How AI, OpenAI, and ChatGPT impact business and software.
Normal Operation and Optimization of Steam Reformers
1. Normal Operation of Steam
Reformers on Hydrogen
Plants
By:
Gerard B. Hawkins
Managing Director, CEO
2. Contents
Typical controlled variables
Plant data analysis
Approach to equilibrium
Prediction of remaining catalyst life
Tube wall temperature measurement
3. Typical Controlled Variables
Process gas exit temperature
Process gas and steam inlet temperature
Steam/carbon ratio
Process pressure
Furnace parameters
• Air preheat temperature
• Excess air
4. ExitMethaneSlip(mol%Dry)
Catalyst
Activity
40%
200%
Plant Rate
130%
80%
Exit
Pressure
-1 bar
+1 bar
Exit
Temp(oC)
-10
-20
+20
+10
Steam
Ratio
-10%
-8%
+8%
+10%
5
4
3
2
1
0
Reformer Optimization : Hydrogen Reformer
(Top-Fired) Exit Temperature 856oC (1573oF)
Note relatively small changes in exit
temperature or steam to carbon ratio
can have significant effect on exit
Methane slip
Catalyst activity has relatively less
impact
8. Hot Band Hot Tube SettlingGiraffe
Necking
Tiger
Tailing
Reformer Tube Appearance
9. Contents
Typical controlled variables
Plant data analysis
Approach to equilibrium
Prediction of remaining catalyst life
Tube wall temperature measurement
10. Plant Data Analysis
Important to cross-check measured data
• gas compositions
inlet steam reformer
exit steam reformer
exit shift reactors(s)
• pressures/temperatures at these points
• flowrates
recycle hydrogen
hydrocarbon feedstocks
steam (need also steam/BFW HTS feed
quench)
fuel & air
11. Plant Data Analysis
Match measured plant data with heat/mass balance
• if good match, then data accurate
• if poor match, then errors in plant data
Total plant data computer fitting program
• can use product rates and compositions etc for
cross-checking of data
• can suggest likely sources of measurement error
12. Plant Data Analysis
Total plant data fitting
• CO conversion across shift converter(s)
temperature increase very accurate due to
multiple thermocouples
cross-checks CO analysis AND steam rate
• Product rate/composition (methanator exit or
PSA product and offgas)
cross-checks feed rate, steam rate and
methane in reformer exit analysis
• Methanator temperature rise
cross-checks CO slip from LTS and CO2 slip
from CO2 removal system
13. Steam Reformer
Feed flow (Nm3/hr)
Steam flow (tonne/hr)
Exit gas temperature (oC)
Exit gas composition (mol % dry)
H2
N2
CH4
CO
CO2
Exit gas flow (Nm3/hr)
Steam : dry gas ratio
Equilibrium temperature (oC)
Approach to M/S equilb.(oC)
Steam : carbon ratio
Measured
Value
1975
11.2
750.0
65.27
-
4.65
9.02
21.05
7.009
Best Fit
Value
2459
11.1
765.0
71.37
0
3.23
8.63
16.77
8634
1.1745
755.5
9.5
5.575
Percentage
Error
24.5
-1.1
1.4
-9.3
-
30.5
4.3
20.3
Plant data Verification - Poor Fit
14. Plant Data Verification - Poor Fit
Poor fit
Areas to check
• feed flowrate
• exit methane
• exit CO/CO2
Feed flowrate originally quoted as 1.156 tonne/hr naphtha
- Revised to be 1.59 te/hr naphtha
15. Plant Data Verification - Revised Fit
Steam Reformer
Feed flow (Nm3/hr)
Steam flow (tonne/hr)
Exit gas temperature (oC)
Exit gas composition (mol % dry)
H2
N2
CH4
CO
CO2
Exit gas flow (Nm3/hr)
Steam : dry gas ratio
Equilibrium temperature (oC)
Approach to M/S equilb.(oC)
Steam : carbon ratio
Measured
Value
2644
11.2
750.0
65.27
-
4.65
9.02
21.05
5.244
Best Fit
Value
2554
11.2
758.0
71.33
0
3.23
8.68
16.76
8954
1.1384
758.1
0
5.442
Percentage
Error
-3.4
0.3
0.8
-9.3
-
30.4
3.8
20.4
16. Plant Data Verification - Revised Fit
Better fit for flowrate
Significant error still on reformer exit gas
analysis
CH4
CO/CO2
Methane slip originally quoted as 4.65 mol %(dry)
- Revised to 3.56 mol % (dry)
17. Plant Data Verification - Final Fit
Steam Reformer
Feed flow (Nm3/hr)
Steam flow (tonne/hr)
Exit gas temperature (oC)
Exit gas composition (mol % dry)
H2
N2
CH4
CO
CO2
Exit gas flow (Nm3/hr)
Steam : dry gas ratio
Equilibrium temperature (oC)
Approach to M/S equilb.(oC)
Steam : carbon ratio
Measured
Value
2644
11.2
750.0
69.86
-
3.56
8.24
18.34
5.244
Best Fit
Value
2554
11.2
758.0
71.33
0
3.23
8.68
16.76
8954
1.1384
758.1
0
5.442
Percentage
Error
-3.4
0.3
0.8
-2.1
-
9.4
5.3
8.6
18. Plant Data Measurement - Problem
Areas
Sampling/analysing exit gas compositions
Exit temperature from reformer
Flow measurement
19. Exit Gas Composition
CO shift reaction can occur if not quench
cooled quickly
CO2 may dissolve in water
• dry gas analysis!
Analysis of sample must be taken in the
same time frame as the process data
recording
20. Exit Reforming
Catalyst
(mol % dry)
"Shifted" Sample
Analysis
(mol % dry)
CH4 4.4 4.2
CO 13.8 10.3
CO2 8.6 11.4
H2 71.9 72.8
N2 1.3 1.3
CO>CO2 CO<CO2
“Shifting” in Gas Sample
Note also reduction in CH4
21. Exit Temperature
Heat/mass balance requires temperature exit
catalyst
Plant temperature measurement often at inlet to
waste heat boiler
• large heat losses possible
outlet pigtails, headers, transfer mains
Top-fired : 10-20oC (18-36oF) heat loss
Side-fired : 25-35oC (45-63oF) heat loss
(Air ingress at base of steam reformer can lead to further cooling)
22. Note that hydrocarbon composition variations
may effect the metered accuracy and also the
steam/carbon ratio calculation
Flow Measurement
Hydrocarbon feedstock generally high accuracy
• “costing” meter
• multiple feed streams may be less accurate
Steam flow often less accurate
• error in steam/carbon ratio can have a
significant effect on heat/mass balance
23. Plant Data Analysis
Best to record trends
• relative changes partially remove
measurement errors
Monitor monthly/quarterly
• measures of catalyst activity
methane slip
assuming constant operating conditions
• approach to equilibrium
• tube wall temperature
26. Contents
Typical controlled variables
Plant data analysis
Approach to equilibrium
Prediction of remaining catalyst life
Tube wall temperature measurement
27. Approach Tms = Actual T gas - Equilibrium T gas
(A.T.E.)
Measured Calculated
• Measure of catalyst activity
• If ATE = O, system at equilibrium
• As catalyst activity decreases, ATE increases
Approach to Equilibrium
CH4 + H2O CO + 3H2⇔
28. Calculation of Approach to
Equilibrium
1. Take gas samples and record steam
reformer exit temperature
2. Calculate wet reformer exit composition
- Hydrogen atom molar balance (inlet/exit)
- Calculate steam in exit gas
- Convert exit dry gas to wet gas composition
3. Calculate equilibrium temperature
corresponding to this exit composition
- Use tables or equations
4. Calculate approach to equilibrium
29. Contents
Typical controlled variables
Plant data analysis
Approach to equilibrium
Prediction of remaining catalyst life
Tube wall temperature measurement
30. Case Study
Terraced wall reformer
How much longer will catalyst last (from
Jan’08)
Change-out when?
• September ‘08
• April ‘09
• September ‘09
34. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
1260
1360
1460
1560
Fraction down Tube (%)
Tube Wall Temperature Process Gas
Delta T
1
Tube Wall Temperatures
GBH Enterprises Ltd.
35. Bottom minus Top
01/Apr/06 26/May/07 20/Jul/08 12/Sep/08 06/Nov/09
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
-9oF/year
Tube wall Temperatures
Date
GBH Enterprises Ltd.
36. June 06 June 07 June 08 Sep 08 Sep 09
Exit CH4 (mol% dry) 7 7 7 7 7
Exit Temp oC
(oF)
787
(1432)
789
(1452)
795
(1463)
795
(1463)
795
(1463)
Max Tube Temp oC
(oF)
829
(1524)
831
(1528)
838
(1540)
838
(1540)
838
(1540)
M/S Equilib. Approach oC
(oF)
10
(18)
12
(22)
13
(23)
14
(25)
15
(27)
Steam Reformer Data
Looks OK to September ‘09 BUT……..….
37. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
500
600
700
800
900
Fraction from inlet of tube
Carbon
Formation Catalyst ageing
New catalyst
Carbon Formation
GBH Enterprises Ltd.
38. Activity Decay Factor
Need to consider carbon formation
• Accurate model of catalyst activities needed to
correctly simulate catalyst ageing
Take data at different times and calculate
relative activity
• for terraced wall reformer
(i) top 30% slowly poisoned
(ii) middle 30% very slowly poisoned
(iii) bottom 40% sinters very slowly
(i) and (ii) account for delta T
(iii) accounts for increased approach
GBH Enterprises Ltd.
39. Jan
02
May Sep Jan
03
May Sep Jan
04
May Sep Jan
05
May Sep
0
50
100
150
200
250
Today September
‘04
September
‘05
Carbon
margin
Date
CarbonMargin(oF)
Carbon Margin with Time
GBH Enterprises Ltd.
41. Conclusions #1
In terms of M/S Approach and Tube Wall
Temperatures, can run till September ‘05
Concern about carbon margin from April ‘05
onwards
• options
change April ‘05 - CHOSEN OPTION
OR run with spare on site and change
September ‘05
GBH Enterprises Ltd.
42. Conclusions #2
• Sometimes difficult for operator to predict
change-out requirement
– Couldn’t rely on M/S Equilibrium Approach
and Tube Wall Temperature trending
– Needed complex reformer simulation
• HOWEVER, recording of historic data from
start-of-run conditions allowed accurate
assessment by the catalyst vendor
– Take data from SOR!
GBH Enterprises Ltd.
43. Contents
Typical controlled variables
Plant data analysis
Approach to equilibrium
Prediction of remaining catalyst life
Tube wall temperature measurement
GBH Enterprises Ltd.
44. Importance of Tube Wall
Temperature Measurement
Need accurate information
• Tube life !
• Artificial limitation on plant rate
GBH Enterprises Ltd.
47. Surface Thermocouples
Continuous measurement, by condution
“Slotting” can weaken tube wall
Spray-welding leads to high readings
Short, unpredictable lives (6-12 months)
Not commonly used for steam reformer tubes
GBH Enterprises Ltd.
48. Disappearing Filament
Hand held instrument
Tungsten filament superimposed on
image of target
Current through filament altered until it
“disappears”
Current calibrated to temperature
Range 800-3000oC (1470 - 5430oF)
Very operator sensitive
Largely displaced by IR
GBH Enterprises Ltd.
49. Infra-red Pyrometer
Easy to use
Need to correct for
emissivity and reflected
radiation
Inexpensive
GBH Enterprises Ltd.
50. Radiation Methods
Measure emitted energy at given wavelength
Use Planck’s Law to give temperature
Correction factors needed
• target emissivity
real versus black body
• reflected radiation
GBH Enterprises Ltd.
51. Tw
"e" is the emissivity
of the tube
Target Tube
Tt
Refractory Wall
Measured
Temperature
Tm
Flame Tf
e
The Effect of Reflected Radiation from
Target Surroundings
52. Measured True Averaged
target target background
temperature temperature temperature
e = emissivity
r = reflectance
= (1-e)
Temperature Correction
E (Tm) = e E (Tt) + r E (T’w)
GBH Enterprises Ltd.
53. 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
Difference in wall and target
temperature oC (oF)
300
200
100
Deg C Deg F
(540 F)
(360 F)
(180 F)
200
150
100
50
0
392
302
212
122
0
Target Emissivity
Error in measured tube temperature
Theoretical Effect of Wall Temperature
(0.9 micron pyrometer)
GBH Enterprises Ltd.
54. Laser Pyrometers
Laser pulse fired at target and return signal
detected
Can determine target emissivity
Must correct for background radiation
High speed selectivity
Very accurate for flat surfaces
GBH Enterprises Ltd.
56. Gold Cup Pyrometer
Excludes all reflected radiation
Approximates to black body conditions
High accuracy/reproducibility
But…..
• limited access
• awkward to use
GBH Enterprises Ltd.
58. Accurate Temperature Measurement
Combination of IR pyrometer and Gold
Cup
• Gold Cup allows us to calculate “e”
• Full accurate survey of reformer
possible with IR
GBH Enterprises Ltd.
59. • Measure Tt using Gold Cup
• Measure Tm and Tw using Infra Red Pyrometer
• Calculate e
Calculate "e"Use IR to give Tt with measured
T’w and Tm and calculated e
Accurate Temperature Measurement
E (Tm) = e E (Tt) + (1-e) E (T’w)
GBH Enterprises Ltd.
60. A
a (Nearby tubes)2
Background Temperature
Measurement
Background Measurement for Tube A
a1
Refractory
Wall
GBH Enterprises Ltd.
62. Tube Wall Temperature
Measurement - Conclusions
IR typically reads high
• top-fired reformer 32oC (58oF)
• side-fired reformer 50oC (90oF)
IR with Gold Cup “calibration”
• top-fired reformer 2oC (4oF)
• side-fired reformer 16oC (29oF)
GBH Enterprises Ltd.
63. Summary
Effect of operating variables on performance
Plant data analysis
• fitting plant data
• problem areas
reformer exit temperature
flow errors
sample analysis shifting
Approach to equilibrium
Prediction of remaining catalyst life
Tube wall temperature measurement
GBH Enterprises Ltd.