Reformer technology

for hydrogen
Various retrofitting and debottlenecking options are available for improving the
rated capacity, operating efficiency and energy efficiency of steam hydrocarbon
reformers in hydrogen plants

Suresh Chandra Gupta and Kamalesh Karkun

NOIDA, Projects & Development India Ltd

HP steam export

Start-up steam

Feed
hydrocarbon Fuel gas

Preheated BFW

Heat -
Feed Steam Shift recovery unit PSA
pretreatment Reforming generation conversion clean-up
(including BFW
preparation preheating)

BFW
Hydrogen product
Recycle hydrogen (99.99% purity)

Figure 1 Typical process layout for hydrogen production through conventional reformation route

R
etrofitting and/or debottlenecking
is generally the cheapest and most
cost-effective way of augmenting
the capacities of existing units, especially
in the prevailing scenario, where
spiralling energy costs and prohibitive
capital costs restrict investment in grass-
root plants. Hydrogen production via the
steam reforming of higher hydrocarbons
is currently the dominant process
and, with tubular steam reforming at
the heart of this process, it is relevant
in the present context to discuss in-
depth the associated philosophy and
various retrofitting measures adopted to
achieve a quantum jump from existing
production capacities.
In view of the similarities between
ammonia and hydrogen plant reformers,
it is quite justified to expect an increase
in capacity in existing hydrogen plant
reformers given the success of retrofitting
measures in various types of ammonia
plant reformer.
Overcoming investment
obstacles
Prohibitive capital costs and a sharp
rise in worldwide energy costs have
prevented the growth of the
hydrocarbon sector in developing
nations like India. It is therefore
imperative that plant owners/producers
find ways to produce products based on
hydrocarbon feedstock at a cheaper
cost. The status of today’s process
technology, along with advances made
in its concomitant engineering field,
do not usher any hope of finding a
solution to the problem overnight, so
the onus of production at a cheaper
rate falls on the technical skill of
owners/producers to revamp their
existing production facilities. At the
same time, the worldwide demand for
gasoline, jet fuels and ultra-low-sulphur
diesel (ULSD) is growing quickly.
Moreover, refineries are being
increasingly pressured to reduce
sulphur levels in all finished products
and at various plant emission points.
Compliance with market and
legislative demands is possible through
the proper application of hydro-
processing technologies, which predicate
a quantum jump in refinery hydrogen
requirements. It is possible for plant
owners/producers to fulfil these
objectives either by augmenting capacity
or effecting savings in energy consumed
in the process in their existing
production units. To achieve capacity
increases by debottlenecking and/or
energy savings through retrofitting
revamp measures, a thorough technical
study of the plant is necessary. This
involves the establishment of a base
case, commensurating with the
prevailing performance level in the
existing plant.
However, apart from these need-
based compulsions, there always
remains the attraction of reducing
production costs, either by capacity
augmentation or savings in energy
consumption. Needless to say, detailed
analysis of the economic trade-offs
between plant capacity increases and a
reduction in energy consumption is
essential to arrive at the most economic
level of investment, which in turn
ensures the best cost. There have been
instances where increases in hydrogen
plant capacities have been achieved
by changing plant operating
parameters. However, this is generally
insignificant compared to the level

www.eptq.com PTQ Q2 2007 73

 desired for achieving a sizeable
reduction in production costs.
In a steam hydrocarbon reformer-
based hydrogen plant, the generation
of hydrogen takes place in the radiant
section of the primary reformer furnace,
which is the most expensive equipment
in the hydrogen plant and consumes a
major portion of the total energy
required. Accordingly, any revamp
measure for debottlenecking and
retrofitting the primary reformer
furnace (along with the convection
section) forms an integral and
important part of revamp measures
adopted for capacity augmentation
and/or energy savings in hydrogen
production.
74 PTQ Q2 2007
Description of
reformation section
Hydrogen plants can be broadly divided
into two categories. The first category
includes plants built around the mid-
1980s and onwards, which tend to use
pressure swing adsorption (PSA) for gas
cleaning/purification. Older hydrogen-
generation plants, using two-stage shift
conversion, wet scrubbing of CO2,
followed by methanation, generally fall
into the second category. A typical
process layout of a PSA-based hydrogen
plant, consisting of a primary reformer,
single-stage shift conversion, followed
by gas cooling and purification through
a PSA unit, is shown in Figure 1.
The reformation section in a
hydrogen plant generally consists of
the feedstock pretreatment unit, pre-
reforming unit and main primary
reformer unit.
Feedstock pretreatment unit
Several hydrocarbon streams, either as
pure product, byproduct or waste
stream, are generated during the
operation of a present-day refinery.
From the available hydrocarbon
streams, after carrying out exhaustive
techno-economic feasibility studies,
some are chosen as feedstock for the
hydrogen plant, depending on their
composition, pressure and quantity.
From the point of view of availability
of suitable hydrogen plant feedstock, it
has been observed that, as per the
modern trend in integrated refineries,
more and more off-gases from various
product upgrading operations, like
hydrocracking, delayed coking and
FCC, are being used cost-effectively as
hydrogen plant feedstock after proper
pretreatment.
The pretreatment procedures
generally involve saturation of the
unsaturated compounds, hydrogenation
of the organic sulphur compounds,
followed by absorption of the inorganic
sulphur compounds. If there are larger
quantities of unsaturates, a dedicated
recycle loop has to be established
around the hydro-desulphurisation
reactor for taking care of the generation
of exothermic heat of reaction, as well
as the partial pressure effects of sulphur-
bearing compounds on reaction. All of
these feedstock conditioning/
pretreatment process steps are standard
and well established.
Pre-reforming unit
As per the modern trend in today’s
refinery operations, the pre-reforming
of hydrocarbon feedstocks has become
an integral part of reforming operations,
with feedstocks ranging from natural
gas to heavy naphtha, with aromatics
content up to a maximum of 30%.
Apart from the ability to reform
multiple feedstocks, the pre-reformer
functions as a guard against carbon
formation from higher hydrocarbons in
a primary reformer. It also acts as a
guard against sulphur poisoning of the
primary reformer catalyst.
The main feature of a pre-reformer is
its design simplicity. It is a fixed-bed
adiabatic reactor, loaded with highly
active nickel-based reforming catalyst,
having a nickel content of
approximately 25% (by wt). In the pre-
reformer, all higher hydrocarbons are
meant to be completely converted to a
mixture of carbon oxides, hydrogen
and methane through the following
reactions:
CnHm + nH2O = nCO + (n+m)H2
Endothermic
www.eptq.com
CO + 3H2 = CH4 + H2O - Exothermic
CO + H2O = CO2 + H2 Exothermic
The overall reaction is exothermic or
endothermic, depending on the
feedstock type. For natural gas/RLNG
feed, the overall effect of reaction is
endothermic, while for heavier
feedstocks like naphtha the effect is
exothermic, leading to a rise in the
reactor exit temperature. The pre-
reformer generally operates at 425–
550°C with lower steam-to-carbon ratios
than the primary reformer. Resistance to
carbon formation is the prerequisite
characteristic of pre-reforming catalyst.
This is important when operating at low
steam-to-carbon ratios. For naphtha, the
minimum required steam-to-carbon
ratio is around 1.50, while for natural
gas the minimum is around 0.25.
Primary reformer unit
From the outlet of the pre-reformer,
depending on the overall reformation
unit design, the pre-reformed gas is
either further reheated in the convection
section coil or proceeds directly to the
primary reformer inlet header. All types
of primary reformer unit essentially
consist of two principal sections;
namely, the radiant zone and convection
zone. For all types of primary reformer,
the main and common elements for
reformer design are:
— Long tubes made from heat-resistant
materials, filled with nickel-based
catalyst and placed vertically in the
radiant zone of the primary reformer
— Burners placed in the radiant zone
of the primary reformer and arranged
in such a way that adjustment for
inflow of heat and control of
temperature is possible
— Inlet and outlet system of primary
reformer designed for allowing
free thermal expansion of hot parts
without developing excessive thermal
stresses
— Better material of construction with
high allowable stress values is used for
hot parts and pressure parts.
There are various types of primary
reformer design, on account of the
different arrangements of burner with
respect to the location of catalyst-
filled tubes placed vertically in the
radiant zone of the primary reformer.
Basically, there are four types of
reformer; namely, top-fired, side-fired,
terrace wall-fired reformers and bottom-
fired reformers.
Top-fired and side-fired primary
reformer furnaces constitute the
majority of primary reformers operating
in the world today. There are some
terrace-wall fired reformers, but their
number is limited, and bottom-fired
reformers are hardly ever used.
www.eptq.com
ER joint
chamber
Valve
Fuel gas heater
Service platform
Burners
Platform
Peep open
Mixed-feed
heater
Flue gas to
convection
section
Figure 2 Typical radiant section of a KBR steam methane reformer
Top-fired reformers
In a top-fired reformer, several rows of
vertical catalyst-filled tubes are placed
inside the radiant section, or furnace
box. The burners are mounted on the
furnace roof and located between the
tube rows, between the tubes and the
furnace wall at the end. The burners are
generally high-capacity burners,
burning with long flames directed
vertically downwards. A steam-
hydrocarbon mixture, flowing from top
to bottom through the catalyst tubes, is
heated by heat emitted from the flames
and hot flue gas, through the process of
convection and radiation. The flue
gases produced by the burning of fuel
in the burner leave the furnace box at
the bottom, making the flow of process
gas through the catalyst tubes co-
current with the flow of flue gases.
A number of process licensors have
their own state-of-the-art technology
for the design of proprietary top-fired
reformers. Figure 2 shows the radiant
section of a KBR top-fired reformer,
where the radiant cell contains vertical
catalyst-filled tubes connected directly
to a series of harps located at the
bottom floor and inside the radiant
section of the furnace. Flue gas leaves
the radiant cell through a number of
flue gas tunnels, located at the bottom
floor of the furnace, before joining the
flue gas duct in the convection
section.
Side-fired primary reformer
In a side-fired primary reformer,
catalyst-filled tubes are placed vertically
and arranged in a single row along the
centre line of the radiant section of the
primary reformer. In some older
designs, side-fired primary reformers
consist of two rows of catalyst-filled
tubes, arranged vertically in a staggered
Inner
manifold
Catalyst tube
spring support
Catalyst loading
flanges
Fuel
tube
Cat.
tube
Flue gas
tunnel
Outlet
manifold
pitch and placed lengthwise along the
centre line of the radiant section.
Medium- to large-sized side-fired
primary reformers invariably consist of
twin-cell arrangements, having a
common inlet and outlet system along
with a common fuel supply header, flue
gas duct and waste heat-recovery
section. The burners in a side-fired
reformer are mounted at several levels
on the side wall (lengthwise) of the
radiant zone of the reformer with a
number of burner levels, varying from a
minimum of four to a maximum
of six.
Compared to a top-fired reformer,
there are significantly more burners.
The burner flames are short in length
and, most importantly, the burner
flame is directed backwards towards
the refractory-lined furnace walls.
Accordingly, heat is transferred by
radiation from the radiant furnace
walls to the process gas passing through
the catalyst-filled reformer tubes. The
flue gases generated by the burning of
fuel in the burners leaves the radiant
zone via the top, thereby establishing a
countercurrent flow mode between the
flow of process gas and flue gas.
Terrace wall-fired
primary reformer
In a terrace wall-fired primary reformer,
the vertically arranged, single-row
catalyst-filled tubes are heated from
both sides by burners located at two
levels; that is, at the bottom and the
middle. Terrace wall-fired reformers can
be regarded as a modification of the
bottom-fired type, with comparatively
lower tube wall temperatures. The
process gas flows downwards through
catalyst-filled tubes countercurrently
with the upwardly flowing flue gases
emanating from upward-firing burners,
PTQ Q2 2007 75
thereby eliminating the requirement of
fans, either induced or forced draft.
In the terrace wall furnace
configuration, the burners fire along
the refractory-lined walls, which are
essentially parallel to the catalyst tubes.
The burner flame is allowed to burn
against the hot walls in a controlled
fashion, thereby avoiding impingement
of the flame on the catalyst tubes.
A terrace wall-fired primary reformer
is a compact type of unit and,
accordingly, modularisation and shop
assembly of the complete primary
reformer is much easier compared to
side-fired reformers. Similar to side-
fired reformers, twin cells are required
for medium- and large-capacity units.
The layout and overall space
requirement is determined by the twin
radiant cells and subsequently the
convection section and flue gas stack,
which are mounted on top of the
radiant cells.
In a primary reformer, located
downstream from the pre-reformer
(where all the higher hydrocarbons get
fully converted), the reactions taking
place are:
1 CH4 + H2O = CO + 3H2 Endothermic
2 CO + 3H2 = CH4 + H2O Exothermic
3 CO + H2O = CO2 + H2 Exothermic
Although reaction 1 is highly
endothermic, reactions 2 and 3 are
exothermic, thereby making the overall
reaction process in the primary
reformer endothermic.
Extent of revamp possibilities
in reformation section
The design of modern hydrogen plants
leaves no margin for easy capacity.
Moreover, more hydrogen plants are
being built through immensely
competitive lump-sum turnkey contract
modes of execution, thereby negating
chances of having any built-in
overcapacity. It is therefore worthwhile
examining whether there is any way of
deriving extra capacity by modification
of design in the primary reformer unit
itself. Primary reformer units essentially
consist of:
— Radiant section: covered by
proprietary design
— Convection section along with coil
banks: more or less covered by
proprietary design
— Burners: vendor item
— ID & FD fans: vendor items
— Flue gas stack.
It has been observed that in the present-
day design of reforming units, the
radiant/convection section design is
generally tailor-made to meet the
requirements of contracted plant
capacity. The design basis of furnace/
radiant box and flue gas waste heat-
recovery ducts strongly correlates with
the quantity of hydrogen plus CO
produced. Accordingly, the generation
of additional capacity in the radiant/
furnace and convection section becomes
difficult unless radical changes are made
in the inlet/outlet conditions of the
primary reformer. Real debottlenecking/
retrofitting activities for the reformer
will be hinged on efforts for bringing
about change in these conditions only.
In efforts to derive extra capacities (in
the range of 15–25) from the existing
reformer unit without making radical
changes in the conditions around the
reformer, the following limitations
begin to surface:
— With the increase in primary
reformer catalyst tube throughput, there
will be no major problems in achieving
desired conversion levels. This is because,
as per conventional design, primary
reformer/burners are provided with a
comfortable margin (20–25%) over the
normal 100% operating load, which is
sufficient to cope with additional heat
requirements due to throughput. Apart
from marginal increases in catalyst tube
wall temperature, there will be no
hindrance for heat to be transferred
inside to the reactants flowing through
the catalyst tubes
— There will be limitations due to a
higher pressure drop through the
catalyst tubes.
Main limitations will arise on account
of operating the primary reformer
radiant section at high heat flux
conditions, resulting in:
— Substantially higher flue gas
temperatures leaving radiant section
— Higher volume of flue gas flow
through the convection section.
These conditions lead to adverse
effects in areas pertaining to the
convection section flue gas duct,
including:
— Increase in tube wall temperatures of
various coil banks
— ID fan capacity limitation
— Failing of supports for tubes of coil
banks.
The most common effect of running
reformers at a higher capacity is
reflected as a rise in the tube wall
temperatures of various coil banks in
the convection section. This leads to the
failure of tubes in the coil banks. Due to
the higher flow of flue gas through the
convection section at higher
temperatures, the draft capacity of ID
fans is seriously affected. The tube
supports of tubes of coil banks in the
flue gas duct are exposed to higher
temperatures of flue gas. The tube
supports for coil banks in the hotter
regions are made of high nickel-
chromium alloys, which operate in
creep stress range. Accordingly, it is
difficult for the tube supports to tolerate
temperatures higher than that for which
they are designed.
www.eptq.com
 In an existing primary reformer, the
flue gas duct/convection section can
therefore be considered the greatest
hurdle towards capacity augmentation
rather than the radiant/furnace section.
Hence, to augment the capacity of the
reforming unit, debottlenecking must
be done in and around the primary
reformer to effect radical changes in the
operating parameters of the primary
reformer.
Primary reformer
debottlenecking
Measures generally adopted in new-
generation ammonia and hydrogen
plants for the debottlenecking and/or
capacity augmentation of the reforming
unit and plant as a whole include:
— Installation of additional pre-
reformer and fired heater
— Higher temperature of combustion
air
— Lowering of steam/carbon ratio
— Increasing primary reformer inlet
temperature
— Operation of CoMoX/ZnO reactors
in parallel and at higher temperature
— Increase reformer catalyst tube ID
— Increase catalyst size in primary
reformer (seven-hole catalyst) and
decrease catalyst size in pre-reformer.
Generally, all the new-generation
hydrogen plants are provided with a
pre-reformer upstream of the primary
reformer. Additional capacity can be
generated through additional catalyst
volume either in the primary reformer
or through an additional pre-reformer,
which can operate in parallel with the
existing pre-reformer.
Sharing of reforming load in a
parallel pre-reformer permits the system
pressure drop to be maintained within
the originally specified design limits.
Additional heat load required in the
radiant section of the primary reformer
is met through a fired heater located
downstream from the pre-reformer.
The proposed scheme of additional
pre-reformer along with fired heater is
presented in Figure 3.
It is envisaged that the installation of
an additional pre-reformer and fired
heater presupposes a steam/carbon
ratio lower than the design figure.
Proper simulation of parameters such
as the steam/carbon ratio in the
reformer, the outlet temperature of pre-
reformed gas from the fired heater, and
methane leakage in relation to the
primary reformer outlet temperature
can ensure capacity augmentation to a
level of 15–20%.
The construction material at the
inlet to the primary reformer will need
to change to a more heat-resistant
material. The process scheme involves
slightly higher investment, but
reasonably good payback can easily be
ensured.
www.eptq.com
Mixed-gas
fired heater
(new)
Steam/hydrocarbon
mixture
Flue naphtha
Flue gas duct
(New)
Pre-reformer Mixed
preheat Primary
coil reformer
To R. G.
boiler
To ID fan
Figure 3 Debottlenecking through additional pre-reformer and fired heater
Higher temperature of be considered in conjunction with
combustion air other revamp measures.
As previously discussed, the increased Capacity augmentation of the
flue gas generation associated with reforming unit is generally associated
capacity augmentation is a deterrent to with the reduction of steam/carbon
the objective of a revamp as a whole. To ratios. The previously mentioned
prevent an increase in flue gas flow, it is revamp measure also considers a
therefore necessary to increase the reduction in steam/carbon ratio. For
combustion air preheat temperature. new-generation plants involving
There are several options for combustion reforming/simple shift/gas cooling/PSA,
air preheat. The best option is by heat the purity of product hydrogen is not
exchange with flue gas, provided there is so dependent on the reforming
an availability of flue gas at a sufficiently conditions. This aspect is advantageous
high temperature, and adequate space for those revamp measures that
in and around the flue gas duct can be consider a reduction in the steam/
ensured. However, the option of heat carbon ratio, because the additional
exchange with flue gas will be expensive methane leakage (due to the use of
due to the need to lay parallel ductwork lower steam/carbon ratio) can be
and additional finned heat-transfer recovered through the PSA unit and
surfaces. used for firing in the reformer unit.
Another option can be the heating of Use of a higher inlet temperature in
combustion air with medium-pressure the primary reformer is also an
steam generated in a hydrogen plant. important tool for capacity
Combustion air pre-heating through augmentation as well as for achieving
circulating boiler feed water is another energy savings. Similar to the steam/
valid option. Both options are well carbon ratio variation, it cannot be
proven. Their main advantage is that considered in isolation. By increasing
no changes are required in the flue gas inlet temperature in the primary
ductwork and the generation/export of reformer, a reduction in the heat duty
steam can be reduced. Both are fairly of the radiant section can be achieved.
low cost too. This is of great importance to those
Lowering of the steam/carbon ratio revamp measures considering capacity
may be considered necessary for augmentation of the reforming unit.
increasing capacity. Although this Where revamping of the reforming
is an important tool/parameter in unit is involved, it becomes difficult to
determining reforming unit capacity, it achieve an increase in inlet temperature of
cannot be considered in isolation. Due the primary reformer from the existing
to its far-reaching consequences in setup. This is due to the tailor-made
simulation of reforming unit capacity capacity design of present-day plants.
and/or energy consumption, the effect Accordingly, one additional heater
of steam/carbon ratio variation has to generally in the form of a fired heater
PTQ Q2 2007 77
 needs to be installed between the existing
mixed-feed preheater coil bank (in the
convection section) and primary reformer.
An important point is that an increase in
the primary reformer inlet temperature
pre-supposes that hydrocarbons entering
the primary reformer are in the form of
methane only.
An increase in the inlet temperature
of the primary reformer imposes some
caution and restriction on the design of
the primary reformer inlet system (ie,
inlet header, inlet pigtail and inlet
support system of catalyst tubes).
Generally, construction material at the
inlet header and inlet pigtails need to be
changed to a more heat-resistant
material. The spring supports for catalyst
tubes located at the top inlet of the
reformer may require redesigning too.
Parallel operation of HDS
and ZnO reactors
For increasing capacity of the reforming
unit, it is necessary to increase
throughput through the existing
desulphurisation facilities, comprising
mainly of HDS (CoMoX) and ZnO
reactors. Since the ZnO reactor is
downsteam of the HDS reactor and in
series, any effort to increase throughput
will result in an unavoidable increase in
system pressure drop. Hence, the
desulphurisation facilities designed
originally to operate in series are
required to be configured to operate in
parallel with a reduced pressure drop.
For parallel operation, identical
hydrosulphuriser and ZnO absorber
vessels can be operated in parallel with
both catalysts in each vessel — HDS
(CoMoX) catalyst is placed on top of
ZnO absorbent. During the detailed
engineering of the revamp project,
given that the ZnO absorbent has a
much shorter life than the HDS
(CoMoX) catalyst, proper care must be
taken to maintain the ease of replacing
the ZnO absorbent beds.
Allowing gas to flow in parallel and
equally through the identical reactor
vessels, it can be ensured that even at
higher plant capacity the level of
sulphur at the exit of the ZnO bed is
equal to or even less than the originally
designed sulphur leakage. Such types of
revamp measure have been successfully
implemented in ammonia plants. For
augmentation of capacity, an alternative
option to operate the desulphurisation
section at a slightly higher temperature
is also tenable. At a higher temperature,
because of an increase in the rate of
conversion, the operation of reactors at
a higher capacity becomes easier.
Change of metallurgy in
relation to ID of catalyst
tube in primary reformer
Revamps involving the change of
metallurgy in relation to ID of the
78 PTQ Q2 2007
primary reformer catalyst tubes are
applicable for older plants, which are
still using reformer catalyst tubes made
of IN-519 or HK-40 material. Superior
materials for reformer catalyst tubes
with improved creep rupture strength
have been developed over the years and
are commonly categorised as micro-
alloys.
Micro-alloys are modified versions of
25 Cr-35 Ni-type alloys with micro-
alloying combinations of Niobium. The
most popular micro-alloys catalyst tube
manufacturers are:
— Manaurite 36 X, Manoir Industries,
France
— Q-4852, Schmidt & Clemmens,
Germany
— Paralloy H39W, APV Paramount,
UK
— TMA 4700, ABEX Corp, USA.
The higher creep-rupture strength of
micro-alloy permits the use of catalyst
tubes of lower tube wall thickness with
the same OD of tube. Therefore,
revamping with catalyst tubes of the
same OD allows the installation of
higher catalyst volume (approximately
30%) and, more importantly, allows a
higher feed throughput due to lower
tube ID.
One of the basic requirements of
capacity augmentation of a hydrogen
plant reforming unit is an increase in the
rate of conversion of hydrocarbons to
hydrogen within the existing framework.
Accordingly, commensurating with the
additional capacity desired, the right
choice and size of catalyst in the pre-
reformer and primary reformer assumes
great significance.
Due to the special requirement of
higher activity by the pre-reforming
catalyst (in comparison to primary
reforming catalyst), the catalyst selected
for capacity augmentation should
preferably be of the lowest available size
in the market, with maximum dispersion
of nickel per unit catalyst surface. The
sizes in which pre-reforming catalysts
are generally available are 4.3 x 4.7mm
and 4.5 x 5.0mm.
The shape and size of catalyst in a
primary reformer normally controls the
following two vital operational aspects:
the equal distribution of steam
hydrocarbon mixture through the tubes
and pressure drop through the catalyst-
filled tubes. With the reforming reaction
diffusion controlled, reaction in the
primary reformer occurs in areas adjacent
to the external surface of the catalyst
particle. Accordingly, seven-hole
cylindrical catalyst tablets that have
about 40% more surface area than
conventional ring-shaped catalysts are
the right choice for the primary reformer.
These enable higher conversion and high
heat transfer with a lower pressure drop,
even at a higher throughput through the
primary reformer.
However, the right combination of
catalyst size in the pre-reformer and
primary reformer can only be
determined from the outcome of
simulation exercises across the entire
reforming unit.
Conclusion
For developing countries like India,
low-cost revamps can be the most
economic way for meeting the
requirement of additional hydrogen.
Debottlenecking and/or increasing the
capacity of the reforming unit is the
toughest challenge towards capacity
augmentation of hydrogen plants.
For present-day new-generation
hydrogen plants to achieve increases in
capacity in the reforming units, radical
changes in operating parameters in and
around the reformer need to be done.
All the revamp measures previously
mentioned have been either proposed
by various process licensors or are in the
process of implementation and, in some
cases, are actually in operation in
ammonia or hydrogen plants. The
revamp measure suggested incorporating
KBR’s KRES reformer is also operating in
many ammonia plants and in some
hydrogen plants.
The operating conditions for a KRES
unit in a hydrogen plant are less severe
than that of an ammonia plant. In
India, there are no hydrogen plants
operating with KBR’s KRES reformer, so
Indian refineries can definitely look at
capacity augmentation via this route.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to express their thanks
to C&MD PDIL for granting permission to
publish and present this paper at the seminar
organised in memory of Lovraj Kumar.
References
1 Brown F C, Revamping front end of
ammonia plants, Jacobs Engg Ltd, FAI
Seminar, December 2003.
2 Roy K K, Revamping options in Indian
ammonia plants, Projects & Development
India Ltd (PDIL), FAI Seminar, December
2004.
3 Gupta S C, Karkun K, Catalysts in hydrogen
production, Projects & Development
India Ltd (PDIL), Lovraj Kumar Memorial
Seminar, November 2005.
4 Malhotra A, Macris A, Gosnell J, Increase
hydrogen production using KBR’s KRES
technology, M/s KBR Houston, USA,
Annual NPRA Meeting, March 2004.
Suresh Chandra Gupta is chief engineer,
process engineering, NOIDA, Projects &
Development India Ltd. Gupta graduated
and post-graduated from I.I.T. Kanpur.
Kamalesh Karkun is technical consultant,
NOIDA, Projects & Development India
Ltd. Karkun graduated from Jadavpur
University.
www.eptq.com