti-
mal solutions for the FCCU in the partial combustion
mode (Problem 2) or the full combustion mode (Problem
3).

Figure 3. Pareto set, decision variables and state variables for the optimal solutions for Problem 1.
To encompass Problems 1-3 into a single interesting
multi-objective optimization problem, we solved the
following three-objective function optimization problem:
Problem No. 4:
Max I1 (Tfeed, Tair, Fcat, Fair) ) gasoline yield
Min I2 (Tfeed, Tair, Fcat, Fair) ) Fair
Min I3 (Tfeed, Tair, Fcat, Fair) ) % CO in the flue gas
(5c)
The bounds and constraints (eqs 2c,d, 3 a-d) are the
same as in Problems 1-3.
Most workers in the field have used the penalty-
function approach while solving optimization problems
with end-point constraints.35 This works when the
process is not too complex. In the case of the FCCU,
the model is quite complex and a different approach is
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 41, No. 19, 2002 4769
being used. Because GA generates solutions randomly,
the moment a solution is generated, it is checked to see
if it is able to satisfy all the end-point constraints. If it
does not, we do not accept it as a member of the
population and generate another chromosome till these
conditions are satisfied. This enables all the members
(5a)
in a population to satisfy all the constraints. A similar
procedure is followed when daughter chromosomes are
(5b) obtained after crossover and mutation. This technique
was found to be superior to the conventional penalty
function approach35 (penalty proportional to the devia-
tion) for the present problem. It enables the generation
of wider variety (diversity) of solutions. However, it is
a little slow in the beginning.
Results and Discussion
A computer code was written in MS Fortran Power
Station to obtain the results of the multi-objective
optimization problems. The code was tested (using a
4770 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 41, No. 19, 2002
Figure 4. Surface plot for the three-objective function optimization problem (Problem 4).
single chromosome) for simulation of a few runs for
which industrial data were available to us and compared
with results obtained by Dave.19 The initial guesses of
Trgn and Crgc were 900 K and 0.002 kg of coke/kg of
catalyst, respectively. The computational time required
for solving Problem 1 is 12 h on a Pentium 4 (1.7 GHz)
machine. The Pareto optimal solutions and the associ-
ated variables for Problem 1 are shown in Figure 3.
It can be observed from Figure 3b-e that the catalyst
flow rate, the air flow rate, and the feed preheat
temperature increase with the increase in the gasoline
yield. An increase in the feed preheat temperature
results in an expected increase in the temperature at
the base of the riser (Figure 3f). Similarly, an increase
in the catalyst flow rate results in an increase in the
cracking reactions. This leads to an increase in the total
conversion (Figure 3g) as well as in the individual yields
of gasoline, dry gas, and LPG (Figure 3a,j,k). Simulta-
neously, this leads to a small increase in the amount of
coke formed (Figure 3i) in the riser. This results in an
increased requirement of air (Figure 3b) to satisfy the
constraint on the coke on the regenerated catalyst (eq
2d). The air preheat temperature (Figure 3e) is almost
at its lower bound. This is necessary to keep the
temperature of the regenerated catalyst below 950 K
(eq 2c). It is observed that the optimal solutions are
associated with extremely low values of the CO concen-
tration in the flue gas (almost at ppm levels). The
optimal solutions in Figure 3 correspond to complete
combustion of CO to CO2 in the dilute phase of the
regenerator, leading, simultaneously, to a large differ-
ence in the temperatures of the dense and dilute phases
(Figure 3h). It is worth mentioning that solutions with
larger values of CO (of about 8%; partial combustion)
are not picked up by the optimization algorithm in
Problem 1 because they are inferior to those in the
complete-combustion zone (because CO is minimized).
One could have obtained solutions in the partial-
combustion zone by reducing the upper bound on Fair.
The results of Problems 2 and 3 are not reported here
for the sake of brevity. It is obvious that lower air flow
rates are required in Problem 2 (partial-combustion
zone) compared to Problem 3 (complete-combustion
zone).
Table 3. Details of Two Sets of Chromosomes in Problem
4
set 1 set 2
% CO in the flue gas 0.896 0.897 4.268 5.212
gasoline yield (%) 42.62 35.62 41.49 32.31
air flow rate (kg/s) 20.92 19.42 18.56 17.33
air preheat temperature (K) 456.45 471.99 453.01 458.72
feed preheat temperature (K) 666.75 596.73 665.45 584.84
catalyst flow rate (kg/s) 285.04 202.93 261.77 192.83
With the physical insights now developed, we proceed
to solve the more difficult Problem 4 (eq 5), involving
three-objective functions. The population size was in-
creased to 100 for this problem, and the number of
generations was taken as 90. The computer time was
about 48 h. Figure 4 shows the 3-dimensional plot
characterizing the nondominating Pareto optimal points
for Problem 4. This surface has been obtained by curve-
fitting the several Pareto optimal points actually ob-
tained. Interestingly, it is found that both the complete-
combustion (low CO, high air flows) and the partial-
combustion (high CO, low air flows) zones are obtained
in the present problem, simultaneously. It can be
observed from Figure 4 (and detailed tabulated infor-
mation; not being provided here) that every point on the
Pareto surface is equally good (nondominating) because
any point may be worse than another in terms of one
or two of the three objectives but is superior in terms of
least one other objective function. If we look at the
surface plot closely, we see several maxima and a few
adjacent minima. Table 3 shows details of two sets of
such maxima-minima combinations. Set I in this table
shows that the air flow rate is lower (better) when the
gasoline yield is lower (worse), for almost the same
amount of CO in the flue gas; i.e., the peak is superior
in terms of the gasoline yield, but the minima is better
in terms of the other objective function (air flow rate).
A small decrease in the air flow rate (from 20.92 to 19.42
kg/s) is associated with a sharp decrease in the catalyst
flow rate (from 285.04 to 202.93 kg/s), which is respon-
sible for the sharp decrease in the gasoline yield (from
42.62 to 35.62%). Set II in Table 3 shows similar results.
This is because of the high sensitivity of the model to
the catalyst flow rate in certain regions of the parameter

Figure 5. Pareto set, decision variables and state variables for selected optimal solutions (peaks) of Problem 4.
space. Similar sensitivities were reported by Arbel et
al.7 It is difficult to ascertain, at this stage, if this high
sensitivity is real or just a weakness of the model being
used here.
Some regions of the ridge between nearby peaks are
shown by rectangles in Figure 4. There are no optimal
points in these regions, at least from among the 100
chromosomes obtained in this study. It must also be
mentioned here that the computed Pareto solutions
occur only in the inner zone in Figure 4 (where all the
maxima and minima lie), and that no solutions exist in
the adjacent flat surfaces in Figure 4 (these are artifacts
generated by the graphical package). In other words,
in Figure 4, the Pareto points essentially form a series
of several hillocks of decreasing heights (with a few
nearby minima), starting from the low CO-high air flow
end (region A) and curving gently toward the high CO-
low air flow end (region B).
If we assign some extra importance to the gasoline
yield (a decisionmaker’s post-Pareto job) than used for
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 41, No. 19, 2002 4771
generating Figure 4, the several hills in this plot would
become a set of several preferred solutions. The details
corresponding to several of these selected peaks in
Figure 4 (some indicated by +), have been plotted as
simpler 2D plots in Figure 5. It is observed that for the
optimal solutions shown in Figure 5a,b, the catalyst flow
rate and the feed preheat temperature lie near their
upper bounds. This is because high (∼40%) values of
the gasoline yield require high values of both these
variables. The constraint on Crgc is taken care of by the
air flow rate. The constraint on Trgn can be satisfied
either by adjusting the air flow rate or by adjusting the
air preheat temperature. Minimization of the air flow
rate leaves Tair as the only variable to satisfy the
constraint on Trgn. As the percent CO in the flue gas
decreases (moving from the partial-combustion zone to
the complete-combustion zone), the air flow rate is found
to increase. This leads to an increase in the oxygen
available at the end of the dense bed and its subsequent
use in the afterburning of CO. This simultaneously
4772 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 41, No. 19, 2002

results in an increase in the temperature rise in the

dilute phase of the regenerator (Figure 5i), as well as a ri ) ko,i exp -( )Ei
RT 2
Cφ i ) 5-7 (A3)

( )
decrease in the coke on the regenerated catalyst (Figure
5l). Figure 5 can be used to advantage by a decision- Ei
ri ) ko,i exp - Cφ i ) 8, 9 (A4)
maker to select an appropriate “preferred solution” RT 3
(point of operation), based on his or her intuition, Ffeed/Fv
something that is often not quantifiable. ) (A5)
It is well established20-23 that FCCUs have multiple Ffeed/Fv + Frgc/Fc
steady states and that the maximum gasoline yield PrisMWg
occurs at the unstable, saddle type, middle steady state. Fv ) (A6)
RT
The optimal solutions obtained here are, indeed, these
5
middle steady states. This has been ensured by using
appropriate bounds on the decision variables as well as MWg ) ∑
j)1
xjMWj (A7)
constraints on Trgn, as observed for similar situations
by Arbel et al.7 φ ) (1 + 51Cc)-2.78 (A8)
We also found that varying the mutation and cross-
dT ArisHrisFc(1 - ) 9

∑ri(-∆Hi)
over probabilities, as well as the seed number, does not
affect the 3-D Pareto set. Also, we did not study the ) (A9)
dh FrgcCpc + FfeedCpfvi)1
affect of the feed composition on the Pareto set, because
the rate constants depend on the composition for the T(h)0) ) {[FrgcCpc(Trgn - 10.0) + FfeedCpflTfeed -
five-lumped model assumed in this work, and there are
insufficient industrial data available to us to tune these ∆HevpFfeed] - 0.019[FrgcCpc(Trgn - 10.0) +
constants for other feeds. Elshishini and Elnashaie44 FfeedCpflTfeed - ∆HevpFfeed]}/(FrgcCpc + FfeedCpfv)
have, however, studied the effect of feed composition on
(A10)
the multiplicity of steady states, using their three-lump
model and some data available to them. A rough idea
of the effect of feed composition could possibly be had Regenerator. Parameters are given in Tables A2 and
from their results on four charged stocks. A3.
Dense Bed.

( )
Conclusions dfO2 r10 r12
) -Argn + r11 +
An empirical model is tuned using some data on an dz 2 2
industrial FCCU. The procedure is quite general and 1
any other FCCU can be similarly modeled and tuned fO2(0) ) 0.21Fair - fH2O (A11)
2
using associated industrial data. An adaptation of
dfCO
NSGA is used to obtain Pareto optimal solutions for this ) -Argn(r12 - r10) fCO(0) ) 0 (A12)
unit, using three objective functions with constraints. dz
The optimal results incorporate the full-combustion (of dfCO2
CO) as well as the partial-combustion modes. The ) Argn(r11 + r12) fCO2(0) ) 0 (A13)
procedures developed are quite general and can be dz
applied to other FCCUs. In fact, several other interest- Crgc fO2
ing multiobjective optimization problems can also be r10 ) (1 - )Fck10 P (A14)
formulated and solved, e.g., maximizing the feed flow MWc ftot rgn
rate as well as the production of products, etc. Crgc fO2
r11 ) (1 - )Fck11 P (A15)
MWc ftot rgn
Acknowledgment
fO2fCO
Partial financial support from the Department of r12 ) (xpt(1 - )Fck12c + k12h) Prgn2 (A16)
Science and Technology, Government of India, New ftot2
Delhi [through grant III-5(13)/2001-ET], is gratefully CH
acknowledged. We thank all the reviewers for their fH2O ) Frgc(Csc - Crgc) (A17)
several valuable suggestions. MWH2
fN2 ) 0.79Fair (A18)
Appendix 1
dTrgn
)0 (A19)
Parameters are given in Tables A1 and A3. Model dz
equations19 follow.
Trgn(z)0) ) Tbase + {[fCO(Zbed)HCO + fCO2(Zbed)HCO2 +
Reactor.
fH2OHH2O + FairCpair(Tair - Tbase) + FscCpc(Tsc -
dFj 9 Tbase)] - 0.11[fCO(Zbed)HCO + fCO2(Zbed)HCO2 +
dh
∑
) ArisHris(1 - )Fc
i)1
Rijri j ) 1, 2, ..., 5 (A1)
fH2OHH2O + FairCpair(Tair - Tbase) + FscCpc(Tsc -

( )
Tbase)]}/{[FrgcCpc + fCO2(Zbed)CpCO2 + fCO(Zbed)CpCO +
Ei
ri ) ko,i exp - C 2φ i ) 1-4 (A2) fO2(Zbed)CpO2 + fH2OCpH2O + fN2CpN2]} (A20)
RT 1
 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 41, No. 19, 2002 4773

Table A1. Kinetic and Thermodynamic Parameters19 Table A3. Thermodynamic and Other Parameters19 Used
Used for Reactor Modeling for Simulation
rate frequency activation energy38 heat of reaction7 parameter value
constants factora,19,39 (kJ/kmol) (kJ/kmol)
Cpc, kJ kg-1 K-1 1.003
k1 14054.59b 57540 45000 Cpfl, kJ kg-1 K-1 3.430
k2 2293.00b 52500 159315 Cpfv, kJ kg-1 K-1 3.390
k3 390.95b 49560 159315 CpN2, kJ kg-1 K-1 30.530
k4 29.90b 31920 159315 CpO2, kJ kg-1 K-1 32.280
k5 65.40c 73500 42420 CpH2O, kJ kg-1 K-1 36.932
k6 0.00c 45360 42420 CpCO, kJ kg-1 K-1 30.850
k7 0.00c 66780 42420 CpCO2, kJ kg-1 K-1 47.400
k8 0.32c 39900 2100b ∆Hevp, kJ kg-1 350.0
k9 0.19c 31500b 2100b HCO, kJ kmol-1 1.078 × 105
HCO2, kJ kmol-1 3.933 × 105
a m6 (kg catalyst)-1 (kmol gas oil)-1 s-1 for k to k and m3 (kg
1 4 HH2O, kJ kmol-1 2.42 × 105
catalyst)-1 s-1 for k5 to k9. b From ref 19. c From refs 19 and 39. Fc, kg m-3 1089.0
CH, (kg of H2) (kg of coke)-1 0.15
Table A2. Kinetic Parameters7 Used for Regenerator MWgas oil 350
Modeling MWgasoline 170
frequency activation energy
MWLPG 65
parameter factor (E/R, K) MWdry gas 30
MWcoke 12
βca 2512 6795 Rgas oil,gasolinea 2.06
kc (atm-1 s-1) 1.0694 × 108 18 890 Rgas oil,LPG 5.39
k12c (kmol of CO) (kg cat)-1 s-1 m-3 117 13 890 Rgas oil,dry gas 11.67
k12h (kmol of CO) m-3 atm-2 s-1 5.07 × 1014 35 555 Rgas oil,coke 29.17
a β ≡ (k /k ) ) β exp[(-E /RT)]. k ≡ k Rgasoline,LPG 2.62
c 10 11 c0 β c 10 + k11 ) kc0 exp[(-
Ec/RT)]. Rgasoline,dry gas 5.67
Rgasoline,coke 14.17
RLPG,dry gas 2.17
{with fi(Zbed) being the value of fi at z ) Zbed} RLPG,coke 5.42
Dp, ft 2.0 × 10-4
0.305u1 + 1 xpt 0.10
) (A21)
0.305u1 + 2 a R ) for the jth lump corresponding to the reaction from lump
ij
i to lump j (in mass terms).
Fair
u1 ) (A22) (ri as in eqs A14-A16, but with appropriate parameters/
0.3048FgArgn
variables)
Prgn
Fg ) (A23) dTdil Argn
RTrgn ) [H (r - r12) + HCO2(r11 + r12)]
dz Cptotftot CO 10
(A32)
Zbed ) 0.3048(TDH) (A24) Cptot )

TDH ) TDH20 + 0.1(D - 20) (A25) (CpN2fN2 + CpO2fO2 + CpCOfCO + CpCO2fCO2 + CpH2OfH2O + CpCFent
ftot )
(A33)
log10 (TDH20) ) log10 (20.5) + 0.07(u1 - 3) (A26)
Fent ) 0.4535WA (A34)
Crgc ) {[FscCsc(1 - CH) - {fCO(Zbed) + W ) FfYu1 (A35)
fCO2(Zbed})MWc]}/{[Frgc(1 - CH)]} (A27) log10 Y ) log10 60 + 0.69 log10 X - 0.445(log10 X)2
(A36)
{with fi(Zbed) being the value of fi at z ) Zbed}.
Dilute Phase. u12
X) (see eq A22) (A37)

( )
dfO2 gDpFp2
r10 r12
) -Argn + r11 + Fdil
dz 2 2 dil ) 1 - (A38)
fO2(0), same as at the end of dense bed (A28) Fc
dfCO Fent
) -Argn(r12 - r10) Fdil ) (A39)
dz 0.3048Argnu1
fCO(0), same as at the end of dense bed (A29) (1 - CH)
dfCO2 fC(0) ) FentCrgc (A40)
12
) Argn(r11 + r12) Zdil ) Zrgn - Zbed (A41)
dz
fCO2(0), same as at the end of dense bed (A30) F1(MW1)
dfC gasoline yield (%) ≡ × 100 (A42)
5
) -Argn(r10 + r11)
dz
initial condition from eq A40 (A31)
∑
i)1
Fi(MWi)
4774 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 41, No. 19, 2002
Figure A1. Flowchart for NSGA-II.
Appendix II
Elitist Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algo-
rithm, NSGA-II37,38
1. Generate box, P, of Np parent chromosomes38 (see
flowchart in Figure A1).
2. Classify these chromosomes into fronts based on
nondomination:38
(a) Create new (empty) box, P′, of size, Np.
(b) Transfer ith chromosome from P to P′, starting
with the first.
(c) Compare chromosome i with each member, e.g., j,
in P′, one at a time.
(d) If i dominates over j, remove j from P′ and put
back in P.
(e) If i is dominated by j, remove i from P′ and put
back in P.
(f) If i and j are nondominating, keep both i and j in
P′. Continue for all j.
(g) Repeat for all chromosomes in P. P′ constitutes
the first front or sub-box (of size eNp) of nondominated
chromosomes. Assign it Rank ) 1.
(h) Create subsequent fronts in (lower) sub-boxes of
P′ using the chromosomes remaining in P. Compare
these members only with members present in the
current sub-box. Assign these Ranks ) 2, 3, .... Finally,
we have all Np chromosomes in P′, boxed into one or
more fronts.
This sequential procedure is superior to that used in
NSGA-I38 where any chromosome is compared to all
other Np - 1 chromosomes.
3. Evaluate the crowding distance, Ii,dist, for the ith
chromosome in any front:
(a) Rearrange all chromosomes in front j in ascending
order of the values of any one of their fitness func-
tions,37,38 Fi.
(b) Find the largest cuboid (rectangle for 2 fitness
functions) enclosing i that just touches its nearest
neighbors in the F-space.
(c) Ii,dist ≡ 1/2 (sum of all sides of this cuboid).
(d) Assign large values of Ii,dist to solutions at the
boundaries.
This helps maintain diversity in the Pareto set. This
procedure is superior to the sharing operation of NSGA-
I.38
4. Copy the best of the Np chromosomes of P′ in a new
box, P′′ (Best Parents):
(a) Select any pair, i and j, from P′ (randomly,
irrespective of fronts).
(b) Identify the better of these two chromosomes. i is
better than j if
Ii,rank * Ij,rank: Ii,rank < Ij,rank
Ii,rank ) Ij,rank: Ii,dist > Ij,dist
(c) Copy (without removing from P′) the better chro-
mosome in a new box, P′′.
(d) Repeat till P′′ has Np members.
(e) Copy all of P′′ in a new box, D, of size Np.
Not all of P′ need be in P′′ or D.
5. Carry out crossover and mutation38 of chromosomes
in D.
This gives a box of Np daughter chromosomes.
6. Copy all the Np best parents (P′′) and all the Np
daughters (D) in box PD (elitism). Box PD has 2Np
chromosomes.
7. Reclassify these 2Np chromosomes into fronts (box
PD′) using only nondomination.
8. Take the best Np from box PD′ and put into box
P′′′.
9. This completes one generation. Stop if criteria are
met.
10. Copy P′′′ into starting box, P. Go to Step 2 above.
Nomenclature
A ) cross-sectional area of regenerator, ft2
Argn ) cross-sectional area of regenerator, m2
Aris ) cross-sectional area of riser, m2
Cc ) coke on catalyst at any location, (kg of coke)(kg of
catalyst)-1
Ci ) concentration of ith lump, kmol m-3
CH ) weight fraction of H2 in coke, (kg of H2)(kg of coke)-1
(Appendix 1)
Crgc ) coke on regenerated catalyst, (kg of coke)(kg of cat)-1
Csc ) coke on spent catalyst, (kg of coke)(kg of cat)-1

Cpc ) heat capacity of catalyst, kJ kg-1 K-1
Cpfl ) heat capacity of liquid feed, kJ kg-1 K-1
Cpfv ) heat capacity of vapor feed, kJ kg-1 K-1
Cpi ) mean heat capacity of i [H2O, N2, O2], kJ kg-1 K-1
Cptot ) heat capacity of (total) mixture, kJ kg-1 K-1
D ) diameter of regenerator, ft
Dp ) average diameter of catalyst particle, ft
Ec, Eβ ) activation energies, kJ kmol-1
Ei ) activation energy of ith reaction, kJ kmol-1
fi ) molar flow rate of i [CO, CO2, H2O, N2, O2, carbon] in
the regenerator, kmol s-1
ftot ) total gas flow rate at any location in the regenerator,
kmol s-1
Fair ) flow rate of air feed to the regenerator, kmol s-1
Fent ) entrained catalyst flow rate, kg s-1
Ffeed ) feed flow rate of oil, kg s-1
Fj ) molar flow rate of jth lump, kmol s-1
Frgc ) flow rate of regenerated catalyst, kg s-1
Fsc ) flow rate of spent catalyst, kg s-1
g ) gravitational acceleration, 32.2 ft s-2
h ) dimensionless height of riser (≡z/Hris)
∆Hevp ) heat of vaporization of gas oil feed, kJ kg-1
Hi ) heat of formation of i, kJ kmol-1
∆Hi ) heat of ith reaction, kJ kmol-1
Hris ) height of riser, m
k0,i ) frequency factor for ith reaction (Appendix 1)
kc ) overall rate of combustion of coke
ki ) reaction rate constant for ith reaction (Appendix 1)
MWc ) molecular weight of coke, kg kmol-1
MWg ) average molecular weight of gas phase, kg kmol-1
MWj ) molecular weight of jth lump, j ) 1, 2, ..., 5, kg
kmol-1
MWH ) molecular weight of H2, kg kmol-1
Nchr ) total chromosome length (40)
Nga ) number of generations (50 for Problems 1-3; 90 for
Problem 4)
Np ) population size (50 for Problems 1-3; 100 for Problem
4)
pc ) crossover probability (0.95)
pm ) mutation probability (0.05)
Prgn ) pressure in regenerator, atm
Pris ) pressure in riser, atm
ri ) rate of the ith reaction, i ) 1-9 (riser); i ) 10-12
(regenerator), kmol (kg catalyst)-1 s-1 or kmol m-3s-1
R ) universal gas constant, J K-1 kmol-1
Tair ) temperature of air fed to the regenerator, K
Tbase ) base temperature for heat balance calculations, K
(assumed, 866.6 K)
Tdil ) temperature of dilute phase at any location, K
Tfeed ) temperature of gas oil feed, K
Trgn ) temperature (uniform) of dense bed, K
Tris ) temperature of riser at any location, K
Tris,top ) temperature at top of riser, K
Tsc ) temperature of spent catalyst [)Tris,top - ∆Tst], K
∆Tst ) temperature drop in stripper (assumed 10 K)
u ) velocity of gas in the riser or the regenerator, m s-1
u1 ) superficial linear velocity, ft s-1
W ) catalyst entrainment flux, lb (ft2 regenerator area)-1
s-1
xj ) mole fraction of jth lump, j ) 1, 2, ..., 5
xpt ) relative (catalytic) CO combustion rate (eq A16)
Y ) (kg catalyst entrained in dilute phase) (kg fluidizing
vapor)-1
z ) height from the entrance of the regenerator, m
Zbed ) height of the dense bed, m
Zdil ) height of the dilute phase, m
Zrgn ) total height of the regenerator, m
Greek Letters
Rij ) stoichiometric coefficient of jth species in ith reaction,
based on mass
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 41, No. 19, 2002 4775
βc ) CO/CO2 ratio at catalyst surface in regenerator
(Appendix 1)
 ) void fraction in riser or regenerator at any location
dil ) void fraction in the dilute phase at any location
Fc ) density of solid catalyst (not including void fraction),
kg m-3
Fden ) density of catalyst in the dense bed, kg m-3
Fdil ) density of catalyst in the dilute phase, kg m-3
Ff ) density of fluidization vapor, lb ft-3
Fg ) density of gas phase in the regenerator, kmol m-3
Fp ) density of catalyst particle (solid), lb ft-3
Fv ) density of vapor at any location, kg m-3
φ ) activity of the catalyst
Subscripts
i, j ) ith or jth lump (1, gas oil; 2, gasoline; 3, LPG; 4, dry
gas; 5, coke)
Literature Cited
(1) Avidan, A. A.; Shinnar, R. Development of Catalytic Crack-
ing Technology. A Lesson in Chemical Reactor Design. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 1990, 29, 931.
(2) Weekman, V. W., Jr. Kinetics and Dynamics of Catalytic
Cracking Selectivity in Fixed Bed Reactors. Ind. Eng. Chem.,
Process Des. Dev. 1969, 8, 385.
(3) Jacob, S. M.; Gross, B.; Voltz, S. E.; Weekman, V. W., Jr. A
Lumping and Reaction Scheme for Catalytic Cracking. AIChE J.
1976, 22, 701.
(4) Ancheyta, J. J.; Lopez, I. F.; Aguilar, R. E. 5-lump Kinetic
Model for Gas Oil Catalytic Cracking. Appl. Catal. A 1999, 177,
227.
(5) Errazu, A. F.; de-Lasa, H. I.; Sarti, F. A Fluidized Bed
Catalytic Cracking Regenerator Model. Grid Effects. Can. J. Chem.
Eng. 1979, 57, 191.
(6) Krishna, A. S.; Parkin, E. S. Modeling the Regenerator in
Commercial Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units. Chem. Eng. Prog.
1985, 81, 57.
(7) Arbel, A.; Huang, Z.; Rinard, I. H.; Shinnar, R.; Sapre, A.
V. Dynamic and Control of Fluidized Catalytic Crackers. 1.
Modeling of the Current Generation of FCC’s. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 1995, 34, 1228.
(8) Han, I.; Chung, C.; Riggs, J. B. Modeling of a Fluidized
Catalytic Cracking Process. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2000, 24, 1681.
(9) Arandes, J. M.; Azkoiti, M. J.; Bilbao, J.; de Lasa, H. I.
Modeling FCC Units under Steady and Unsteady-State Condi-
tions. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 2000, 78, 111.
(10) Elnashaie, S. S. E. H.; El-Hennawi, I. M. Multiplicity of
the Steady State in Fluidized Reactors-IV. Fluid Catalytic Cracker
(FCC). Chem. Eng. Sci. 1979, 34, 1113.
(11) Elshishini, S. S.; Elnashaie, S. S. E. H. Digital Simulation
of Industrial Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units: Bifurcation and Its
Implications. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1990, 45, 553.
(12) Elnashaie, S. S. E. H.; Abasaeed, A. E.; Elshishini, S. S.
Digital Simulation of Industrial Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units-
V. Static and Dynamic. Bifurcation. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1995, 50,
1635.
(13) Weekman, V. W., Jr. A Model of Catalytic Cracking
Conversion in Fixed, Moving, and Fluid Bed Reactors. Ind. Eng.
Chem., Process Des. Dev. 1968, 7, 90.
(14) Lee, L.; Chen, Y.; Huang, T.; Pan, W. Four-Lump Kinetic
Model for Fluid Catalytic Cracking Process. Can. J. Chem. Eng.
1989, 67, 615.
(15) Cerqueira, H. S.; Biscaia, E. C., Jr.; Sousa, A. E. F.
Mathematical Modeling and Simulation of Catalytic Cracking of
Gas Oil in a Fixed Bed: Coke Formation. Appl. Catal. A 1997,
164, 35.
(16) De Lasa, H. I.; Errazu A.; Barreiro E.; Solioz, S. Analysis
of Fluidized Bed Catalytic Cracking Regenerator Models in an
Industrial Scale Unit. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 1981, 59, 549.
(17) Kunii, D.; Levenspiel, O. Fluidization; Engineering;
Wiley: New York, 1969.
4776 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 41, No. 19, 2002
(18) Ellis, R. C.; Li, X.; Riggs, J. B. Modeling and Optimization
of a Model IV Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit. AIChE J. 1998,
44, 2068.
(19) Dave, D. Modeling of a Fluidized Bed Catalytic Cracker
Unit. M.Technol. Dissertation, Indian Institute of Technology,
Kanpur, India, 2001.
(20) Iscol, L. The Dynamics and Stability of a Fluid Catalytic
Cracker. Proceedings of the American Control Conference, Atlanta,
1970; Paper 23B.
(21) Edwards, W. M.; Kim, H. N. Multiple Steady States in FCC
Unit Operations. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1988, 43, 1825.
(22) Elnashaie, S.; Yates, J. G. Multiplicity of the Steady State
in Fluidised Bed Reactors-I. Steady-State Considerations. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 1973, 28, 515.
(23) Elnashaie, S. S. E. H.; Elbialy, S. H. Multiplicity of Steady
States in Fluidized Bed Reactors-V. The Effect of Catalyst Decay.
Chem. Eng. Sci. 1980, 35, 1357.
(24) Elnashaie, S. S. E. H.; Abashar, M. E.; Teymour, F. A.
Chaotic Behaviour of Fluidized-Bed Catalytic Reactors with
Consecutive Exothermic Chemical Reactions. Chem. Eng. Sci.
1995, 50, 49.
(25) Elnashaie, S. S. E. H.; Elshishini, S. S. Digital Simulation
of Industrial Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units-IV. Static and
Dynamic Bifurcation. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1993, 48, 567.
(26) Davidson, J. F.; Harrison, D.; La Nauze, R. D.; Darton, R.
C. The Two-Phase Theory of Fluidization and its Applications to
Chemical Reactors. In Chemical Reactor Theory: a Review;
Lapidus, L., Amundsen N. R., Eds.; Prentice-Hall: Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, 1977.
(27) Davis, T. A.; Griffin, D. E.; Webb, P. U. Cat Cracker
Optimization and Control. Chem. Eng. Prog. 1974, 70, 53.
(28) Webb, P. U.; Lutter, B. E.; Hair, R. L. Dynamic Optimiza-
tion of Fluid Cat Crackers. Chem. Eng. Prog. 1978, 74, 72.
(29) Rhemann, H.; Schwarz, G.; Badgwell, T. A.; Darby, M. L.;
White, D. C. On-line FCCU Advanced Control and Optimization.
Hydroc. Process. 1989, June, 64.
(30) McFarlane, R. C.; Bacon, D. W. Adaptive Optimizing
Control of Multivariable Constrained Chemical Processes. 1.
Theoretical Development. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1989, 28, 1828.
(31) Chitnis, U. K.; Corripio, A. B. On-line Optimization of a
Model IV Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit. ISA Trans. 1998, 37, 215.
(32) Khandalekar, P. D.; Riggs, J. B. Nonlinear Process Model
Based Control and Optimization of a Model IV FCC Unit. Comput.
Chem. Eng. 1995, 19, 1153.
(33) Ramasubramanian, S.; Luus, R.; Woo, S. S. Optimization
of a Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit. 50th Canadian Chemical
Engineering Conference, Montreal, Canada, 2000.
(34) Zhao, W.; Chen, D.; Hu, S. Optimizing Operating Condi-
tions Based on ANN and Modified GAs. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2000,
24, 61.
(35) Bhaskar, V.; Gupta, S. K.; Ray, A. K. Applications of
Multiobjective Optimization in Chemical Engineering. Rev. Chem.
Eng. 2000, 16, 1.
(36) Chankong, V.; Haimes, Y. V. Multiobjective Decision
MakingsTheory and Methodology; Elsevier: New York, 1983.
(37) Deb, K.; Agrawal, S.; Pratap, A.; Meyarivan, T. A Fast
Elitist Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm for Multi-objec-
tive Optimization: NSGA-II. Proceedings of the Parallel Problem
Solving from Nature VI Conference, Paris, September 2000;
Springer: Berlin, 2000.
(38) Deb, K. Multi-objective Optimization using Evolutionary
Algorithms; Wiley: Chichester, U.K., 2001.
(39) Ancheyta, J. J.; Lopez, I. F.; Aguilar, R. E.; Moreno, M. J.
C. A Strategy for Kinetic Parameter Estimation in the Fluid
Catalytic Cracking Process. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1997, 36, 5170.
(40) Oliveira, L. L.; Biscaia, E. C., Jr. Catalytic Cracking Kinetic
Models. Parameter Estimation and Model Evaluation. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 1989, 28, 264.
(41) Elnashaie, S. S. E. H.; Cresswell, D. L. The Influence of
Reactant Adsorption on the Multiplicity and Stability of the Steady
States of Catalyst Particles. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1974, 29, 1889.
(42) Yingxun, S. Deactivation by Coke in Residuum Catalytic
Cracking. In Catalyst Deactivation; Bartholomew, C. H., Butt, J.
B., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, 1991.
(43) Gupta, S. K. Numerical Methods for Engineers; Wiley
Eastern/New Age Intl.: NewDelhi, India, 1995.
(44) Elshishini, S. S.; Elnashaie, S. S. E. H. Digital Simulation
of Industrial Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units- II. Effect of Charge
Stock Composition on Bifurcation and Gasoline Yield. Chem. Eng.
Sci. 1990, 45, 2959.
Received for review January 29, 2002
Revised manuscript received May 17, 2002
Accepted July 23, 2002
IE020087S