Simulation and Evaluation of Hydro-processing for Jet Fuel Quality Improvement Using Aspen HYSYS: A Case Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59992/IJSR.2026.v5n3p9Keywords:
Thiophene, Feed-Stream, Aspen HYSYS, Component Lists, Plug Flow ReactorAbstract
This study focuses on improving jet fuel quality by removing sulfur compounds, represented by the Thiophene compound, and enhancing its physical and chemical properties using thermal treatment, based on simulation. The Plug Flow Reactor (PFR) was operated at 400 °C and 2500 kPa to treat the feedstock, targeting the removal of Thiophene as the primary sulfur compound. The sulfur content decreased from 7.0 xi in the initial mixture (Feed-Stream) to approximately 0.0085 xi in the product stream (Treated-Feed) after treatment by HDS-Reactor, this achieves a removal efficiency of approximately 98.79%. After the reactor, the three-phase separation unit was operated at a temperature of 145.3 °C and a pressure of 897.7 kPa, where it successfully transferred most of the H₂S (0.0716 xi) produced by the desulfurization process to the gas phase, reducing its concentration in the liquid hydrocarbon phase (Final-Product) to about 0.0080 xi , which greatly reduced the solubility of acid gases in the final product. On the other hand, a mixing unit was also applied to add performance-enhancing materials, namely C2=GC4EthrAc and 1-Dodecanol. These additions contributed to improving density, viscosity, and freezing point without affecting the basic hydrocarbon structure. The final analysis results showed that most of the properties met the requirements of ASTM D1655 specifications for jet fuel, with a density of 740.5 kg/m³, a viscosity reduced to 0.56 cP, and the fuel's low heat value (LHV) was approximately 43,640 kJ/kg, while its high heat value (HHV) was approximately 46,464 kJ/kg. Therefore, these results show an effective methodology for producing high-quality jet fuel the process to meet international specifications.
References
M. H. Benissad and F. Gasmi Aymane, “Theoretical study on the hydrocracking of heavy distillates and simulation using HYSYS software.” UNIVERSITE KASDI MERBAH OUARGLA, 2021.
2. J. Ahmadpour, M. Ahmadi, and A. Javdani, “Hydrodesulfurization unit for natural gas condensate: Simulation based on Aspen Plus software,” J. Therm. Anal. Calorim., vol. 135, no. 3, pp. 1943–1949, 2019.
3. R. Nwaobi, “Oil Refinery Using Catalytic Reforming Unit.” Сибирский федеральный университет, 2021.
4. S. Bilal et al., “Simulation of hydrodesulphurization (HDS) unit of Kaduna refining and petrochemical company limited,” Chem Process Eng Res, vol. 13, pp. 29–35, 2013.
5. A. H. Bhatt et al., “Evaluation of performance variables to accelerate the deployment of sustainable aviation fuels at a regional scale,” Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 275, p. 116441, 2023.
6. W. Bonicontro Ambrosio, B. Araújo de Sousa, J. Marcos Kanieski, P. Marchiorie, and G. Mockaitis, “Sustainable Aviation Fuels: Opportunities, Alternatives and Challenges for Decarbonizing the Aviation Industry and Foster the Renewable Chemicals,” arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv-2504, 2025.
7. S. Boichenko, O. Bavykin, A. Artyukhov, S. Bogacki, M. Rutkowski, and D. Reśko, “Progress and Prospects of Sustainable Aviation Fuel Implementation: A Critical Analysis, Challenges and Conclusions,” Energies, vol. 18, no. 12, p. 3154, 2025.
8. B. Yao et al., “Transforming carbon dioxide into jet fuel using an organic combustion-synthesized Fe-Mn-K catalyst,” Nat. Commun., vol. 11, no. 1, p. 6395, 2020.
9. S. Ahmed et al., “Evaluation of MgO as a promoter for the hydrogenation of CO2 to long-chain hydrocarbons over Fe-based catalysts,” Appl. Catal. B Environ., vol. 338, p. 123052, 2023.
10. S. Mitsuoka et al., “Production of sustainable aviation fuel by hydrocracking of n-heptadecane using Pt-supported Y-zeolite-Al2O3 composite catalysts,” ACS omega, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 3669–3674, 2024.
11. P. Lahijani, M. Mohammadi, A. R. Mohamed, F. Ismail, K. T. Lee, and G. Amini, “Upgrading biomass-derived pyrolysis bio-oil to bio-jet fuel through catalytic cracking and hydrodeoxygenation: A review of recent progress,” Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 268, p. 115956, 2022.
12. H. M. Nguyen, A. Omidkar, W. Li, Z. Li, and H. Song, “Non-thermal plasma catalysis driven sustainable pyrolysis oil upgrading to jet fuel under near-ambient conditions,” EES Catal., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 647–663, 2024.
13. P. Nurlilasari, “Comprehensive Review of Process Simulation to Industrial Applications and Sustainability Integration,” Indones. J. Econ. Business, Accounting, Manag., vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 36–46, 2025.
14. S. Dell’Aversano, C. Villante, K. Gallucci, G. Vanga, and A. Di Giuliano, “E-fuels: a comprehensive review of the most promising technological alternatives towards an energy transition,” Energies, vol. 17, no. 16, p. 3995, 2024.
15. M. T. Nechita, G. D. Suditu, A. C. Puițel, and E. N. Drăgoi, “Residence time distribution: literature survey, functions, mathematical modeling, and case study—diagnosis for a photochemical reactor,” Processes, vol. 11, no. 12, p. 3420, 2023.
16. E. N. Aytaş and A. V. Akkaya, “Examination of Condensation Liquid Formation in Istanbul Natural Gas Distribution Network,” Separations, vol. 10, no. 2, p. 135, 2023.
