Process Simulation and Optimization of Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit’s Rich Gas Compression System and Absorption Stabilization System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a fuel-based refinery, rich gas in the fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) unit is further processed to separate dry gas and refinery products (i.e., stabilized gasoline and liquified petroleum gas). The process is utility-intensive and costly and includes a two-stage compressor, pumps, an absorber, a stripper, a stabilizer, and a re-absorber. The optimization was conducted with respect to the compressor outlet pressure from the gas compression system (GCS) and the flow rate of absorbent and supplementary absorbent from the Absorption-stabilization System (ASS) using the process simulation software Aspen Plus. Compared to the base case of a 725 kt/a rich gas FCC unit, a refinery can save 2.42% of utility costs under optimal operation. Through optimized operation, medium-pressure steam consumption has been reduced by 2.4% compared to the base case, resulting in a significant improvement in total operational cost. The optimization strategy can provide insightful guidance for the practical operation of GCS and ASS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".