1 / 8

Case 1 – Reactor Design

Case 1 – Reactor Design. Choose main conditions – Pressure, cycle length, type feed, product, flowrate Catalyst volume Optimum mass flux is set at 2,7 – 3 kg/s/m2 Normal pressure drop per bed not higher 3-3,5 bar Set maximum catalyst bed length – 10-12 m Set a maximum catalyst bed exotherm

deon
Download Presentation

Case 1 – Reactor Design

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Case 1 – Reactor Design • Choose main conditions – Pressure, cycle length, type feed, product, flowrate • Catalyst volume • Optimum mass flux is set at 2,7 – 3 kg/s/m2 • Normal pressure drop per bed not higher 3-3,5 bar • Set maximum catalyst bed length – 10-12 m • Set a maximum catalyst bed exotherm • Choose the internals – tray, quench, outlet collector • Care should be taken for all shut-down, catalyst unloading and loading • Choosing metallurgy as a function of Pressure, Temperature and liquid/gas composition

  2. Case 2 – Unit Poor Performances 400 390 380 370 360 normalised temperature (°C) 350 340 330 320 0 60 120 180 240 300 360 cycle length (days) Case 2A - Unit A in France had an apparent activity at 25°C higher than expected HDS - Evolution of normalised temperature for operating conditions feed sulphur = 5000 wppm, product sulphur = 200 wppm, LHSV = 1,6 h-1 Actual performances Expected performances

  3. Case 2 – Unit Poor Performances Cause analysis a. Sampling and analysis validity! b. Bad H2S stripping – H2S recombination c. Leak or by-pass on a start-up line or a P measurement line d. Feed-Effluent exchanger leak e. Impurities in gaz phase f. Mal distribution g. Poor catalyst performances

  4. Case 2 – Unit Poor Performances Effluent at 10 wtppm S Effluent at 50 wtppm S Effluent at 350 wtppm S • Leak or by-pass confirmation • Kinetic analysis - Use of chemical tracers • Pressure drop variation - Use radioactive tracers Feed containing 3500 wtppm S 390 380 370 360 Required temperature to reach specification (°C) 350 340 330 320 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 Leak %

  5. Case 2 – Unit Poor Performances Effluent 28 ppm Effluent + 1%charge C3 BT DBT 4,6 DMDBT Feed-effluent exchanger leak - feed effluent analysis Sulphur compounds specific chromatograph

  6. Case 2 – Unit Poor Performances Seff éch A 3 four A B Scharge 1 échangeur Seff réacteur 2 Seff éch B 4

  7. Case 2 – Unit Poor Performances

  8. Case 2 – Unit Poor PerformancesPACKINOX Exchangers

More Related