Hubbry Logo
Steam crackingSteam crackingMain
Open search
Steam cracking
Community hub
Steam cracking
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Steam cracking
Steam cracking
Steam cracking
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Steamcracker II at the BASF site in Ludwigshafen, Germany

Steam cracking is a petrochemical process in which saturated hydrocarbons are broken down into smaller, often unsaturated, hydrocarbons. It is the principal industrial method for producing the lighter alkenes (or commonly olefins), including ethene (or ethylene) and propene (or propylene). Steam cracker units are facilities in which a feedstock such as naphtha, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), ethane, propane or butane is thermally cracked through the use of steam in steam cracking furnaces to produce lighter hydrocarbons. The propane dehydrogenation process may be accomplished through different commercial technologies. The main differences between each of them concerns the catalyst employed, design of the reactor and strategies to achieve higher conversion rates.[1]

Olefins are useful precursors to myriad products. Steam cracking is the core technology that supports the largest scale chemical processes, i.e. ethylene and propylene.[2]

Process description

[edit]
Steam cracker process diagram
Gibbs free energy per carbon atom. This shows that at high temperature, hexane can split into ethane and ethylene ("Ethen"), and ethane can split into ethylene and hydrogen. But ethylene can decompose into methane and carbon if given too much time, and all the hydrocarbons can decompose into carbon and hydrogen.

General

[edit]

In steam cracking, a gaseous or liquid hydrocarbon feed like naphtha, liquified petroleum gas (LPG), or ethane is mixed with very hot steam and briefly heated in a furnace in the absence of oxygen.[3] The reaction temperature is very high, at around 850 °C. This causes the hydrocarbons to break up into smaller molecules such as small olefins and hydrogen. The reaction occurs rapidly: the residence time is on the order of milliseconds. Flow rates approach the speed of sound. After the cracking temperature has been reached, the gas is quickly quenched in a transfer line heat exchanger or inside a "quenching header" using quench oil in order to prevent further reactions such as decomposing into carbon and hydrogen..[2]

The products produced in the reaction depend on the composition of the feed, the hydrocarbon-to-steam ratio, and on the cracking temperature and furnace residence time. Light hydrocarbon feeds such as ethane, LPGs, or light naphtha give mainly lighter alkenes, including ethylene, propylene, and butadiene. Heavier hydrocarbon (full range and heavy naphthas as well as other refinery products) feeds give some of these same products, but also those rich in aromatic hydrocarbons and hydrocarbons suitable for inclusion in gasoline or fuel oil.[citation needed]

A higher cracking temperature (also referred to as severity) favors the production of ethene and benzene, whereas lower severity produces higher amounts of propene, C4-hydrocarbons and liquid products. The process also results in the slow deposition of coke, a form of carbon, on the reactor walls. This degrades the efficiency of the reactor, so reaction conditions are designed to minimize this. Nonetheless, a steam cracking furnace can usually only run for a few months at a time between de-cokings. Decokes require the furnace to be isolated from the process and then a flow of steam or a steam/air mixture is passed through the furnace coils. This converts the hard solid carbon layer to carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. Once this reaction is complete, the furnace can be returned to service.[citation needed]

Process details

[edit]
Ludwigshafen steamcracker at night

The areas of an ethylene plant are:

  1. steam cracking furnaces:
  2. primary and secondary heat recovery with quench;
  3. a dilution steam recycle system between the furnaces and the quench system;
  4. primary compression of the cracked gas (3 stages of compression);
  5. hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide removal (acid gas removal);
  6. secondary compression (1 or 2 stages);
  7. drying of the cracked gas;
  8. cryogenic treatment;
  9. all of the cold cracked gas stream goes to the demethanizer tower. The overhead stream from the demethanizer tower consists of all the hydrogen and methane that was in the cracked gas stream. Cryogenically (−250 °F (−157 °C)) treating this overhead stream separates hydrogen from methane. Methane recovery is critical to the economical operation of an ethylene plant.
  10. the bottom stream from the demethanizer tower goes to the deethanizer tower. The overhead stream from the deethanizer tower consists of all the C2's that were in the cracked gas stream. The C2 stream contains acetylene, which is explosive above 200 kPa (29 psi). If the partial pressure of acetylene is expected to exceed these values, the C2 stream is partially hydrogenated. The C2's then proceed to a C2 splitter. The product ethylene is taken from the overhead of the tower and the ethane coming from the bottom of the splitter is recycled to the furnaces to be cracked again;
  11. the bottom stream from the de-ethanizer tower goes to the depropanizer tower. The overhead stream from the depropanizer tower consists of all the C3's that were in the cracked gas stream. Before feeding the C3's to the C3 splitter, the stream is hydrogenated to convert the methylacetylene and propadiene (allene) mix. This stream is then sent to the C3 splitter. The overhead stream from the C3 splitter is product propylene and the bottom stream is propane which is sent back to the furnaces for cracking or used as fuel.
  12. The bottom stream from the depropanizer tower is fed to the debutanizer tower. The overhead stream from the debutanizer is all of the C4's that were in the cracked gas stream. The bottom stream from the debutanizer (light pyrolysis gasoline) consists of everything in the cracked gas stream that is C5 or heavier.

Since ethylene production is energy intensive, much effort has been dedicated to recovering heat from the gas leaving the furnaces. Most of the energy recovered from the cracked gas is used to make high pressure (1200 psig (8300 kPa)) steam. This steam is in turn used to drive the turbines for compressing cracked gas, the propylene refrigeration compressor, and the ethylene refrigeration compressor. An ethylene plant, once running, does not need to import steam to drive its steam turbines. A typical world scale ethylene plant (about 1.5 billion pounds (680 KTA) of ethylene per year) uses a 45,000 horsepower (34,000 kW) cracked gas compressor, a 30,000 hp (22,000 kW) propylene compressor, and a 15,000 hp (11,000 kW) ethylene compressor.

Even though the thorough energy integration within a steam cracking plant, this process produces an unsurmountable amount of carbon dioxide. Per tonne of ethylene, 1–1.6 tonne of carbon dioxide (depending on the feedstock) is being produced.[4] Resulting in a staggering amount of more than 300 million tonnes of carbon dioxide that is annually emitted into the atmosphere of which 70–90% is directly attributed to the combustion of fossil fuel. In the last few decades, several advances in steam cracking technology have been implemented to increase its energy efficiency. These changes include oxy-fuel combustion, new burner technology, and 3D reactor geometries.[4] However, as is common within mature technologies these changes only led to marginal gains in energy efficiency. To drastically curb the greenhouse gas emission of steam cracking, electrification does offer a solution as renewable electricity can be directly transformed into heat by, for example, resistive and inductive heating.[4] As a result, several petrochemical companies joined forces resulting in the development of several joint agreements in which they combine R&D efforts to investigate how naphtha or gas steam crackers could be operated using renewable electricity instead of fossil fuel combustion.[5][6]

Steam cracking furnaces licensors

[edit]

Several proprietary designs are available under a license that must be purchased from the design developer by any petroleum refining company desiring to construct and operate a Steam Cracking unit of a given design.

These are the major steam cracking furnaces designers and licensors:

See also

[edit]

Notes and references

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Steam cracking

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Steam cracking is a high-temperature process used in the to convert saturated feedstocks, such as , , or , into lighter unsaturated hydrocarbons, primarily and , by mixing the feed with and heating it to 800–870°C in tubular furnaces. The process relies on free radical mechanisms initiated by thermal energy, where serves to dilute the hydrocarbons, reduce partial pressure, and inhibit coke formation on reactor walls, enabling short residence times of seconds to minimize secondary reactions. Following cracking, the effluent gas is rapidly quenched and separated into valuable olefins and byproducts like , , and aromatics through compression, cooling, and . As the dominant industrial method for olefin production, steam cracking accounts for the majority of global supply, underpinning the manufacture of , , and numerous downstream chemicals essential to plastics, fibers, and synthetic rubbers. Developed in the mid-20th century, the has evolved through furnace design improvements, advanced coil materials resistant to carburization, and optimizations to increase capacity and yield, with modern plants capable of processing thousands of tons of feedstock daily. Key challenges include managing coke deposition, which necessitates periodic decoking via steam-air , and energy-intensive operations, though innovations in feedstock flexibility and heat recovery continue to enhance efficiency. Despite its maturity, steam cracking remains central to the sector, with ongoing research focused on reducing carbon intensity through alternative feeds and .

History

Origins and Early Development

Thermal cracking processes, precursors to steam cracking, emerged in the early to convert heavy fractions into lighter products like . The Burton process, developed by William Merriam Burton and patented in January 1913, represented one of the earliest commercial thermal cracking methods, operating at temperatures of 370–400 °C and pressures of 70–100 psi to break down residuum and gas oils. This technique doubled yields compared to alone but produced significant coke, limiting its efficiency for high-temperature applications. A pivotal advancement occurred in 1921 when C.P. Dubbs, working for Universal Oil Products Company, incorporated dilution into thermal cracking, enabling operations at higher temperatures (up to 650–700 °C) while mitigating coke formation through reduced partial pressure and enhanced . Dubbs' "clean circulation" process, patented that year, facilitated continuous operation and higher throughput, initially applied to gasoline production but establishing the core principles of steam-assisted that would underpin olefin manufacture. In parallel, the petrochemical focus shifted toward olefins like . Corporation pioneered industrial-scale production in the early 1920s by thermally cracking separated from , with the first commercial plant operational by 1920 and the dedicated cracking facility at Clendenin, , completed in summer 1921. Led by researchers including George O. Curme, this process targeted for emerging applications in solvents and polymers, adapting cracking techniques to lighter feeds and foreshadowing steam's role in optimizing yields at severe conditions. Early yields were modest, constrained by furnace design and separation challenges, but these developments marked the transition from fuel-oriented cracking to chemical feedstock production.

Commercial Expansion and Refinements

The first commercial steam cracking plants for large-scale production became operational in the early 1940s, marking the transition from laboratory-scale thermal cracking to industrial application. This development built on prior cracking methods from the early , extending the process to liquid hydrocarbon feeds like under steam dilution to minimize and maximize olefin yields. Post-World War II economic recovery and the explosive growth of the plastics sector propelled rapid commercial expansion, with ethylene demand surging for production in , , and consumer goods. By the mid-1950s, worldwide ethylene capacity from steam cracking reached approximately 1.5 million metric tons per year, supported by new facilities primarily in the United States and ; individual cracking units at this time typically output up to 70,000 metric tons annually. The 1950s–1970s boom saw further proliferation, driven by abundant cheap feedstocks from oil refining and the integration of steam crackers into large petrochemical complexes, elevating the process to the dominant method for light olefin production. Technological refinements focused on scaling furnace capacities, improving energy efficiency, and enhancing feedstock flexibility to process heavier feeds like gas oils alongside lighter or . Key advances included optimized coil geometries and high-alloy materials to withstand severe thermal and corrosive conditions, reducing downtime from coke buildup; higher steam-to- ratios (often 0.3–0.5 by weight) further mitigated while boosting selectivity toward (yields up to 30–35% from ). controls evolved with automated monitoring of cracking severity via metrics like hydrocarbon (typically 0.8–1.5 bar) and coil outlet temperatures (750–900°C), enabling longer run lengths between decokings—often extending from days to 30–90 days by the . These iterations not only increased single-train capacities beyond initial limits but also lowered consumption, solidifying steam cracking's economic viability amid rising global output.

Fundamental Chemistry

Reaction Mechanisms and Kinetics

Steam cracking of hydrocarbons proceeds through a free radical chain mechanism consisting of , , and termination steps, occurring at temperatures of 750–900 °C and short residence times of 0.1–0.5 seconds. The process is endothermic and thermally driven without catalysts, with steam serving as a to lower hydrocarbon , thereby reducing secondary reactions and coke formation. Initiation involves the homolytic cleavage of bonds in feedstock molecules to generate primary radicals, requiring high energies typically exceeding 300 kJ/mol for C–C or C–H bonds. For as a light feedstock, the primary initiation reaction is C₂H₆ → 2 CH₃•, producing methyl radicals. In heavier hydrocarbons like , C–C bond breaking predominates due to weaker bond strengths (around 350–380 kJ/mol), generating alkyl radicals such as ethyl or propyl. Propagation sustains the chain through and β-scission. A methyl radical abstracts from : CH₃• + C₂H₆ → CH₄ + C₂H₅•, followed by β-scission of the ethyl radical: C₂H₅• → C₂H₄ + H•, yielding . The hydrogen radical then propagates by abstracting from another molecule: H• + C₂H₆ → C₂H₅• + H₂. These steps favor olefin formation at low pressures, where β-scission dominates over . Termination occurs via radical recombination or , reducing radical concentration and halting the chain. Examples include 2 CH₃• → C₂H₆ or CH₃• + C₂H₅• → C₃H₈, which are second-order processes with low activation energies but limited by low radical steady-state concentrations (around 10⁻⁶ to 10⁻⁸ mol fraction). Kinetics are modeled using detailed free radical schemes integrated into plug-flow simulations, encompassing thousands of elementary reactions derived from or experimental data. Rate constants follow the Arrhenius form, with initiation exhibiting high activation energies (e.g., 209–290 kJ/mol for n-hexane , analogous to components), while propagation steps have lower barriers (50–150 kJ/mol). Steam dilution shifts kinetics by suppressing termination and , optimizing olefin selectivity; for cracking, yields reach 80% at steam-to-hydrocarbon ratios of 0.3–0.5. Advanced models, such as the structural unit-bond electron matrix (SU-BEM) framework, automate reaction networks (e.g., 67 reactions for /) using linear free energy relationships to estimate parameters, enabling prediction of yields under industrial conditions like 815 °C and 0.22–0.51 s .

Thermodynamic Considerations

Steam cracking reactions are highly endothermic, requiring substantial heat input to drive the of hydrocarbons into lighter olefins, with typical furnace temperatures ranging from 750°C to 950°C. The primary reaction for feedstock, C₂H₆ → C₂H₄ + H₂, exemplifies this, featuring a positive standard change that demands external heating via furnace coils to maintain reaction progress. Steam dilution enhances the process by increasing the of the mixture, moderating temperature gradients, and lowering the of hydrocarbons, which thermodynamically favors forward cracking reactions that increase the number of moles. Thermodynamic favorability is governed by changes, where the positive ΔH is offset by a large positive ΔS from bond scission and increased molecular multiplicity, rendering ΔG negative at elevated temperatures above approximately 700–800°C for most light feeds. However, the process operates far from to maximize selectivity toward valuable products like and ; prolonged exposure to cracking conditions would shift compositions toward thermodynamic minima dominated by stable species such as , , and carbon, reducing olefin yields. analyses of industrial crackers reveal significant irreversibilities, with generation primarily occurring in the furnace due to across finite temperature differences and non-ideal mixing. Coke formation represents a key thermodynamic challenge, as the deposition of carbon follows from reactions where favors solid carbon over gaseous hydrocarbons under locally reducing conditions and high temperatures; steam mitigates this by participating in reactions like C + H₂O → CO + H₂, which are endothermic but prevent tube . Overall, optimizing thermodynamic efficiency involves balancing heat supply, , and dilution ratios to minimize energy losses while adhering to kinetic constraints that preclude full equilibration.

Process Engineering

Feedstocks and Pretreatment

Steam cracking primarily utilizes saturated feedstocks derived from liquids or , including , , , (LPG), and . Light gaseous feeds such as yield high selectivity (up to 80% under optimal conditions), while heavier liquid feeds like produce a broader mix of olefins including and , alongside aromatics. Regional feedstock preferences reflect resource availability: dominates in the United States due to inexpensive , comprising over 70% of production capacity as of 2023, whereas accounts for about 60% of global capacity outside . Heavier feeds, such as gas oils or hydrocracker residues, are occasionally employed to maximize output but require more rigorous handling to mitigate operational challenges. Pretreatment of feedstocks focuses on impurity removal to minimize coke deposition, catalyst deactivation in downstream units, and corrosion, as contaminants like sulfur, metals (e.g., , ), and non-volatile residues accelerate furnace tube fouling. For and heavier feeds, units reduce sulfur content to below 1 ppm via treatment at 300–400°C and 30–60 bar, often integrated upstream of the cracker to handle feeds boiling above 100°C. and feeds, being purer derivatives, typically undergo simpler desulfurization via scrubbing or adsorption to remove to parts-per-billion levels. Additional steps for heavy or contaminated feeds include solvent extraction or flashing to separate non-volatiles, preventing residue buildup in coils. Some operators apply intentional low-level sulfur dosing (e.g., dimethyl ) post-purification to form protective layers on furnace surfaces, extending run lengths by 20–50% despite potential yield trade-offs. Following impurity control, feed preparation involves preheating to 500–680°C in heat exchangers or furnace convection zones to vaporize feeds and initiate endothermic reactions, followed by dilution with at ratios of 0.2–0.5 kg per kg to suppress coke formation by reducing and promoting radical termination. This mixing, typically at 1.5–3.0 bar, enhances olefin yields by 10–15% compared to undiluted while minimizing production to under 5 wt%. For renewable or waste-derived alternatives, such as bio-naphtha or oils, additional upgrading via hydrotreating or ensures compatibility, though these remain limited to pilot scales as of due to impurity variability.

Furnace Operations and Cracking Conditions

Steam cracking furnaces operate by heating a mixture of feedstock and in coiled tubes within a fired heater, where reactions occur primarily in the radiant section. The convection section preheats and partially vaporizes the feed, while the radiant section exposes the mixture to high temperatures from wall-fired or floor-fired burners, achieving coil outlet temperatures typically between 750°C and 900°C depending on the feedstock. Cracking conditions are optimized for maximizing olefin yields while minimizing coke formation, with reaction temperatures exceeding 800°C in the coils, low pressures around 1-2 bar to favor radical reactions, and short residence times of 0.1 to 0.5 seconds to limit secondary reactions. Steam dilution ratios, often 0.3 to 0.5 kg steam per kg , suppress coke deposition by reducing partial pressures of hydrocarbons and promoting hydrogen transfer. Operational cycles include steady-state cracking followed by periodic decoking to remove coke buildup, which reduces efficiency and increases . During decoking, and air are introduced to oxidize coke at temperatures up to 900°C, with run lengths between decokings varying from 20 to 100 days based on feedstock and coil design. Furnace efficiency is maintained around 65% through precise control of firing and gas velocity to manage pressure profiles and ensure uniform heating. Severity of cracking, defined by the interplay of temperature, , and pressure, directly influences product distribution; higher severity increases yield but also aromatics and coke. Empirical models and simulations guide adjustments, with higher temperatures accelerating reaction rates but requiring shorter s to optimize yields.

Product Separation and Recovery

The cracked gas effluent from steam cracking furnaces, typically at temperatures exceeding 800°C and containing a mixture of olefins, , , and heavier hydrocarbons, undergoes rapid to halt further reactions, prevent coke formation, and recover . is achieved either via direct injection into quench towers or indirect cooling in transfer line exchangers (TLEs), with the former preferred for ethane-based feeds and the latter for to minimize usage and . In quench towers, the gas first contacts circulating quench oil to reduce to around 200-300°C, condensing heavier tars and polymers, followed by sprays to further cool to 30-40°C, producing a vapor phase rich in light gases and a liquid bottoms stream for further processing. Heat recovery during generates high-pressure steam, often at 100+ bar, which drives compressors and turbines in the plant. Following , the vapor is compressed in 4-5 stages using turbine-driven centrifugal compressors to approximately 35-40 bar, enabling downstream and separation; interstage cooling after each compression step condenses heavier components into separators, recovering liquids like precursors while the overhead gas proceeds. Compression also facilitates removal of acid gases (CO₂, H₂S) via caustic washing and drying with molecular sieves or glycol to prevent formation and freezing in cryogenic sections, as residual moisture can impair efficiency. The compressed, dry gas, now at near-ambient temperature, enters the recovery section where impurities like and compressibles are minimized to yields exceeding 99% for recovery. Product recovery primarily relies on a series of low-temperature columns, often cryogenic, leveraging differences in boiling points under elevated : a demethanizer first removes and overhead using to -100°C or lower, followed by a deethanizer separating C₂ components from C₃₊ heavies. is then purified in a C₂ splitter via to separate it from , with upstream selective converting impurities to for 99.9%+ purity; undergoes similar in a tower after debutanizer separation, achieving high yields through precise reflux ratios and side draws. Heavier products like and are recovered from bottoms, with overall olefin selectivities influenced by feedstock—e.g., cracking yields ~80% by weight versus ~30% from . separations or absorption may supplement for / streams in modern plants to enhance energy efficiency. Process variations account for feedstock type; lighter feeds like require deeper for rejection, while processing includes additional primary towers to handle aromatics and tars, reducing risks in downstream units. Recovery efficiencies are optimized via heat integration, with cold box exchangers utilizing demethanizer overheads for , minimizing external power needs to 20-30 MW per 1 million tons/year capacity. Challenges include managing trace impurities like or , which necessitate specialized adsorbents to protect catalysts in steps.

Outputs and Yields

Primary Products

The primary products of steam cracking are light olefins, chiefly (ethene) and (propene), alongside 1,3-butadiene and mixed C4 olefins, which emerge from the of feedstocks in the presence of . constitutes the dominant output, serving as a foundational building block for production and myriad petrochemical derivatives; yields typically reach 25-35 wt% from cracking under standard conditions of 800-850°C and short residence times to favor primary radical reactions over secondary coke formation. , a key for and oxychemicals, follows as the second-most abundant olefin, with yields of 12-18 wt% from feeds, modulated by factors such as coil outlet temperature and hydrocarbon-to- ratio—higher dilution suppresses coke but can marginally reduce olefin selectivity. Yields vary significantly by feedstock: cracking prioritizes at 75-80 wt% with minimal (<5 wt%), whereas or gas oil yields balance (∼30 wt%), (∼15 wt%), and (∼4-5 wt%), reflecting the broader carbon chain distribution and favoring C2-C4 unsaturates via β-scission of radicals. 1,3-, essential for , emerges primarily from C4 intermediates, with -based processes delivering 3-6 wt% before extraction via or solvent processes to separate it from isobutene and butenes. These olefins are recovered downstream via rapid to halt reactions, followed by compression, refrigeration, and towers that exploit differences—e.g., at -104°C versus at -48°C—to achieve purities exceeding 99.9% for polymerization-grade material. While and dominate global production (over 150 million tons annually for alone as of recent industry data), butadiene and C4 streams contribute valuably to elastomers and fuels, though their yields diminish with lighter feeds like to prioritize selectivity. Process optimizations, such as advanced furnace designs or mixed-feed strategies, can enhance combined - yields to 45-50 wt% from pretreated , underscoring the process's adaptability to market demands for these monomers over less desirable byproducts like or aromatics.

Byproducts and Yield Variations

In steam cracking, byproducts arise from side reactions including dehydrogenation, hydrogen abstraction, and free radical recombination, yielding (H₂) and (CH₄) as light gases, alongside C₄+ hydrocarbons such as butenes and (when not targeted as co-products). Heavier byproducts include aromatic compounds like , , and xylenes (collectively BTX), gasoline (a C₅-C₁₀ rich in aromatics), and fuel oil (heavy tar-like residues). Coke deposition on furnace coils, primarily from and cyclization of radicals, requires periodic oxidative decoking to maintain , with coke yields typically ranging from 1-5% of feedstock depending on severity. Yield profiles for both primary olefins and byproducts vary markedly with feedstock type, as lighter paraffins like undergo primarily dehydrogenation to , while heavier involves extensive C-C bond cleavage producing a broader . cracking achieves yields of 75-82 wt%, at 2-5 wt%, with byproducts dominated by H₂ (4-6 wt%) and CH₄ (10-15 wt%), and minimal heavies (<2 wt%). cracking, conversely, yields 28-35 wt% , 13-18 wt% , 4-5 wt% , 10-15 wt% aromatics/BTX, 5-10 wt% fuel oil, and 10-15 wt% fuel gases (H₂ + CH₄), reflecting greater secondary cracking and . feeds yield intermediate profiles, with at 40-45 wt% and at 35-40 wt%, alongside elevated C₄ fractions (4-6 wt%).
FeedstockEthylene (wt%)Propylene (wt%)Butadiene (wt%)Fuel Gas (H₂ + CH₄, wt%)Aromatics/Pygas (wt%)Fuel Oil/Coke (wt%)
75-822-5<115-20<1<2
35-4040-452-310-152-52-4
Naphtha28-3513-184-510-1510-155-10
Process parameters further modulate yields: higher coil outlet temperatures (850-900°C) and severity increase ethylene selectivity by favoring β-scission over hydrogen transfer, reducing propylene and heavies by 5-10% but elevating CH₄ and H₂. Optimal steam-to-hydrocarbon ratios (0.3-0.8 kg/kg) suppress coke via dilution but lower overall conversion if excessive, while shorter residence times (0.1-0.5 s) minimize over-cracking to aromatics and fuel oil. These variations enable operators to adjust for market demands, such as prioritizing in ethane-rich regions versus balanced outputs from .

Technologies and Providers

Furnace Designs and Configurations

Steam cracking furnaces are typically configured with a radiant section, where endothermic cracking reactions occur in tubular coils exposed to heat from gas or burners, and a convection section that preheats the feedstock-dilution mixture while recovering to generate high-pressure . The radiant section operates at temperatures of 800–1200°C, with coil outlet temperatures reaching 1000–1200 and residence times of 0.1–1 second to favor olefin formation over secondary reactions. Tube diameters range from 25.4 to 101.6 mm, with modern designs emphasizing shorter lengths (10–100 m total developed length) to minimize coke deposition and maximize run lengths between decokings. Coil designs prioritize high cracking severity and selectivity, often employing short-residence-time (SRT) configurations with helical or spiral geometries to achieve velocities that reduce and coke buildup. These coils, constructed from high-nickel alloys such as Incoloy 800HT or , withstand metal temperatures up to 1100–1200°C and resist carburization and thermal fatigue. Advanced layouts, like triple-lane radiant coils, enhance uniformity and extend operational cycles by distributing flux more evenly across multiple parallel paths. Burner arrangements vary by furnace type, including floor-fired for bottom heating, side-wall flameless burners for reduced emissions, and combinations where side and bottom burners supply 60–70% of the radiant heat load. Prominent furnace types include CBL (Convection Box Layout), SRT (Short Residence Time), USC (Ultra-Selective Cracking), and KTI GK series, differentiated by coil routing and process optimization for feedstocks ranging from ethane to heavy residues. CBL furnaces feature convection sections adjacent to the radiant chamber with side-wall and bottom burners, enabling high selectivity and cycle lengths while lowering tube wall temperatures by 14–20°C through secondary mixing. SRT designs, evolved through iterations (SRT-I to SRT-VI), incorporate compact coils for residence times under 0.2 seconds, achieving thermal efficiencies up to 93.5% and feedstock flexibility via sidewall/bottom burner heat distribution. USC furnaces use single-row double-radiation risers with W- or U-shaped small-diameter coils (16–48 groups per unit), promoting selective cracking and reduced byproducts through Venturi nozzles for uniform flow. KTI GK configurations, such as GK-V with double-pass branch-reducing tubes, support short residence times and high efficiency, optimized for liquid feeds with flameless sidewall burners handling up to 70% of the load. Modular and twin-cell configurations, as in Linde designs, allow capacities up to 250,000 metric tons per year per cell, enabling independent operation of parallel cracking zones for varied feedstocks (e.g., light gases in one cell, gas oils in another) and online decoking without full shutdown. These setups integrate low-NOx or ultra-low-NOx burners and optional (SCR) in the convection section to meet emission standards, with overall furnace efficiencies enhanced by (CFD) modeling for flux profiling and coil optimization. choices balance capacity, severity, and run length, with gas crackers favoring longer coils for and liquid crackers using shorter, higher-velocity paths for to mitigate heavier coke precursors.

Major Licensors and Proprietary Innovations

Major licensors of steam cracking technology include Linde Engineering, Lummus Technology, and , each offering proprietary processes optimized for high yields of and other olefins from diverse feedstocks such as , , or . These companies provide complete packages, including furnace configurations, yield prediction tools, and separation systems, with licensing agreements often bundled with engineering services for new plants or revamps. Their technologies dominate global installations, accounting for a significant portion of the over 400 steam crackers worldwide as of 2023, driven by innovations in furnace efficiency and feedstock flexibility to handle varying crude oil prices and regional supplies. Linde Engineering's steam cracking process emphasizes advanced furnace designs with proprietary coil geometries and high-temperature alloys, enabling capacities up to 250,000 metric tons per year of per furnace while minimizing through optimized residence times of 0.1-0.5 seconds at 800-870°C. Key innovations include next-generation ultra-low-NOx burners that reduce emissions by up to 90% compared to traditional designs and proprietary air preheating systems that improve by recovering , as demonstrated in mega-cracker projects supplying complexes. Linde's Linde Virtual Furnace (LVF) software simulates radical reactions in cracking coils, allowing precise prediction of yields and coke formation for feedstocks like , with validations against operational data showing accuracy within 1-2% for selectivity. Lummus Technology licenses the SRT® (Short Residence Time) process, which achieves ethylene yields exceeding 35% from ethane feeds by maintaining coil outlet temperatures above 850°C and residence times under 0.2 seconds, reducing byproduct formation like methane by 20-30% relative to longer-residence designs. This technology powers large-scale units, such as the 14 SRT-VI furnaces licensed in 2020 for a Russian complex producing 3 million metric tons of ethylene annually, incorporating modular construction for faster deployment. Recent proprietary advancements include the net-zero ethane cracker, unveiled in 2022, which integrates on-site hydrogen production and green electricity to eliminate CO2 emissions from firing, targeting polymer-grade ethylene output with over 99% carbon capture potential. Technip Energies provides cracking technology with the proprietary ® simulation tool, which models furnace hydrodynamics, , and kinetics for gas or liquid feeds, predicting yields with errors below 1% and optimizing coil designs to boost selectivity by 5-10% in mixed-feed operations. Innovations feature helical-coil furnaces that enhance coefficients by 15-20%, allowing higher throughput and reduced fuel use, as applied in plants processing over 1 million tons yearly. Their low-emission furnace design, introduced for compliance with targets, cuts CO2 output by substituting partial fuel with elements, achieving up to 50% decarbonization while maintaining cracking severities of 0.5-1.0.

Economic Factors

Operational and Capital Costs

for constructing a world-scale steam cracking , typically designed to produce 1-2 million metric tons per annum (MTPA) of , range from approximately $1,500 to $2,500 per of high-value chemical (HVC) capacity, with -based crackers at the lower end ($1,500/t HVC) and naphtha-based at the higher end ($2,050/t HVC). For a 2 MTPA cracker, total can reach $5 billion, reflecting costs for furnaces, compression systems, separation units, and site-specific factors like location and . These figures encompass , with variations driven by feedstock type— requiring less complex pretreatment than heavier hydrocarbons—and regional differences in labor and materials; post-2020 inflation and disruptions have increased estimates by 20-30% in some analyses. Operational costs are dominated by feedstock (60-80% of total), followed by , which accounts for up to 70% of production expenses due to the high-temperature requiring substantial or for furnaces. For cracking, variable costs can approach $300 per metric ton of ethylene, while naphtha processes incur higher expenses from pricier feedstocks and greater coke management needs. Fixed operational expenses, including , labor, and overhead, typically comprise 2.5-5% of annually, with total costs for a large plant exceeding $400-500 million USD per year depending on scale and efficiency. Yield optimization and systems, such as quench towers, mitigate these, but volatility in feedstock prices—exacerbated by events like the 2022 —can elevate costs, prompting operating rate adjustments in regions like .
Cost ComponentEthane Cracking EstimateNaphtha Cracking EstimateKey Drivers
Feedstock60-70% of OPEX70-80% of OPEXPrice volatility, availability
Energy/Utilities~70% of production costsHigher due to severityFurnace fuel, steam generation
Maintenance/Fixed2.5-5% of CAPEX/yearSimilarCoke buildup, equipment wear
Economic viability hinges on these costs, with ethane-favorable regions like the U.S. Gulf Coast achieving lower points compared to naphtha-dependent or , where higher energy prices amplify OPEX. Long-term analyses indicate that while CAPEX remains front-loaded, OPEX sensitivity to global oil and gas markets underscores the process's exposure to cycles.

Market Influences and Competitiveness

The steam cracking industry is primarily influenced by global demand for olefins such as ethylene and propylene, which serve as feedstocks for plastics, synthetic fibers, and other petrochemical derivatives, with ethylene demand projected to rise alongside population growth and rising living standards. However, persistent oversupply has pressured margins, as global ethylene capacity expanded by over 40 million tons between 2020 and 2025, with approximately 70% of new additions in China, leading to declining operating rates from 89% in 2018 to 79% in 2023. This capacity surge, combined with slower demand recovery post-pandemic, has triggered announcements of nearly 4 million tons of ethylene closures since May 2024, particularly in regions facing structural disadvantages. Feedstock costs exert a dominant influence on market dynamics, with regional disparities shaping production economics; ethane-based crackers in the United States benefit from abundant, low-cost natural gas liquids derived from shale, yielding production costs below those of naphtha-based facilities prevalent in and . In contrast, 's reliance on imported and elevated energy prices—exacerbated by geopolitical tensions and the shift away from Russian supplies—has eroded competitiveness, prompting closures like those announced in 2025 amid losses and a projected global feedstock demand increase from 432 million metric tons in 2024 to 610 million by 2034. Oil and natural gas price volatility further amplifies these pressures, as prices fluctuated between $800 and $1,450 per metric ton in mid-2025, tightly linked to crude derivatives and energy inputs. Competitiveness is increasingly determined by geographic advantages and investment shifts, with expansions in low-cost regions like the and offsetting declines in , where up to 50,000 jobs may be at risk by 2035 due to unviable operations. North American ethylene capacity is set to grow from 54 million tons to 58 million by 2030, bolstering U.S. export strength, while China's ongoing builds and India's rising capacities intensify global , favoring producers with integrated complexes and access to subsidized . flows and tariffs also play roles, as regions like the leverage advantages to challenge traditional ers, underscoring a reconfiguration toward cost-efficient hubs amid broader oversupply.

Environmental Profile

Emissions and Resource Use

Steam cracking is among the most energy-intensive processes in the petrochemical industry, requiring temperatures of 750–950 °C to thermally decompose hydrocarbon feedstocks such as ethane or naphtha into olefins like ethylene. Specific energy consumption typically ranges from 17–21 GJ per tonne of ethylene for ethane cracking, with approximately 65% attributed to furnace firing using natural gas or other fuels. Naphtha cracking demands higher energy, around 20–25 GJ per tonne, due to the more complex feedstock composition, leading to greater overall resource demands. Resource inputs beyond include feedstocks, which constitute the primary material consumption—typically 1.1–1.5 s of or per of produced—and dilution , accounting for 0.3–0.5 s of per of to control coke formation and reaction kinetics. usage is dominated by generation, with in closed-loop systems minimizing net freshwater withdrawal, though cooling and stages add to total demands, estimated at 20–50 m³ per of in modern facilities. Feedstock choice influences ; lighter feeds like yield higher selectivity (up to 80%) and lower penalties compared to heavier (yield ~30%), reducing per-tonne resource intensity. Greenhouse gas emissions are dominated by CO₂ from fuel in furnaces and boilers, with total emissions averaging 1.2–1.5 s of CO₂ per of ; process-related CO₂ contributes about 0.27 s, while and utilities add 1.2 s. Globally, steam crackers emitted approximately 199 million s of CO₂ in , projected to rise with capacity expansions absent mitigation. -based crackers emit less CO₂ per of than naphtha-based ones due to higher content and yields, though regional feedstock availability drives variations. Other air emissions include nitrogen oxides () from high-temperature , typically 0.1–0.5 kg per of , and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as uncracked hydrocarbons released during cracking or flaring. Flaring of off-gases, used to manage excess hydrocarbons and safety, contributes additional CO₂ and unburnt VOCs, with U.S. facilities reporting cumulative releases of (major VOC), , and as primary toxic pollutants from 1987–2019. Sulfur oxides () are minimal in gas-fired units but higher with backups, while particulate matter arises from incomplete or coke burning.

Sustainability Challenges and Responses

Steam cracking processes are highly energy-intensive, requiring temperatures exceeding 800°C to break feedstocks, with global operations consuming substantial for furnace heating and contributing over 260 million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually. Approximately 90% of these emissions stem directly from the of fuels like to provide process heat, exacerbating footprints amid reliance on non-renewable fossil feedstocks. Additional environmental pressures include formation from high-temperature and significant water usage for generation, though the primary sustainability concern remains the process's carbon intensity, which rivals that of entire national sectors in some analyses. Industry responses prioritize decarbonization through fuel substitution and process electrification. Switching furnace fuels from to can drastically cut direct emissions by eliminating carbon-based , though it demands for low-carbon to avoid upstream offsets. (CCS) integrated with oxyfuel offers up to 90% CO2 reduction potential in revamped plants, as demonstrated in life-cycle assessments, but incurs high and energy penalties for capture. Electrified steam cracking emerges as a transformative approach, replacing gas-fired radiant heating with electric elements powered by renewables, achieving over 95% and near-elimination of process CO2 when grid decarbonization aligns. Pilot demonstrations, such as BASF's, target 90%+ emissions cuts versus conventional crackers, with uniform heating patterns reducing coke buildup and extending run times between maintenance. However, hinges on electricity sourcing; fossil-dependent grids could negate benefits, underscoring the need for renewable integration. Incremental efficiencies, like advanced monitoring for tube metal temperatures, further mitigate energy waste and emissions in existing units.

Safety and Risk Management

Identified Hazards

Steam cracking processes involve extreme operating conditions, including temperatures exceeding 800°C in furnaces and handling large volumes of flammable , which introduce significant risks of , , and structural failure. Furnace tubes operate under high and pressure, with feeds prone to forming coke deposits that can create hotspots leading to tube rupture and rapid release of hot gases. Such ruptures have historically resulted in confined to the furnace or propagating to adjacent equipment, as seen in incidents where leaks ignited within cracking coils. Fire and explosion hazards dominate due to the autoignition of hydrocarbons at cracking temperatures and the potential for explosive mixtures in the event of leaks or upsets. Transfer line exchangers and quench towers are particularly vulnerable, where condensed hydrocarbons can accumulate and ignite upon contact with hot surfaces or . Uncontrolled exothermic reactions from feedstock impurities or operational deviations exacerbate risks, potentially releasing uncracked hydrocarbons that form vapor clouds capable of detonating. Thermal and pressure-related hazards arise from rapid heating cycles and steam dilution, which can induce in piping during startups, shutdowns, or decoking phases. Loss of steam supply has caused abrupt furnace shutdowns, fracturing pipes and leading to hot discharges that ignite upon exposure to air. High-pressure coils, typically at 2-5 bar, risk burst failures if coke buildup reduces flow, concentrating heat and accelerating metal . Chemical exposure hazards include releases of toxic pyrolysis gases such as or derivatives during upsets, though primary risks stem from the flammable nature of feeds like or rather than inherent under normal operations. Contaminants in feeds, including metals or salts, accelerate and , indirectly heightening rupture probabilities but not constituting direct acute hazards. Overall, these hazards necessitate rigorous monitoring, as evidenced by industry analyses emphasizing furnace integrity as the critical failure point in over 70% of reported steam cracker incidents.

Preventive Measures and Incident Lessons

Preventive measures in steam cracking operations prioritize mitigating risks from high-temperature , coke deposition, and potential tube failures, which can lead to leaks, fires, or explosions. Operators conduct scheduled decoking cycles, typically every 20-90 days depending on feedstock, to remove carbon buildup inside furnace tubes, preventing overheating and metal creep that could rupture coils at temperatures exceeding 800°C. Furnace tubes are constructed from high-alloy materials like Incoloy or HP-modified alloys, selected for resistance to oxidation, carburization, and thermal fatigue, with regular ultrasonic and radiographic inspections to detect early degradation. Safety instrumented systems (SIS) with redundant sensors monitor parameters such as tube skin temperature, pressure differentials, and presence, enabling automatic emergency shutdowns to isolate sections and prevent escalation. Positive isolation devices, such as double block and bleed valves or spectacle blinds, are deployed during transitions between cracking and decoking modes to segregate process fluids from air or , reducing ignition risks from hot surfaces contacting oxygen. Valve position verification systems ensure accurate actuation during startups, shutdowns, and non-routine operations, where misalignment has historically contributed to overpressurization or leaks. Thermal imaging cameras are increasingly used for real-time detection of hot spots in furnace coils and refractory, allowing preemptive adjustments to firing rates and dilution to maintain uniform below 50-60 kW/m². frameworks, including hazard and operability (HAZOP) studies and layer of protection analysis (LOPA), guide the design of multiple independent protection layers, such as quench systems to rapidly cool cracked gases and stacks for safe disposal. Incidents underscore the critical need for rigorous maintenance protocols and procedural adherence. In one case at a petrochemical plant, a leak ignited in a cracking furnace, propagating a due to inadequate leak detection during operation, leading to operational shutdown and emphasizing the integration of continuous online monitoring for feed purity and tube integrity to avert releases. Tube ruptures from unchecked coke accumulation have caused furnace , as seen in events where coils failed under localized overheating, teaching that extending run lengths without proportional decoking frequency heightens failure probability; post-incident analyses recommend data-driven predictive models using on historical temperature profiles to optimize cycles. Lessons from non-routine operations, such as startups after , highlight vulnerabilities in factors and . A review of 25 years of cracker plant experiences revealed that incomplete purging or valve isolation during decoking transitions contributed to multiple near-misses, prompting standardized checklists and interlocks to verify inert atmospheres before ignition. Electrical faults triggering compressor trips have led to cracked gas imbalances and flaring, as in a documented shutdown event, reinforcing the value of uninterruptible power supplies and redundant controls to sustain quench and compression . Overall, these cases affirm that embedding lessons into and management of change processes reduces recurrence, with industry data showing that facilities prioritizing mechanical programs experience 30-50% fewer unplanned shutdowns from events.

Modern Advancements

Efficiency and Process Optimizations

Optimizations in steam cracking processes target higher olefin yields, extended furnace run lengths, and reduced use by fine-tuning operating parameters such as coil outlet temperature (COT), steam-to-hydrocarbon ratio, , and feed composition. Increasing COT from typical ranges of 800–850°C enhances ethylene selectivity due to faster kinetics, though it risks accelerated coke deposition on reactor coils, necessitating balanced severity controls to maximize yields without frequent decoking. Low operating pressures (around 1–2 bar) and short s (0.1–0.5 seconds) further promote desirable light olefin formation over heavier byproducts. Simulation-based multi-objective optimizations have demonstrated tangible yield improvements; for instance, adjusting multi-period operating conditions in cracking yielded a 0.62% increase in production while respecting furnace constraints. Feed pretreatment to remove metals and adjust blends enables higher severity operations, cracking more readily to gaseous products and boosting overall gas yields up to equipment limits without excessive . relaxes traditional constraints on thermal-physical conditions, optimizing for peak and outputs through tailored reactor designs like mild cracking variants. Energy efficiency gains stem from enhanced heat recovery and combustion adjustments, such as preheating combustion air to capture higher-temperature waste heat, reducing fuel input without disrupting pyrolysis. Advanced exergy analysis of industrial furnaces identifies avoidable inefficiencies, quantifying potential savings in exergy destruction during high-temperature cracking. AI-integrated controls stabilize furnace operations by minimizing dilution steam usage and differential pressure, extending run lengths and cutting operational variability. Continuous thermal imaging of coil profiles, implemented as of 2024, enables real-time adjustments to firing patterns, mitigating hotspots and improving heat transfer uniformity for sustained efficiency. Data-driven models predict cracked gas compositions from feed variables, facilitating proactive yield forecasting and profit maximization in dynamic market conditions. These approaches collectively lower consumption per of , with reported reductions tied to precise control of severity and integration of reliable process data.

Electrification and Emerging Technologies

Efforts to electrify steam cracking furnaces aim to replace with , thereby eliminating direct CO2 emissions from the process, which account for approximately 1.5% of global emissions. In November 2023, , , and Linde initiated construction of the world's first large-scale electrically heated steam cracker furnaces at 's site in , targeting operational startup by 2025 with a capacity to process up to 1 billion cubic meters of equivalent annually while reducing direct emissions by over 95% compared to conventional gas-fired units. This eFurnace technology employs resistive heating elements integrated into cracking coils, achieving temperatures above 800°C without flames, and relies on to minimize indirect emissions. Alternative electrification approaches include the RotoDynamic Reactor (RDR) developed by Coolbrook, which uses high-speed rotating machinery to generate heat through conversion, enabling up to 100% reduction in process-related CO2 emissions when powered by renewables. Demonstrations of such systems, including direct resistive and inductive heating, have shown feasibility for and feeds, with short contact times at high temperatures (up to 1100°C) improving selectivity for over byproducts like coke. The global electric steam cracker market, encompassing these technologies, was valued at $26.03 million in 2025 and is projected to grow at a 59.42% CAGR through 2035, driven by regulatory pressures for decarbonization. However, full lifecycle emissions depend on the grid's carbon intensity; non-renewable sourcing could offset direct gains, necessitating integration with renewables or for net-zero viability. Emerging technologies beyond pure include plasma cracking, which ionizes feedstock gases at to break C-H and C-C bonds, offering a pathway for carbon-neutral olefin production from using renewable . Technoeconomic analyses indicate plasma processes can achieve yields comparable to steam cracking (around 30-40% on ) but with higher energy efficiency in integrated systems, though scaling remains challenged by electrode durability and power demands exceeding 10 kWh/kg . Hybrid innovations, such as advanced coil designs with three-dimensional geometries (e.g., swirled or dimpled tubes), enhance in electrified furnaces, reducing coke formation and extending run lengths by up to 20%. Catalytic enhancements, including integrated fluidized catalytic cracking-steam cracking (COTC) setups, allow co-processing of heavier feeds for higher yields, diversifying output amid fluctuating availability. These developments prioritize empirical validation through pilots, with commercialization hinging on cost reductions below $500/ton equivalent.

References

  1. https://www.linde-engineering.com/products-and-services/process-plants/petrochemical-technologies/steam-cracking-technology
  2. https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/23/8190
  3. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2020/re/c9re00398c
  4. https://fsc432.dutton.psu.edu/2014/06/28/the-history-and-use-of-thermal-cracking/
  5. https://fsc432.dutton.psu.edu/2014/07/01/thermal-cracking-history-and-modern-techniques/
  6. https://riviste.fupress.net/index.php/subs/article/download/1191/959/9897
  7. https://madcohistory.org/online-exhibits/wood-river-refinerys-first-100-years/roaring-twenties/
  8. https://www.acs.org/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/petrochemical-industry-birthplace.html
  9. https://www.unioncarbide.com/history.html
  10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemical-engineering/ethylene
  11. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0255270101001350
  12. https://www.aiche.org/resources/publications/cep/2025/june/ethylene-production-and-its-role-shaping-modern-world
  13. https://petrochemexpert.com/a-brief-history-of-the-petrochemical-industry/
  14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/steam-cracking
  15. https://courses.ems.psu.edu/fsc432/content/chemistry-thermal-cracking-0
  16. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.3c07749
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165237017301171
  18. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ethylene-ethene-C2H4-properties-d_2104.html
  19. https://www.aiche-cep.com/cepmagazine/december_2024/MobilePagedArticle.action?app=false&cmsId=4235886
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7948230/
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261919312577
  22. https://www.emerson.com/documents/automation/manuals-guides-chemical-sourcebook-chapter-1-2-ethylene-production-polysilicone-production-fisher-en-138242.pdf
  23. https://www.chemanalyst.com/NewsAndDeals/NewsDetails/ethylene-production-process-from-cracking-to-critical-feedstock-37584
  24. https://www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000786/cracking-hydrocarbon-feedstock-with-a-heavy-tail
  25. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.iecr.8b03221
  26. https://patents.google.com/patent/US6190533B1/en
  27. https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2017093059A1/en
  28. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200080009A1/en
  29. https://www.topsoe.com/blog/feedstocks-for-steam-crackers
  30. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/cracking-furnace
  31. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssuschemeng.2c03427
  32. http://www.pinetwork.org/pubs/PIN14/Lee.pdf
  33. https://cerfacs.fr/wp-content/uploads/sites/70/2019/03/IEC_Symoens.pdf
  34. https://www.rsc.org/suppdata/gc/c3/c3gc41097h/c3gc41097h.pdf
  35. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/244475519_Steam_Hydrocarbon_Cracking_and_Reforming
  36. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/17185
  37. https://www.parker.com/content/dam/Parker-com/Literature/Industrial-Process/PECO-O-G-US-Lit/BR-OG-PET-ETHYLENE-200318.pdf
  38. https://www.valmet.com/globalassets/sharepoint/imported/2722_02_04en.pdf
  39. https://www.klmtechgroup.com/PDF/Articles/articles/Guidelines%2520for%2520Ethylene%2520Quench%2520Tower%2520Rev%252017.pdf
  40. https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/1126295043834326/JVM_ThesisMaster.pdf
  41. https://www.chemengonline.com/ethylene-production-via-cracking-ethane-propane/
  42. https://patents.google.com/patent/US5785739A/en
  43. https://www.aidic.it/cet/17/61/258.pdf
  44. https://www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000559/separation-in-ethylene-plants
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652622014949
  46. https://research-portal.uu.nl/files/691692/NWS-E-2006-3.pdf
  47. https://epocbelgium.be/sites/epoc/files/Propylene_FactSheet_ShortVersion_TaliehRajabloo.pdf
  48. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steam-cracker-yields-of-various-petrochemical-feedstocks-18_tbl1_273879486
  49. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1385894724071250
  50. https://www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000787/naphtha-catalytic-cracking-for-propylene-production
  51. https://ess.honeywell.com/content/dam/ess/en/documents/document-lists/uop/events/metech/Honeywell-UOP-NEP-brochure.pdf
  52. https://www.cetjournal.it/cet/25/117/111.pdf
  53. https://www.essentialchemicalindustry.org/processes/cracking-isomerisation-and-reforming.html
  54. https://thundersaidenergy.com/downloads/naphtha-cracking-costs-of-ethylene-propylene-and-aromatics/
  55. https://www.eng-tips.com/threads/simple-steam-cracker-yield-help-needed-based-on-feed-qualities.167386/
  56. https://www.klmtechgroup.com/PDF/EDG-ETH/ENGINEERING-DESIGN-GUIDELINES-ethylene-olefin-furnace-Rev1.2web.pdf
  57. https://www.linde-engineering.com/products-and-services/process-plants/petrochemical-technologies/steam-cracking-furnaces
  58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780444640871000176
  59. https://www.rsrefractorygroup.com/structure-classification-and-characteristics-of-ethylene-cracking-furnace/
  60. https://www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000527/cracking-furnace-design-by-computer-application
  61. https://www.lummustechnology.com/news/lummus-introduces-industrys-first-net-zero-ethane-cracker
  62. https://www.ten.com/en/markets/ethylene
  63. https://www.marketreportanalytics.com/reports/steam-cracking-technology-234580
  64. https://www.technipfmc.com/en/investors/archives/technip/press-releases/technip-awarded-technology-license-and-process-design-package-contract-for-grassroots-ethylene-cracker-in-the-us/
  65. https://zw.linkedin.com/posts/linde-engineering_steam-cracking-technology-activity-6996154455033286656-4kR3
  66. https://portfolio-pplus.com/Technologies/Details/30
  67. https://www.lummustechnology.com/news/lummus-to-supply-14-ethylene-cracking-furnaces-to-baltic-chemical-plant
  68. https://portfolio-pplus.com/Technologies/Details/73
  69. https://www.ten.com/sites/energies/files/2023-05/low_emission_racking_Furnace_technip_energies_flysheet.pdf
  70. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/simplified-levelised-cost-of-petrochemicals-for-selected-feedstocks-and-regions-2017
  71. https://media-publications.bcg.com/opportunities-in-global-ethylene-economics.pdf
  72. https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/sites/sti/sti/Sort_21795.pdf
  73. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1361427
  74. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steam-cracking-average-cost-curves-and-intervals-Average-cost-curves-and-intervals_fig3_298716795
  75. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2024/gc/d3gc03858k
  76. https://www.icis.com/subscriber/icb/2022/03/11/10742533/soaring-ethylene-production-costs-shift-industry-cost-profiles-will-impact-downstream/
  77. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/018c3361-bc01-4482-a386-a5b2747ae82a/Oil2025.pdf
  78. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772656824001507
  79. https://www.verifiedmarketreports.com/product/steam-cracker-market/
  80. https://www.woodmac.com/news/opinion/petrochemicals-in-peril-oversupply-crisis-and-energy-transition-threaten-industry-survival/
  81. https://www.woodmac.com/news/opinion/quantifying-the-steam-cracker-closure-threat/
  82. https://www.pricepedia.it/en/magazine/article/2025/03/24/ethylene-price-dynamics-and-competitive-advantage-between-the-us-and-europe/
  83. https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/chemicals/070725-a-perfect-storm-europes-steam-cracker-closures-highlight-continents-struggles-with-competitiveness
  84. https://www.bicmagazine.com/resources/sponsored-content/europes-petrochemical-transformation-navigating-headwinds-unlocking-resilience/
  85. https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/market-insight/global-ethylene-market-371
  86. https://www.echemi.com/cms/2513986.html
  87. https://eastdaley.com/ngl-insider/petchem-industry-grapples-with-global-overcapacity
  88. https://www.chemicalsunited.com/industry-reactions/european-overview-of-steam-crackers-and-solventrelated-upstreams
  89. https://www.aranca.com/knowledge-library/articles/investment-research/petrochemical-sector-reshuffle-eus-decline-opens-door-for-middle-east-and-asia
  90. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/europes-chemical-industry-seeks-lifeboat-stay-business-2025-07-21/
  91. https://www.plastemart.com/plastic-technical-articles/emerging-imbalance-between-ethylene-and-propylene-growth-rates-creates-a-propylene-supply-gap/643
  92. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/773773
  93. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1481737
  94. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8625353/
  95. https://www.woodmac.com/news/opinion/ethylene-global-carbon-contributor/
  96. https://www.ten.com/sites/energies/files/2023-05/decarbonisation_of_steam_crackers_technipenergies.pdf
  97. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2752-5309/acdcb2
  98. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-04/US-GHG-Inventory-2023-Chapter-4-Industrial-Processes-and-Product-Use.pdf
  99. https://innovation.engie.com/en/news/interview/emerging-sustainable-technologiesnbsp/electrification-in-the-chemical-industry-focus-on-e-cracking/29879
  100. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.iecr.3c02226
  101. https://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ethylene.pdf
  102. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652622017334
  103. https://www.linde-engineering.com/products-and-services/success-stories/2024/it-is-electrifying-steam-crackers-go-electric
  104. https://www.basf.com/us/en/who-we-are/change-for-climate/a-green-engine-for-chemistry
  105. https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/683a339ac1cb1ecda06cfc9f
  106. https://www.ametek-land.com/pressreleases/news/2025/march/optimising-steam-crackers-application-note
  107. https://www.icheme.org/media/10629/ii-paper-09.pdf
  108. https://www.aria.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/accident/32341_en/?lang=en
  109. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/process-safety-management-naphtha-steam-cracker-plant-shobhan-mehta-bra0f
  110. https://www.prosolvr.tech/knowledgebase/cracking-furnace-failure-root-cause-analysis.html
  111. https://www.aria.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/accident/51968_en/?lang=en
  112. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.2c00189
  113. https://www.pall.com/content/dam/pall/chemicals-polymers/literature-library/non-gated/GDS138.pdf
  114. https://onislineblind.com/steam-cracking-furnace-safety-positive-isolation/
  115. https://www.sofisglobal.com/applications/guarantee-safe-furnace-cracking-processes/
  116. https://www.ametek-land.com/pressreleases/blog/2024/december/optimising-steam-cracker-furnaces-with-thermal-imaging
  117. http://www.aiche.nl/images/presentations/2016-10-11-sem1.pdf
  118. https://www.aria.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/accident/32567_en/?lang=en
  119. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0263876210000560
  120. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/48583
  121. https://library.e.abb.com/public/8118990b18f84e63ad20454f096a5c95/WP%2520NSC%2520Unit%2520EN-A4-hr.pdf
  122. https://aiche.confex.com/aiche/s21/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/618819
  123. https://www.digitalrefining.com/article/1003092/optimising-furnace-run-length-in-a-steam-cracker-using-ai
  124. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1004954123001131
  125. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308016123000078
  126. https://www.ametek-land.com/pressreleases/blog/2025/april/the-1st-step-to-steam-cracker-optimisation
  127. https://ispt.eu/programs/electric-cracking/
  128. https://cefic.org/case-study/steam-cracker-of-the-future/
  129. https://www.linde-engineering.com/products-and-services/process-plants/petrochemical-technologies/linde-efurnace
  130. https://coolbrook.com/electrification-solutions/rdr-electric-cracking/
  131. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S138589472509093X
  132. https://bisresearch.com/industry-report/electric-steam-cracker-market.html
  133. https://www.aiche.org/resources/publications/cep/2024/august/powering-transition-net-zero-electric-cracking-technology
  134. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/gc/d5gc02106e
  135. https://www.nexanteca.com/blog/technology-development-olefins-shifting-fuels-chemicals-and-integrated-plants
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.