Hydrocarbon Processing

March 2002 Special Report: Petrochemical Developments

Improve your Hydrogen Potential

Retrofitting an existing plant can provide a cost-effective way to meet incremental
demand for hydrogen

S. Ratan TECHNIP-COFLEXIP, Benelux, The Netherlands, C. F. Vales REPSOL-YPF

Refinery, La Coruña, Spain

Refiners will consume more hydrogen to produce cleaner and lighter fuels, which are mandated by
current and possible future environmental regulations. How will this consistent demand for extra hydrogen
be met? There are several potential solutions. It can be outsourced from over-the-fence suppliers. New
hydrogen plants can be built onsite, but this option will involve substantial expenses.

Another attractive option for refiners, who have an existing hydrogen plant, is retrofitting this unit with
advanced processing technologies and catalyst systems that can incrementally raise hydrogen capacity.
This option can provide additional hydrogen capacity at a lower cost. Equally important, it requires shorter
construction time, since the interface facilities are already in place. This case history describes how a
European refiner revamped an existing plant to meet growing hydrogen needs.

OPPORTUNITIES WITH EXISTING EQUIPMENT.

Typically, older hydrogen plants were constructed with conservative design margins that can be exploited
with minimum modifications to increase unit capacity. The potential for incremental hydrogen is governed
by the current status of the existing plant and the level of available design margins. Often, there are also
few other attributing factors associated with hydrogen plant revamp such as feedstock flexibility, improved
efficiency and reliability, plant modernization and adaptation for export steam, etc. In some cases,
environmental aspects are also the driving factors. Few of the advanced concepts also inherently offer
reduction in the emissions per unit hydrogen.

Several proven technological options can effectively de-bottlenecking and raise capacity of an existing
unit from 3% to 30%. The presented case history for 25% additional hydrogen involves regenerative
reforming that was implemented on Repsol’s hydrogen plant at La Coruña, Spain.

Constraints in achieving additional hydrogen. A hydrogen plant can be typically divided into four sections:

• Front-end—Feed pre-heating and purification

• Reforming—Steam (pre-) reforming and steam system
• Shift conversion
• Back-end—Process gas heat recovery, cooling and hydrogen purification.

When expanding existing units, some plant sections are inherently more constrained than others based
on the criticality of design margins and their utilization potential. The de-bottlenecking analysis is
generally conducted to establish either the hydraulic and/or thermal limits of the existing plant equipment.

Based on several such case studies, the major constraints are observed in the reforming section. Other
critical process conditions that impact revamp conditions are:

• Tube-skin temperature
• Catalyst pressure drop
• ID and FD fan capacity
• Burner heat release
• Convection coils’ surface
Some other important considerations that are often associated with hydrogen plant expansions are:

- Minimum sustainable hydrogen product pressure at the plant battery limits

- Hydrogen (im)purity (relaxation) specifications
- Space availability
- Allowable downtime for implementation
- Utilization of the (additional) export steam
- Maximum availability of major utilities—demineralized water, cooling water and electric power
- Acceptable approach of operating pressure near the safety valve settings
- Catalyst stage of run vs. next plant turnaround.

Withstanding these constraints, the applicable revamp solutions are identified and evaluated broadly
against the target capacity increase in terms of the required modifications, cost-effectiveness and related
implementation scenarios. These are then reviewed with the owner/client to select the most appropriate
solution.

COPING WITH HIGHER REFORMER LOAD

To raise hydrogen capacity, the reformer duty increases almost proportionately, unless involving a step
reduction in S/C ratio and related methane-slip. As already mentioned, one major constraint is often
observed in the reformer section based on the required increase in reformed gas capacity. Main
limitations are related to the higher heat load and firing in terms of heat flux, tube-skin temperatures and
ID/FD fans, apart from specific limitations on the burner heat release and convection process coils.

The greater reformer tube-skin temperature is a major and critical limitation. In the revamp cases, there is
generally little room for any assumption that the plant may not be running on its full load to have
relaxation in the operating tube temperatures, since it tends to defeat the very purpose of increasing
capacity. The following process solutions can be applied to overcome this constraint under two
scenarios—retain the existing tubes and upgrade the reformer tubes.

Retain the existing tubes. If designers elect to continue using the present reformer tubes, then several
process factors should be considered:

Reduce steam-to-carbon (S/C) ratio. Most older plants were designed and are operated at quite
a conservative S/C ratio in the reformer. Reducing the S/C ratio not only lowers the pressure drop,
it also results in a slight reduction in the reformer duty. This can overcome the usual constraints of
increased system pressure, radiant heat flux and related tube-skin temperatures on attainable
capacity increase.

However, the tube-skin temperature, in some cases especially for moderate reformer outlet
temperatures combined with increased firing, could tend to increase the maximum tube-skin
temperature due to reduced potential endothermic reforming as well as slight reduction in the
convective heat transfer coefficient. This can be countered by applying “shaped catalysts”
(sometimes combined with smaller size in situations of “stressed” reformers), which offer increased
reforming activity without causing high pressure drop due to their geometry and surface area.

For conventional or non-pressure swing adsorption (PSA) based hydrogen plants, reducing the S/C
could be limited in maintaining the hydrogen product purity, in terms of the methane content unless
combined with higher reformer outlet temperatures. The latter usually poses constraints. Further, it
also affects the low-level heat recovery for the CO2-removal unit. For non-PSA based hydrogen
plants, a careful evaluation of product hydrogen purity vs. increased capacity is needed.

However, for PSA-based hydrogen plants, lower S/C ratio provides better opportunity for capacity
increases since the hydrogen purity is unaffected by the upstream increase in methane and CO-
slip. However, attention should be directed to the level of makeup fuel (~10% of the total heat
release) for proper firing control. Plants operating with S/C rations higher than 3.5 on gaseous feed
and 3.8 on liquid feeds carry an easier potential to increase hydrogen capacity by lowering the S/C
ratio by 10% to15%. Typically, 2% to 5% increase in plant capacity can be achieved along with
some improvement in the specific energy.
 Lower outlet temperature. Lowering the reformer outlet temperature could impose a constraint on
the extent of hydrogen capacity increase due to reduced feed conversion (or increased methane
slip). It also imposes limitations on the downstream PSA as well as constraining the desired level of
makeup fuel.

Lower (residual) tube operating service life. This option is appropriate when raising the
maximum tube-metal temperature under the revamp conditions is marginal, and the objective is to
maximize hydrogen capacity with minimum modifications. In such cases, the benefits of increased
production should outweigh the reduced residual tube life cycle, especially if replacing the tubes is
planned in the near future (e.g. the next turnaround).

Increase the inlet temperature. This option lowers the reformer radiant duty while fully exploiting
the maximum allowable temperature of the inlet system. It could involve modifying the feed-steam
superheater coil in the convection section, e.g., by finning the top rows.

The mentioned options can increase hydrogen production by 3% to 8% depending upon case
specific conditions and available margins. Steam production, feed consumption and fuel
consumption increase at about the same rate as that of the hydrogen production if the outlet
temperature is maintained.

Reformer Upgrading
In cases where the capacity expansion is substantial and the previously mentioned options are
ineffective, the next approach is evaluating whether the existing reformer can be upgraded in terms of the
following, apart from the customary modifications on the burner and/or fans to uprate the duty:

Re-tubing with superior material. In some cases, a substantial increase of the tube-metal
temperature adversely affects the residual service life of the reformer tubes. Thus, replacing these
tubes with a superior material like Microalloy becomes a logical choice. This effort could also allow
raising the reformer outlet temperature within the mechanical design limit of the re-tubing.
Simultaneously, based on thinner tube-wall (even with slightly high tube design temperatures,) the
hydraulic limits could also be relaxed due to the larger flow area. The reduced pressure drop is
especially favorable if there is not much room for reducing S/C ratio.

Renewal of outlet system. While considering reformer tube change-out—and particularly when it
is accompanied with higher outlet temperatures—owners should evaluate if simultaneous
replacement of the outlet system comes is justifiable. This becomes an easier decision if the unit
has already operated close to it its expected life or the re-welding of the existing outlet system to
the new tubes fails to pass the required mechanical integrity.

Upgrade flue-gas tunnels. Uniformity of heat distribution and flue-gas flow within and out of the
radiant section is critical when determining the limits for the reformer outlet temperature and related
tube life as well as the maximum tube-skin temperature. This eventually dictates the related tube
service life, more so for a multi-lane and deep reformer. Excessive mal-distribution of heat directly
limits the maximum operating temperatures to avoid scattered “hot” tubes.

Applying an advanced flue-gas tunnel design based on computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
methods, which can achieve near-plug-flow collection of the flue gas, has proven beneficial in
several high-flux reformers.2 Together with an optimized firing pattern, the temperature distribution
can be simulated with new tunnels in the existing reformer. With reduced temperature scatter, the
outlet temperature can be increased, while still maintaining some margin. Thus in some cases,
raising the reformer outlet temperature is feasible by upgrading the existing flue-gas tunnels for
facilitating more uniform heat distribution.

This approach of upgrading a reformer can enable up to 15% additional duty while withstanding the
hydraulic and thermal limits. Furthermore, it allows better feed conversion and overcomes
pressure-drop constraints, especially for the plants with inferior tube material. Table 1 provides an
overview of the combined potential upgrade options of the reformer.
 Table 1. Combined potential of reformer upgrading
Pre-revamp Post-revamp
Tube Material HK-40 HP-Mod (Nb)
S/C ratio 3.9 3.2
Reformer outlet temp, °C 840 860
Avg. Heat flux, kw/m2 64 72
Catalyst Ring Shaped
Tunnel design Improved
Tube design temp., °C 923 944
Tube OD, mm 138 138
MSW, mm 18 14
Tube ID, mm 100 110
Pressure drop, bar 2.3 2.2
3
Tube volume, m 0.085 0.103
Reformed gas increase, % Base 14%

DE-BOTTLENECK AND REVAMP OPTIONS

Several de-bottlenecking and revamp options to raise capacity of an existing hydrogen plant are in place
and with proven status. Most of them have been implemented successfully and are attractive based on
case-specific objectives, plant situation, operational requirements and economic criteria.

Pre-reforming retrofit.
A pre-reformer allows adiabatic steam-hydrocarbon reforming at a lower temperature levels, which are
achievable through convective heat recovery in the downstream-fired reformer. The pre-reformer
operates in series and upstream of the reformer (Fig. 1). It converts all C2+ fractions to a methane-rich gas
near equilibrium irrespective of the feed. However, depending upon the feedstock, either reforming or
methanation reactions are over-riding, which result in a net endotherm or exotherm across the catalyst
bed.

Fig. 1. Adding a pre-reformer to an existing unit.

Due to absence of C2+ and inherent presence of adequate hydrogen, the pre-reformed gas can be
reheated to higher temperatures for the reformer inlet without any concern for olefinic cracking and
carbon formation. In the same context, the S/C ratio in the reformer can also be reduced, especially for
liquid feeds.
The steam-to-feed ratio in the pre-reformer is optimized based on the additional pressure drop and lower
heat requirement to achieve the minimum inlet temperature to the reactor. The reheat potential of the pre-
reformed gas in relation to the much higher allowable inlet temperature to the downstream reformer
allows shifting part of the (sensible) radiant duty to the convection section. Accordingly, lesser radiant
firing is needed and the steam export is significantly reduced.1 Thus, pre-reforming offers an effective way
to increase the reformer capacity while overcoming the typical constraints related to the reformer firing—
heat flux/tube-skin temperatures, ID/FD fans as well as the steam system.

Typically for gaseous feeds, an increase of 8% to 10% in reformed gas capacity can be achieved. For
liquid feeds, however, the additional benefit of lower S/C ratio and possible increase in reformer heat flux
allows above 15% increase in reformer capacity

An additional advantage of the pre-reformer is that it allows flexibility in feedstock composition without
affecting the operation and performance of the downstream reformer. However, it creates an extra
processing step is involved, apart from slightly higher catalyst service-life cycle costs and higher plant
pressure drop. Table 2 provides an overview of pre-reformer retrofits using various feedstocks.

Table 2. Pre-reformer retrofit overview

Temperature, °C % %
Decrease Increase % Extra
Refo Refo Remarks capacity in
(Top) CRG CRG in S/C in avg.
Feed inlet inlet existing
Catalyst inlet outlet ratio heat flux
1) 2) reformer
Light Gas 560 560 470 630 same same New inlet 8
NG system +
F/S reheat
coil
Heavy Lightly 540 540 460 630 5 4 —do— 11
NG alkalized
(25%
layer)
LPG Alkalized 520 440 470 640 10 8 —do— + 13
(C4) (40% Coil
layer) modified for
CRG
preheat
Naphtha Alkalized 510 470– 520– 650 15 10 —do— + 17
(50% 500 540 Temp
layer) control
Notes 1) Pre-revamp 2) Post-revamp

Regenerative (post) reforming.

When the target capacity increase is substantial and the previously mentioned options fail to provide the
required additional reformed gas, one effective solution for off-loading the reformer duty is regenerative
reforming. It is based on using the high level heat of the reformed gas to reform the additional feed, which
is also termed as post reforming with convective heat exchange. Consequently, steam generation and the
export steam quantity is substantially reduced.

This concept offers a rather unique solution for step-capacity increase (>15%) without appreciable
increase in the firing or process load of the existing reformer as well as the steam system. Thus, 20 to
30% additional hydrogen can be achieved depending upon the heat balance around the post reformer,
case-specific conditions and plant constraints, without a major increase in the pressure drop and firing in
the existing reformer.

Furthermore, this route also provides a 10% to 15% reduction in emission levels of CO2, NOX and SOX
per unit hydrogen. In the expected additional hydrogen capacity range of 2,500 to 25,000 Nm3/h, post
reforming retrofit typically involves an investment of U.S.$ 400–800/Nm3/h, depending upon the level of
additional capacity and case-specific issues and the reformer section (being the major bottleneck in
existing plants). This is less than half the investment for a new plant of similar capacity. This concept
entails an advanced design and mechanical integrity of the heat exchange reformer such as the
enhanced heat reformer exchanger (EHTR).

The hot reformer effluent process gas entering the shell side and the gas coming out of the advanced
heat-exchanger reformer are mixed before flowing counter-currently to provide the reforming heat to the
tubes in a so-called “2 in—1 out” configuration (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Integrating a post reformer with an advanced

heat-exchange reformer.

The extra capacity achievable by applying regenerative post reforming is also intrinsically controlled by
the steam and fuel balance, especially in cases where the export steam is already minimized through
high combustion air preheat and/or pre-reforming:

• The proportionate increase in PSA purge gas fuel quantity without much increase in the reformer
firing load will introduce a limitation for the reformer combustion control to retain the make-up fuel
to at least 10% of the total heat release.
• The reduction in steam generation could lead to steam deficiency, and thus could result in “zero
export steam” with just enough excess required for proper control of the steam system pressure,
or in a few cases, warrant some import steam to ensure sufficient steam during transient
conditions.

Fig. 2. Advanced heat-exchange reformer, side view.

The heat exchange is self-regulating on lower throughputs by means of LMTD reduction; thus, no bypass
control is required

By parallel splitting of the feed between the post-reformer retrofit and the reformer, the available ∆P for
the new system (mostly consumed by the tube-side) must match the pressure drop over the reformer.
Based on the strong inter-relation between the tube surface, finning and the tube-and-shell side mass
velocities, there is a strong inter-relation between the shell and tube side configuration.

The new reformer consists of a refractory-lined exchanger shell with catalyst filled tubes, which are open-
ended and, thus, free to expand. Proper heat transfer is ensured by proper flow distribution of the
incoming reformer effluent and shell-side flow geometry (Fig. 2). The configuration and mechanical
design of new reformer—in terms of tube geometry and layout, finning and material selection—needs
careful consideration against potential metal dusting as well as the thermal stresses.

Shift conversion.

Usually, the existing shift reactor bed volumes in older plants are quite liberal based on older catalysts.
Thus when loaded with the modern high-performance copper-promoted catalyst, they can handle
increased throughput up to an extent without any modifications, while maintaining performance and
extended EOR conditions.

Adding LT shift step.

The CO shift conversion is thermodynamically favored by lower temperatures. Most of the PSA-based
plants generally have only HT shift conversion, because apart from the total economics, the relative
higher level of exit CO-slip is removed in the PSA (purge gas fuel) without any limitations on the product
hydrogen purity. However, conventional plant flow sheets need the LT shift step to reduce the CO levels
in conjunction with a methanator to achieve the required product-hydrogen CO purity.

Adding the LT shift reactor converts the residual CO-exiting the HTS reactor to additional hydrogen
without consuming more feed or increasing system pressure drop or posing constraints on the reformer. A
lower CO content in the feed to the PSA also slightly improves the hydrogen recovery (~0.5 to 1.5%),
which adds to the product hydrogen capacity. However, it also lowers the heating value of the purge gas,
which increases the make-up fuel requirements.

This option is particularly beneficial when combined with a lower S/C ratio. It can offer 3% to 5% more
hydrogen along with 8% to 15% more export steam. It proves to be particularly attractive when the feed is
more expensive than the fuel and high credit exists for export steam.

New investment associated with an LTS system includes the reactor, catalyst and, in some cases, a heat
exchanger downstream to recover the additional heat of reaction.

However, these additional aspects also require proper attention:

• The catalyst reduction procedure for LTS catalyst and its renewal must be established and
incorporated.
• The quality of process condensate suffers from more organic contaminants, mainly methanol
(and eventual amines in case of nitrogen-containing feeds) due to copper-based catalyst. If the
condensate is being recycled back as boiler feedwater, it may require extra precautions/treatment
due to the LTS addition.

Changing high-temperature to medium-temperature shift.

For the shift catalyst, the criticality comes on lower temperature activity (kinetics) and thermal stability,
especially for larger exotherm across the catalyst bed. Advanced medium temperature shift (MTS)
catalysts offer benefits in achieving incremental hydrogen (lower CO-slip) by switching from HTS to MTS
with necessary modifications around the existing reactor that could allow additional hydrogen.

Further, this option offers other advantages:

 • A lower S/C ratio in the reformer is possible without the customary concerns of sintering and
Fischer-Tropsch side reactions from iron-based HTS catalysts.
• No bypass control on the PG boiler is needed; this controller is prone to metal dusting problems.

The other considerations are quite similar to LTS addition, except that another reactor is not needed.
However, an additional heat exchanger is required to reach process temperature for the MTS.

PSA modifications.

Based on the several mentioned options to provide additional reformed or shifted gas, the eventual
burden for capacity expansion rests on the PSA unit. Several proven options are available to
debottleneck or revamp the PSA and improve hydrogen recovery.

These include:
- Cycle modification
- Relaxation on product hydrogen purity
- Lower purge gas pressure
- Replacement of existing adsorbent with higher performance adsorbent
- Additional adsorbent vessel(s).

These modifications can increase the capacity of an existing PSA unit up to 30% and improve hydrogen
recovery by 1% to 3%.However, the purge-gas system must also handle more purge gas. Thus, the
owner should consider modification of the purge-gas system:

• For cases when additional reformed gas without installing a pre-reformer or a post-reformer, the
makeup fuel balance should be checked in view of the extra purge gas fuel, but unchanged
reformer firing.
• Purge-gas composition and flow variation should be based on the existing surge drum volume.
• The increased pressure drop in the purge gas line to the burners creates higher backpressure; it
has an unfavorable impact on hydrogen recovery. The manifold (mal) distribution should be
assessed. Thus, designers should extensively check any necessary sizing modification for control
valves, isolation valves and pipe reducers. Also, verify required relief capacity on the inlet PSA as
well as the purge gas system.

CASE STUDY: CAPACITY REVAMP FOR REPSOL, LA CORUÑA

The existing hydrogen plant already used a pre-reforming step based on CRG catalyst for feed flexibility
between naphtha and natural gas (NG) and a second stage combustion air preheating. The target
hydrogen capacity increase was 25%, from 1,200 kg/h to 1,500 kg/h. For such a step increase, the post-
reforming route was selected based on an extensive analysis and evaluation. Key selection factors were
extent of modifications, plant layout, downtime and cost effectiveness.

Retrofit design considerations.

The following major considerations were addressed in the retrofit design:

• Minimum temperature requirements (~450°C) at CRG pre-reformer to avoid risk of polymer

carbon, with step increase in feedrate, but almost same reformer firing.
• Based on naphtha feed and convection layout, advanced reformer’s feed tap-off just upstream
the reformer, which unfavorably reduced the colder temperature approach based on the required
level of heat recuperation.
• Reduce steam generation through post reformer integration created insufficient steam balance
since steam production was already quite minimized through the high combustion air preheat and
pre-reforming was already in place. Thus, the excess air level was increased from 10% to 15% to
achieve the minimum steam excess to control the steam-pressure system. This also assisted in
maintaining the required temperature for the inlet pre-reformer on a slightly increased flue-gas
flow.
 • For the naphtha case, the feed is more expensive than the RFG as makeup fuel. The original
design used a reasonably high S/C ratio for better conversion, which also assisted in getting the
required temperature control. However, with the increased feed flow for the revamp but the firing
in the reformer staying almost the same; this limitation was relaxed. Based on the allowable
pressure drop across the pre-reformer and to achieve the required minimum inlet temperature of
450°C, the S/C ratio for the pre-reformer was reduced; thus, increasing the supplemental (post)
steam injection for the reformer.
• The new reformer’s feed is tapped under split-flow ratio control. Additional steam is added to
avoid high methane-slip in the reformed gas, which lowers the inlet temperature for better
temperature approach.
• External set points are in relation to:
- Total feed flow (capacity)
- S/C in reformer
- Reformer feed flow
- Reformer outlet temperature.

Sufficient margins for operational flexibility, reliability and safety are ensured by considering the worst-
case scenario of peak temperatures due to minimum feed flow (and related reduced endothermic
reforming heat pick-up) against the full flow of the hot reformer effluent, since it cannot be isolated or
bypassed.

Fig. 4. EHTR tube-cage module being lifted for

installation at Repsol YPF’s La Coruña refinery.

Other modifications for the revamp.

Based on the detailed analysis of the revamp duties against the existing equipment, the following
modifications or new items were identified to reach the desired hydrogen capacity increase:

• Larger feed naphtha pumps

• Spare recycle hydrogen compressor inline
• Parallel (spare) feed vaporizer inline
• More frequent ZnO catalyst change
• New larger process gas trim cooler
• PSA unit revamp based on superior adsorbents and improved cycle; modifications to internals of
tail-gas drum.

Test run performance.

Table 3 summarizes the performance data of the recently revamped hydrogen plant at Repsol’s La
Coruña, Spain complex. It clearly indicates that the 25% hydrogen capacity increase could be achieved
without any overload on the reformer or steam system as well as only a 10% increase in gaseous
effluents.
Table 3. Advanced heat-exchange reformer-based revamp test-run performance data
Pre- Post-revamp Post revamp
revamp, % (design),% (achieved),%
Hydrogen capacity 100 124 125
Feed + fuel, Gcal 100 122 122
Steam generation 100 94 91
Export steam* 25 12 10
Import steam* 0 14 14
Specific energy consumption, 100 98.8 98.5
Gcal/KNm3 hydrogen
Reformer radiant duty 100 98 Reconciled
Flue gas quantity (or CO2) /ton of H2 100 88 Reconciled
* As percent of generation

OTHER SOLUTIONS

Using refinery offgas as a feed.

One potential way to raise reformer capacity without any major modification is finding a suitable H2-
containing refinery offgas(es) as feed for steam reforming. Typical sources include: hydrocracker, HDS,
coker or FCC, whose offgas offer a high hydrocarbon fraction. However, the qualifications of the offgas
streams are also dependent on available pressure, contaminants and tail-end components (C5+).
Candidate streams should be at required pressure (>30 bar) and have a reasonably low concentrations of
sulfur, chlorine and olefins.

By using offgas as a feed, the hydrogen fraction is indirectly recovered while the existing reformer can
increase throughput without exceeding the existing duty limits. Also due to the inherent hydrogen content,
the S/C ratio can be lowered, and recycling hydrogen can be avoided.

CO2-removal upstream of PSA unit.

Adding a CO2-removal system upstream the PSA unit in a hydrogen plant will improve capacity of an
existing PSA unit up to 2% to 5% net hydrogen depending on the availability of shift gas upstream and to
some extent, increase in the hydrogen recovery due to CO2 load. The incremental hydrogen benefit is not
sufficient to make this option economically attractive or justifiable unless the recovered CO2 can find a
good credit as a byproduct.

CO2 removal also substantially reduces the flowrate of the purge gas but increases its heating value. This
has two effects:

• Reformer firing is reduced since sensible heating of this CO2 is eliminated. Accordingly, there is
an equivalent reduction in the steam generation/export of 6% to 10%.
• NOX reduction effect of CO2 is lowered or lost, which increases the NOX level in the flue gas.
However, this is partly compensated by the reduction in the flue gas quantity.

Incorporating this option into an existing plant may also require replacing the purge-gas burner tips
because of step change in its Wobbe index. The performance of the process coils in the convection
section may also be affected and should be simulated based on less flue-gas flow.
DEBOTTLENECKING OPTIONS SUMMARY

Table 4 summarizes the various revamp options. It provides an overview of the relative feed, fuel, export
steam and level of investment.

Table 4. Capacity revamp options summary

Sr. Revamp option H2 increase, % Export Feedrate M/u fuel Cost
Nr (equiv.) steam rate
1 Reformer upgrading 2–15% > (Var.) > (Var) > (Var) Low to
high
2 Pre-reformer retrofit 8–18% < up to P <P Medium
20%
3 Integration of post- 20–30% < till 0 P Almost the High
reformer same
4 Addition of LTS/MTS 3–5% > up to Same > Medium
retrofit 10%
5 PSA modifications 2–25% Same to P Same to > Low to
P high
6 CO2 wash upstream 2–5% < up to Same > Low to
PSA 10% high
P: Proportional
Var: Variable

Future capacity increases in hydrogen plants.

Demand for hydrogen is driven by environmental legislation mandating the processing of cleaner and
lighter motor fuels. In view of the ongoing debate on fixing some specifications for future legislation,
refiners are not fully certain of the level of future additional hydrogen capacity required to balance their
refinery needs. Some end-users have and are investing in large hydrogen plant expansions that are
required on short-term basis. Others are seeking options that will enable future capacity expansion when
warranted.

This is truer for the new hydrogen generation units. Such a trend requires judicious decisions between
pre- and post-investment scenarios that depend on the expected timing and quantity of the future
hydrogen demand. The earlier the projections, the more obvious and larger the level of pre-investment.

Such pre-investment also limits the extent of required modifications and the related downtime of the (new)
plant and could include:

• Larger reactors with short loading of catalysts (more frequent renewal of sacrificial catalysts like
ZnO and Cl guard become acceptable based on the actual contaminants’ load).
• Larger reformer radiant box with provision for additional tubes with inlet/outlet pigtails and related
burners in future
• Simulated convection coil designs and resulting temperatures
• Larger fan casings or dual-speed motors
• Heat exchangers with larger bypass
• Vessels and separators for future load, though the hold-up times can be slightly compromised
• Pipe sizing, control valve body and safety valves rated for future throughputs and optimized
pressure drop.

The post-investment can include most of the debottlenecking or revamp options described earlier above,
along with modular “add-on” such as air cooler banks, PSA adsorbs, larger control valve trims, larger
impellers, etc. This decision analysis becomes quite significant in assessing the total economics for the
hydrogen plant and added value from the hydrogen usage.
In conclusion, revamping and retrofitting an existing hydrogen plant in a refinery can prove to be an
attractive and cost effective way to fulfill incremental hydrogen needs. It not only can provide increased
hydrogen capacity in the range of 3% to 30% using one or a combination of proven debottleneck and
revamp options, but also carries the benefits of shorter implementation time while minimizing downtime.

The predicted performance of the revamped plant is very dependent on the reliability of the collected data
and its reconciliation based on the simulation model developed for the existing unit. Furthermore, the
operating experience of the owner and hydrogen plant design expertise of the contracting company are
essential for successfully retrofitting the hydrogen plant revamp, without any compromise on
performance, safety and reliability.

Literature Cited
1
Ratan, S., “Trends in Refinery Hydrogen,” Hydrocarbon Engineering, February 2001.
2
“Debottlenecking strategies for hydrogen in refineries,” Second European Technical Seminar on
Hydrogen Plants, Cannes, October 2001.

S. Ratan is Director of syngas technology at Technip Benelux in The Netherlands. He is

responsible for the technological promotion, marketing and development of the hydrogen-
syngas product line as well as for the coordination with external entities for state-of-the-art
competitiveness. Mr. Ratan has more than 20 years of experience and has held various
responsibilities in the design, engineering and operational effectiveness of hydrogen-syngas
plants including integration solutions for refinery offgases and steam-power systems. He
has contributed several papers in the field of hydrogen and syngas. He holds a Bachelor of
Technology degree in chemical engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology, New
Delhi, India, and is a member of AIChE.

C. F. Vales is an operation manager at Repsol-YPF’s La Coruña Refinery, Spain. Since

joining Repsol YPF in 1987, he has held several positions in process, advance control and
environment departments. Previously, he was with Millipore. Mr. Vales holds BS and MS
degrees in industrial chemistry from the University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain.

Copyright © 2002 Hydrocarbon Processing

Copyright © 2002 Gulf Publishing Company