Visbreaking Unit Simulation Model for the Prediction of

Process Performance and Visbreaker Residue Stability

Sara Sousaa, Filipa Ribeiroa, Ana Rita Costab
a
Departamento de Engenharia Química, Técnico Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal
b
Galp, Rua Tomás da Fonseca - Torre C, 1600-209 Lisboa, Portugal
Sulfur content in bunker fuels has been reduced in order to decrease emissions of sulfur oxides into
the atmosphere. In January 2020, the sulfur content in bunker fuels will be limited to 0.5%wt. The
production of this fuel requires processing sweet crudes in Galp refineries. This is a challenging situation
because these crudes have a higher tendency to instability.
In this work, a rigorous simulation model of the visbreaking unit was developed, using the Petro-
-Sim™ software, which allows a good prediction of yields, product properties, including visbreaker
residue stability. This is the main component of fuel.
The simulation model was solved through two methods for maximum visbreaker conversion
calculation, KBC 1985 and KBC 2005. KBC method 1985 presents a good prediction of visbreaker
residue stability. For KBC 2005 method, simulation model predictions are more dependent on feedstock
quality and more representative of reality.
A delta-base vector structure was created and allows the implementation of the data generated by the
simulation model in Galp linear programming model. This structure was validated using a linear
representation model. The implementation in the linear programming model of the visbreaker unit
simulation model will allow an efficient and optimized selection of crudes that will maximize the refining
margin, ensuring the production of low sulfur fuel oil.

KEYWORDS: Visbreaker, Petro-Sim™, Delta-Base Vectors, Thermal Cracking, Visbreaker Residue

Stability, Refining

Fuel oil produced in Galp refineries can be

1 Introduction
Fuel oil, used as a bunker fuel, causes large
emissions of SOx (Sulfur Oxides) into the
atmosphere, which are harmful to human health
and to the environment.
IMO (International Maritime Organization), a
specialized agency of the United Nations, is the
global standard-setting authority for the safety,
security and environmental performance of
international shipping. In order to reduce SOx
emissions from ships, the sulfur content limit in
fuel oil has been progressively reduced. As
from January 2020, there will be a substantial
cut in the sulfur content limit, from 3.5%wt (High
Sulfur Fuel Oil – HSFO) to 0.5%wt (Very Low
Sulfur Fuel Oil – VLSFO) [1].
In order to meet the new IMO regulations,
ships can limit the air pollutants installing
exhaust gas cleaning systems, also known as
scrubbers.
The alternative that should be adopted by
Galp to supply the VLSFO market consists in
mixing residues produced from sweet crudes
(sulfur content below 1%wt) with other
components with very low sulfur content (cutter
stocks). The production of VLSFO is a major
challenge due to the fuel high tendency for
instability as well as sediments and coke
generation.
composed by atmospheric, vacuum and
visbreaker residues. The visbreaker residue
(RVB) is the most commonly used in the
production of fuel oil, since its use brings an
economic advantage.
1.1 Objectives
This work addresses the development of a
simulation model of Sines visbreaking unit in
Petro-Sim™ software. This model will predict
unit performance and RVB stability depending
on the type of the unit feedstock. This model will
be implemented in Galp linear programming
(LP) model in order to select the crudes that
maximize refining margin ensuring the
production of VLSFO.
2 Visbreaking Unit
2.1 Process Description
The refining process starts by feeding the
crude oil, or usually a mixture of crudes (crude
mix), into an atmospheric distillation unit. Here
crude are separated into several fractions
(defined by cut point – the temperature on the
whole crude TBP (true boiling point) curve that
represents the upper and lower limits [2]).
In Sines refinery, atmospheric distillation has
a top gas stream, a naphtha stream, a kerosene

1
stream, two streams of gasoil (light gasoil and
heavy gasoil) and a bottom stream –
atmospheric residue (RAT). The RAT yield
depends considerably on the crude mix fed to
the atmospheric distillation unit. The heavier the
crude oil mixture fed, the higher the RAT yield.
RAT is then fed to a vacuum distillation unit,
where is produced a vacuum distillate stream,
a vacuum gas oil (VGO) and a vacuum residue
(RV) stream. RV has high viscosity, which
decreases its commercial value. Therefore, RV
is fed to a visbreaking unit.
The main purpose of visbreaking unit (VB) is
to convert heavy, high viscosity feedstocks, like
RV, to lower viscosity products suitable for use
in fuel oil. This reduction is obtained by
decomposing heavy molecules into lighter
molecules through thermal cracking reactions.
Since VB operates at low conversions (low
extensions of thermal cracking reactions), its
main product is visbreaker residue (RVB), with
a yield of about 80-90%wt. Another benefit from
the visbreaking operation is the production of
gas, naphta and gas oil (GOVB) streams that
usually have higher product values than RVB
[3].
Sines refinery has a soaker visbreaker,
where the bulk of the cracking reactions occurs
not in the furnace but in a soaker drum
downstream the furnace. In the soaker drum
the heated feedstock is held at high
temperature for a predetermined period of time
allowing cracking to occur. Then soaker effluent
goes to a fractionator column where RVB is
separated from lighter fractions [3].
2.2 Process Reactions
Thermal cracking is the decomposition of
hydrocarbons at elevated temperatures,
resulting in the formation of lower molecular
weight products and is a first-order reaction [4].
𝑣 =𝑘∙𝑐 (1)
𝑎 3.1
− ln ( )=𝑘∙𝑡 (2)
𝑎−𝑥
During thermal cracking, the saturated
(paraffinic) compounds are transformed into
saturated compounds of lower molecular
weight. In high severity conditions (high
temperature) polymerization reactions are
favored leading to resins and asphaltenes
cracking and to coke formation.
2.3 Operating Conditions
The extent of cracking reactions, i.e. GOVB
conversion, and RV visbreaking are controlled
by the severity of the unit. The visbreaker
severity depends on the operating temperature
and residence time.
Variations in feedstock quality will have
impact in the conversion level obtained at a
given severity [5]. Thus, the visbrekaer
operations severity is generally limited by the
visbroken product stability.
3 RVB Stability
A fuel is stable if there is no asphaltenes
flocculation. On the other hand, instability may
be irreversible, i.e. precipitated asphaltenes
may not be re-dissolved [6]. To ensure fuel oil
stability it is necessary that RVB is also stable.
Generally, cutter stocks are paraffinic (gasoil
and kerosene) and, therefore, RVB stability
degree must be high enough to prevent
asphaltene flocculation during blending with
cutter stocks. RVB stability is controlled by
performing a peptizing-value (p-value) test [7].
The p-value provides the peptization state of
the asphaltenes in residues. A residue is then
considered stable for a p-value greater than
1.2. The p-value is obtained by adding cetane
(paraffinic compound, once paraffins flocculate
the asphaltenes) to the sample under study
until the asphaltenes begin to flocculate. This
property is determined by equation (1), where
Xmin is the critical dilution in cetane, i.e. the
amount of cetane (ml) that can dilute 1g of the
sample until asphaltenes flocculation begin.
This method has a high repeatability, about
0.07 [7].
𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑜𝑟 − 𝑝 = 1 + 𝑋𝑚𝑖𝑛 (3)
There are methods of evaluating the stability
of fuel using other solvents. However, the
p-value is a widely used stability indicator and
is also used in Galp refineries.
Asphaltenes
Asphaltenes are defined as the insoluble
fraction in n-heptane and soluble in toluene and
represent the heavier and more complex
fraction of crude oil [8] [9]. Asphaltenes are high
polarity compounds composed by a very
condensed aromatic and naphthenic structure.
Asphaltenes present short paraffinic side
chains and also heteroatoms, such as sulfur,
nitrogen, oxygen and metals. The large number
of aromatic rings gives to asphaltenes a flat
structure [10].
2
 4 Visbreaker Unit Simulation Model
In this work it was developed a rigorous
simulation model of the VB unit in Petro-Sim ™
software, version 7.0.
The visbreaker simulation model currently
used by Galp is a simple planning model that
calculates yields and product properties
according to the average reality of the unit's
operating cycle. This model does not predict the
RVB stability produced.
For the VB unit simulation model,
Petro-Sim ™ has VIS-SIM ™ technology that
simulates the thermal cracking, based on
reaction kinetics.
4.1 Maximum Visbreaker Conversion
Maximum Visbreaker Conversion (MVC), is
a feedstock characterization parameter and
depends on the asphaltene content and the
nature of the feedstock (aromatic or paraffinic).
The MVC is defined as the conversion at which
a visbroken residue is produced at the stability
limit (ABN = 46, p-value = 1.15). Conversions
above the MVC value do not guarantee a stable
RVB. Petro-Sim™ allows the calculation of this
property using two methods: KBC method 1985
(KBC 1985) and KBC method 2005 (KBC
2005).
By the KBC 1985 method the Petro-Sim™
model calculates the MVC taking into account
RV asphaltenes content and unit feed BMCI
(Bureau of Mines Correlation Index – fuel
aromaticity indicator [11]).
KBC 2005 is a more accurate method that
takes into account RV asphaltenes and wax
contents.
4.2 Severity
Petro-Sim™ calculates severity using the
equation ( 4 ).
𝐺𝑂𝑉𝐵 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑆𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 = (4)
𝑀𝑉𝐶
The RVB stability is ensured if severity value
is less than 100%.
4.3 P-Value
Petro-Sim ™ calculates the p-value based
on the ABN (Aromatic Blending
Number wich is a fuel aromaticity and stability
indicator [12]) value. P-value is given through
equation ( 5 ).
𝐴𝐵𝑁
𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑜𝑟 − 𝑝 = (5)
40
4.4 Simulation Model Construction
and Calibration
The construction of VB unit simulation model
requires real unit design and operation data.
The objective of calibration is to ensure that
model represents the real unit performance in
terms of yields and product properties. In
calibration the model automatically calculates a
set of calibration factors to achieve the best
match between the predicted properties values
and the real properties values.
In order to ensure that the simulation model
mimics reality, the data used for calibration
should be representative of the visbreaking
operation.
The data required for model calibration are
real operating conditions, product yields and
feed and products characterization in terms of
density, viscosity, distillation curve, sulfur
content, RVB p-value, wax and asphaltene
content in the feed stream. These data are
obtained through laboratory analyzes of
samples collected directly from the unit running
in a steady state.
The days selected were November 11, 2017
(calibration 11), March 1, 2018 (calibration 1),
and March 8, 2018 (calibration 8). In calibration
procedure it was used the three data sets
corresponding to the three different operating
days.
In order to choose the calibration that best
represents the unit real performance,
predictions of the three days were made using
each one of the three calibrations.
5 Linear Programming Model
The LP model is a fundamental tool in
planning refining activity. The LP model
determines monthly the refineries production,
the raw materials to be processed and the
operating conditions of the process units that
allow the optimization of the refining margin.
The LP model is also used by Galp to carry out
economic studies and to plan annual budgets.
Galp’s LP model uses the software GRTPMS
(Generalized Refining Transportation
Marketing Planning System).
5.1 Delta-Base Structure
The implementation of VB unit model
simulation data in the LP model is performed
through a delta-base structure. The delta-base
structure determines the impact that linear
variations on feedstock properties have on a
given product property or yield. Thus, linear
variations (deltas) are applied to feedstock
properties and operating conditions (vectors)
3
and the effect of these variations on the 12
performance of the unit is observed.

GOVB Yield (%wt)

10
It is required to do a sensitivity analysis in
order to select the vectors, i.e. the feedstock 8
properties and operation conditions, that affect 6
the most the VB unit performance. In this 4
analysis, deltas are defined to ensure that they 11-11-2018 01-03-2018 08-03-2018
represent linear impacts on products yields and
properties. Calib11 Calib1 Calib8 Real
A case, that corresponds to a feedstock and
products yields and properties is then defined. Figure 2 – Prediction of visbreaker gasoil yield
This case has to be representative of the VB with each of the three calibrations using the
maximum visbreaker conversion calculation method
unit operation. Deltas are applied to each vector
KBC 1985.
of this case, which produce a linear impact on
the yields and properties of the products. The
case chosen will serve as the basis for the 1.04
implementation of the delta base structure.

RVB Specific Gravity

The impacts that deltas caused in each 1.02
vector on the properties and yields of the 1.00

(g/cm3)
products of the process unit are generated in
0.98
the simulation model in Petro-Sim™ using the
Linear Programming Utility (LPU) tool and are 0.96
exported to a delta-base template file which will 11-11-2018 01-03-2018 08-03-2018
be provided to LP. Calib11 Calib1 Calib8 Real

5.2 MRL Predictions Figure 3 – Prediction of visbreaker residue

In order to evaluate the delta-base, that will specific gravity with each of the three calibrations
be implemented in LP, model a linear using the maximum visbreaker conversion
representation model (MRL) is developed in calculation method KBC 1985.
Excel using the data generated by LPU.
0.850
6 Results 0.840
Gravity (g/cm3)
GOVB Specific

6.1 KBC 1985 Method 0.830

6.1.1 Calibration Results 0.820
Figure 1 to Figure 7 compare the real yields
0.810
and properties with predicted results for each
11-11-2018 01-03-2018 08-03-2018
model calibration corresponding to the three
different days (November 11, March 1 and 8). Calib11 Calib1 Calib8 Real

Figure 4 – Prediction of visbreaker gasoil

95 specific gravity with each of the three calibrations
RVB Yield (%wt)

using the maximum visbreaker conversion

90 calculation method KBC 1985.
85

80 400
RVB Viscosity 100oC

11-11-2018 01-03-2018 08-03-2018 300

Calib11 Calib1 Calib8 Real 200

(cSt)

Figure 1 – Prediction of visbreaker residue yield 100

with each of the three calibrations using the 0
maximum visbreaker conversion calculation method 11-11-2018 01-03-2018 08-03-2018
KBC 1985.
Calib11 Calib1 Calib8 Real

Figure 5 – Prediction of visbreaker residue

viscosity 100 with each of the three calibrations
using the maximum visbreaker conversion
calculation method KBC 1985.

4
 1.8 model and the rigorous simulation model
developed in this work.
RVB P-Value
1.6
1.4 92

RVB Yield (%wt)

1.2 90
88
1.0
86
11-11-2018 01-03-2018 08-03-2018
84
Calib11 Calib1 Calib8 Real
82
Figure 6 – Prediction of visbreaker residue
p-value with each of the three calibrations using the
maximum visbreaker conversion calculation method
KBC 1985.
Actual Prediction Real
Figure 8 – Prediction of visbreaker residue yield
30 for different days of operation with the actual model
and with the new model using the maximum
Isoconversion (%wt)

20 visbreaker conversion calculation method KBC

1985.
10

0 12
11-11-2018 01-03-2018 08-03-2018 GOVB Yield (%wt)
10
Calib11 Calib1 Calib8 Real
8

Figure 7 – Prediction of isoconversion with 6

each of the three calibrations using the maximum
visbreaker conversion calculation method KBC
1985.

Actual Prediction Real

As can be seen from the results presented Figure 9 – Prediction of visbreaker gasoil yield
above, calibration 8 presents prediction values for different days of operation with the actual model
with the greatest deviation from reality. and with the new model using the maximum
Calibrations 1 and 11 present good visbreaker conversion calculation method KBC
predictions with similar deviations, 1985.
comparatively to the reality. However, on
11-11-2017 is processed a crude mix with
Isthmus crude oil, which has a high asphaltenes 1.05
1.04
RVB Specific Gravity

content. Therefore, in order to produce a stable

RVB, the VB unit has to operate with a severity 1.03
lower than usual. As this is a less typical 1.02
(g/cm3)

situation, the calibration factors selected 1.01

correspond to calibration 1 since in this day it 1.00
0.99
was processed a more common crude mix.

6.1.2 Crude Mix Predictions

In order to validate the model, it is important
to check model performance, not only from real Actual Prediction Real
RV characterized in the lab, but also when
processing VB unit feed obtained through Figure 10 – Prediction of visbreaker residue
specific gravity for different days of operation with
simulation of the crude mix. These feedstocks
the actual model and with the new model using the
are obtained simulating RAT and RV streams maximum visbreaker conversion calculation method
from crude assays fed to simulation models. KBC 1985.
The LP model works this way.
Figure 8 to Figure 14 present the real and
predicted yields and product properties. All
figures show the prediction using the actual

5
 0.85 25

Isoconversion (%wt)
23
GOVB Specific Gravity
0.84
21
0.83
19
(g/cm3)

0.82 17
0.81 15

Actual Prediction Real

Actual Prediction Real
Figure 14 – Prediction of isoconversion for
Figure 11 – Prediction of visbreaker gasoil
different days of operation with the actual model
specific gravity for different days of operation with
and with the new model using the maximum
the actual model and with the new model using the
visbreaker conversion calculation method KBC
maximum visbreaker conversion calculation method
1985.
KBC 1985.

By analyzing the predictions from the crude

600
mix it is possible to verify that the new
RVB Viscosity 100oC

400 simulation model built presents much more

rigorous predictions than the current model,
200 mainly for the yields and isoconversion, i.e. the
(cSt)

new simulation model is sensitive to the

0 feedstock load to the unit. The new model is
also able to predict the stability of RVB, which
is crucial for the production of VLSFO.

Actual Prediction Real 6.1.3 MRL predictions

The implementation of Petro-Sim™
Figure 12 – Prediction of visbreaker residue simulation model in LP model was validated
viscosity 100C for different days of operation with using MRL.
the actual model and with the new model using the Figure 15 to Figure 20 compare the MRL
maximum visbreaker conversion calculation method predictions with the simulation model
KBC 1985. predictions in Petro-Sim™. The figures present
yields and product properties predictions and
real values.
1.7 92
RVB Yield (%wt)
RVB P-Value

1.5 90
1.3 88
86
1.1
84
0.9 82

Actual Prediction Real PS Prediction MRL Real

Figure 13 – Prediction of visbreaker residue p-
value for different days of operation with the actual
model and with the new model using the maximum
visbreaker conversion calculation method KBC
1985.
Figure 15 – Prediction of visbreaker residue
yield by Petro-Sim™ model and MRL for different
days of operation using the maximum visbreaker
conversion calculation method KBC 1985.

6
 12 1.7
GOVB Yield (%wt) 10 1.5

RVB P-Value
1.3
8
1.1
6
0.9

PS Prediction MRL Real

Figure 16 – Prediction of visbreaker gasoil yield
by Petro-Sim™ model and MRL for different days of
operation using the maximum visbreaker
conversion calculation method KBC 1985.
PS Prediction MRL Real
Figure 19 – Prediction of visbreaker residue
p-value by Petro-Sim™ model and MRL for different
days of operation using the maximum visbreaker
conversion calculation method KBC 1985.

1.06
RVB Specific Gravity

600
1.04

RVB Viscosity 100oC (cSt)

500
1.02 400
(g/cm3)

300
1.00
200
0.98 100
0

PS Prediction MRL Real

PS Prediction MRL Real
Figure 17 – Prediction of visbreaker residue
specific gravity by Petro-Sim™ model and MRL for Figure 20 – Prediction of visbreaker residue
different days of operation using the maximum viscosity 100C by Petro-Sim™ model and MRL for
visbreaker conversion calculation method KBC different days of operation using the maximum
1985. visbreaker conversion calculation method KBC
1985.

0.85
GOVB Specific Gravity

The developed MRL allows to obtain results

0.84 very similar to those obtained in the simulation
model built in Petro-Sim™. As can be seen
(g/cm3)

0.83 above, the predictions by the MRL and the

Petro-Sim™ model are practically coincident.
0.82 These results validate the vectors, bases and
deltas chosen.

6.2 KBC 2005 Method

PS Prediction MRL
Figure 18 – Prediction of visbreaker gasoil
specific gravity by Petro-Sim™ model and MRL for
different days of operation using the maximum
visbreaker conversion calculation method KBC
1985.
Real According to KBC, the most recent method,
KBC 2005, is more accurate than KBC 1985
method. In order to evaluate if the KBC 2005
method leads to RVB stability with greater
adherence to reality, a model was solved using
this method.

6.2.1 Real Data Predictions

Figure 21 compares the real RVB p-value
with RVB p-value predicted using KBC methods
1985 and 2005.

7
 1.8
1.6
RVB P-Value
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
11-11-2017 01-03-2018 08-03-2018
KBC 2005 Prediction KBC 1985 Prediction Real
Figure 21 – Prediction of visbreaker residue
p-value using laboratory analysis data as input
using the two maximum visbreaker conversion
calculation methods KBC 1985 and 2005.
This figure shows that predictions using KBC
2005 method present lower deviations from real
values than predictions using KBC 1985
Regarding the RVB p-value, the model
solved using the KBC 2005 method, shows
predictions with a greater amplitude of values
that better mimic the real values trend. These
predictions show a slight improvement
compared to the predictions made with the KBC
1985 method.
6.2.3 MRL Predictions
The implementation of the simulation model
using KBC 2005 method in LP model was
studied using an MRL.
Figure 23 to Figure 28 compare the MRL
predictions with the simulation model
predictions in Petro-Sim™, when using KBC
2005 method. The figures present yields and
product properties predictions and real values.
92

RVB Yield (%wt)

method. This shows that using KBC 2005 90
method the predictions are more accurate. 88
In what concerns to yields and other product 86
properties the VB unit simulation model results 84
with the two methods are very similar. 82

6.2.2 Crude Mix Predictions

In order to verify the performance of the
model using the calculation method KBC 2005,
predictions were made from the crude mix,
using crude assays, as it was done for the
model with the KBC 1985 method.
Figure 22 present the real and predicted
yields and product properties. The figure shows
the prediction using KBC 1985 and 2005
methods.
PS KBC 2005 MRL KBC 2005
Real
Figure 23 – Prediction of visbreaker residue
yield by Petro-Sim™ model and MRL for different
days of operation using the maximum visbreaker
conversion calculation method KBC 2005.

1.6
1.5 12
RVB P-Value

GOVB Yield (%wt)

1.4 11
1.3 10
1.2 9
1.1 8
1.0 7
6

KBC 2005 KBC 1985 Real

PS KBC 2005 MRL KBC 2005
Figure 22 – Prediction of visbreaker residue
Real
p-value from crude mix using the two maximum
visbreaker conversion calculation methods KBC
Figure 24 – Prediction of visbreaker gasoil yield
1985 and 2005.
by Petro-Sim™ model and MRL for different days of
operation using the maximum visbreaker
conversion calculation method KBC 2005..
Like it was observed with real data
predictions, the crude mix predictions using the
two MVC calculation methods are very similar
too with respect to yields and properties.

8
 RVB Viscosity 100oC (cSt)
1.08 1000

RVB Specific Gravity (g/cm3)

1.06 800
1.04 600
1.02
1.00 400
0.98 200
0.96 0

PS KBC 2005 MRL KBC 2005 PS KBC 2005 MRL KBC 2005
Real Real

Figure 25 – Prediction of visbreaker residue Figure 28 – Prediction of visbreaker residue

specific gravity by Petro-Sim™ model and MRL for viscosity 100C by Petro-Sim™ model and MRL for
different days of operation using the maximum different days of operation using the maximum
visbreaker conversion calculation method KBC visbreaker conversion calculation method KBC
2005. 2005.

0.850 With the simulation model built with the KBC

GOVB Specific Gravity (g/cm3)

2005 calculation method, the MRL developed

0.840 can mimic the behavior of the model in Petro-
-Sim™ when predicting the actual performance
0.830 of the VB unit.
Therefore it is possible to state that the delta-
0.820 -base structure developed using the KBC 2005
method would present good results when
implemented in the LP model, achieving a good
optimization in the crudes selection for the
production of VLSFO.
PS KBC 2005 MRL KBC 2005
Real

Figure 26 – Prediction of visbreaker gasoil 7 Conclusions

specific gravity by Petro-Sim™ model and MRL for
different days of operation using the maximum
visbreaker conversion calculation method KBC The simulation model of the VB unit with the
2005. KBC method 1985 presents a very good
prediction of the reality with respect to yields
and product properties. The predicted
performance is highly dependent on the
1.7 feedstock quality. Regarding the RVB stability
the p-value predictions present a good
RVB P-Value

1.5
adherence to the real values meaning that the
1.3 new simulation model is able to predict RVB
1.1 stability which is crucial for VLSFO production.
It should be noted that the stability prediction is
0.9
not ensured by the simulation model that Galp
currently use. The new simulation model
corresponds to a great improvement in the Galp
simulation models as a whole.
The simulation model predictions using KBC
PS KBC 2005 MRL KBC 2005 2005 method are very similar to those obtained
Real by the simulation model using the KBC method
1985. The MVC values obtained by the
Figure 27 – Prediction of visbreaker residue p- simulation model when using the KBC 2005
value by Petro-Sim™ model and MRL for different method are in a wider range than the values
days of operation using the maximum visbreaker
obtained by the KBC method 1985. This is also
conversion calculation method KBC 2005.
observed in p-value predictions of the
simulation model with the KBC 2005 method. In

9
contrast to KBC 1985, the p-value predictions
with the KBC 2005 method are more dependent
on the feedstock quality. This method presents
an improvement in the p-value prediction
comparatively to the old method.
In this work it was carried out the
development of a delta-base structure, in order
to provide the simulation data to the LP model.
The representation of the delta-base structure
in the VB unit is pioneering in Galp.
To generate the delta-base representation,
was used the Linear Programming Utility of the
Petro-Sim™ software to obtain the impacts that
variations in the feedstock properties have on
given products properties. This is the
information required to implement the
simulation model in the LP model.
The delta-base structure was validated using
the linear representation model that allows the
evaluation of the new VB unit representation in
the Galp LP model. Both linear representation
models, constructed from the simulation model
with the KBC1985 method and with KBC 2005,
are robust and reproduce with very low
deviations the simulation model predictions.
The delta-base structure constructed for the
implementation of the simulation model in the
LP model is validated and is representative of
reality, being sufficiently robust to be
implemented in the LP model. This allows to
perform good optimizations in the selection of
crudes for the production of VLSFO.
The simulation model of the VB unit with the
KBC 2005 method makes good predictions of
yields and product properties and its delta-base
representation will be implemented in the PL
model.
[6] A. Breneol, "Marine Fuel Stability
and Compatibility - Issues, Tests and
Management".
[7] Shell Global Solutions International
B.V., "SMS 1600-01 - Determination of
State of Peptization of Asphaltenes in
Heavy Oil Streams," 2001.
[8] E. Y. Sheu and D. A. Storm,
Asphaltenes - Fundamentals ans
Applications, New York: Plenum Press,
1995.
[9] A. Pina, P. Mougin and E. Behar,
"Characterisation of Asphaltenes and
Modelling of Flocculation – State of the
Art," Oil & Gas Science and
Technology – Rev. IFP, vol. 61, no. 3,
pp. 319-343, 2006.
[10] H. Groenzin and O. C. Mullins,
"Molecular Size and Structure of
Asphaltenes," Petroleum Science nd
Technology, vol. 19, no. 1-2, pp. 219-
230, 2001.
[11] J. H. Gary, G. E. Handwerk and M.
J. Kaiser, Petroleum Refining -
Technology and Economics, CRC
Press, 2007.
[12] KBC Andvanced Technologies Ltd,
Petro-Sim Help.

References

[1] IMO, "Sulphur 2020 – cutting sulphur

oxide emissions," [Online]. Available:
http://www.imo.org. [Accessed Fev
2019].
[2] D. S. J. Jones and P. P. Pujadó,
Handbook of Petroleum Processing,
Springer, 2006.
[3] J. G. Speight, Handbook of
Petroleum Refining, CRC Press, 2017.
[4] J. Singh, S. Kumar and M. O. Garg,
"Kinetic Modelling of Thermal Cracking
of Petroleum Residues: A Critique,"
Fuel Processing Technology, vol. 94,
pp. 131-144, 2012.
[5] Encyclopaedia of Hydrocarbons, vol.
II/Refining and Petrochemicals, Istituto
della Enciclopedia Italiana, 2005.

10