Hydroprocessing Reactor and Process Design

to Optimize Catalyst Performance

by
Raj H. Patel and Emmett Bingham
Haldor Topsoe, Inc., Orange California, USA
and
Preben Christensen and Morten Mller
Haldor Topse A/S, Lyngby, Denmark

Presented at The First Indian Refining Roundtable,

December 1-2, 1998 - New Delhi, India

-2-

Abstract
Global diesel quality requirements continue to increase. The U.S. and the European Union
have already adopted 0.05 wt% diesel sulfur specifications and sulfur reductions have been
proposed in many of the remaining countries in the world. Further requirements not only for
diesel sulfur content, but also for diesel cetane index, density and polyaromatics content is
likely to be introduced in the European Union from year 2005. Much effort has been
undertaken to develop more active hydroprocessing catalysts to address the ever increasing
demands for deeper desulfurization, denitrogenation, and aromatics saturation required for the
production of environmentally friendly, clean fuels. However, little has been done to modify
reactor design to efficiently utilize the benefits of higher activity catalysts. Problems with poor
liquid distribution are magnified when deep desulfurization or aromatics saturation is required
and this can only be addressed by improving reactor internals.
Based on cold flow testing, fluid flow modeling, and industrial feedback; research and
development programs at Haldor Topse A/S, have produced significant improvements in the
design of liquid distribution trays, graded catalyst beds, and quench mixing devices for
hydroprocessing reactors. Improved reactor performance resulting from implementation of
these efficient reactor internals has also been demonstrated in more than 15 industrial
hydroprocessing units. Reactor internals technology is only a small but important part of
Topses hydroprocessing technology resources. Intimate knowledge of heterogeneous
catalysis and process design has resulted in Topse licensing and preparing complete
engineering design packages for grassroots hydroprocessing units as well as for major revamps
of existing units.
This paper discusses the elements of hydroprocessing reactor design, and presents test results
comparing several popular commercially available liquid distribution devices. It also outlines
how the recently developed fluid flow models may be applied to investigate the suitability of a
particular distributor design for the type of service that is required. Discussion of commercial
operating data demonstrating improved pressure drop control and flow distribution obtained
from the use of Topses TK-Series ring catalysts and Performance Focused reactor internals
technologies, as well as examples of Topses designs for revamped and new units are also
included.

Introduction
Global diesel quality requirements continue to increase. U.S. and European Union have already
adopted 0.05 wt% diesel sulfur specifications and sulfur reductions have been proposed in
many of the remaining countries in the world. Future specifications will continue to get more
stringent with the European Union having decided to reduce diesel sulfur specification to 350
wt ppm from year 2000 to 50 wt ppm from year 2005. Furthermore other diesel specifications
like cetane index, density and polyaromatics content may be introduced in the European Union
from year 2005.
The refiner once again needs to plan to meet these regulations by building a new unit or by
improving the performance of the existing units. The parameters that determine performance of
a hydroprocessing unit, required to process a given feed to meet a desired product
specification and cycle length, include hydrogen partial pressure, hydrogen/oil ratio, reactor
temperature, space velocity and catalyst performance.

-3-

Relative Volume Activity

The key parameter for improving unit performance with minimal unit modifications is the
improvement of the catalyst performance. Catalyst performance can be divided into two key
areas: catalyst activity and efficient distribution of reactants through the catalyst bed. In the
refining industry much attention has been focused on improving catalyst activity with minimal
effort devoted to improving reactor internals. Since the introduction of the first commercial
hydrotreating units in the 1950s, catalyst manufacturers have developed and commercialized
catalysts with the ever increasing activities required to meet the stringent low sulfur, nitrogen,
and aromatics specifications of environmentally friendly fuels. Figure 1 illustrates the
significant improvements in catalyst activity achieved by catalyst suppliers [Simpson, 1997]
over the history of the hydrotreating process.

900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1950

1960

1970
Major Licensor

1980

1990

2000

TOPSOE

Figure 1: History of Catalyst Development

In comparison, very little work has been done, until recently, to improve reactor design to
efficiently take advantage of the new high activity catalysts. One exception is the improvement
in graded bed technology, developed by Topse, to provide relief from pressure drop problems
and maintain even flow distribution as contaminants foul the catalyst beds [Moyse, 1984],
[Hansen et al., 1994], [Moyse, 1996]. With regard to hardware, some commercial
hydrotreating units have rudimentary designs, relying on very primitive splash plates or diffuser
plates at the reactor inlet nozzle to distribute the reactants across the catalyst bed. Other
reactors use distribution trays that were primarily designed by oil company researchers during
the early stages of hydroprocessing development and have undergone little significant change.
Two of the most successful distribution tray designs currently in use, bubble-cap distributors
and multi-port chimneys, were described in some of the earliest recorded patents, Union Oil U.S. Patent 3,218,249 [Ballard et. al., 1965], and Chevron - U.S. Patent 3,235,344 [Dreyer, et
al., 1965].
In the late 1970s, Topse seriously entered the hydroprocessing arena with the introduction of
new, high activity catalysts. However, being a research and development oriented company
with a keen interest in understanding and improving technology, Topse was not content with
simply introducing new catalysts. Refiners purchasing higher activity catalysts were not

-4realizing the benefits of longer operating cycles. Pressure drop build-up and poor flow
distribution limited the full utilization of the high activity catalysts and became one of the
primary causes of premature shut down. Topse set an objective of improving the overall
performance of the hydroprocessing reactor to optimize the cycle lengths we knew were
achievable with our high activity catalysts. Our first step was to revolutionize graded bed
technology by adapting specially designed inert topping materials and developing active TK
catalysts shaped in the form of rings to replace the inert spheres typically used for topping the
catalyst beds in hydroprocessing reactors. The advantage of the Topse graded bed design was
twofold. The void fraction of the Topse materials ranged from 53 - 55% compared to only
33% for spherical inerts. In addition, inert spheres were replaced by active TK-ring catalysts,
available in over 25 different types, that could be layered to provide an increasing activity
profile for better handling reactive feedstocks. Topse TK-ring technology was so successful it
became the industry standard for controlling pressure drop build-up. To date Topse shaped
catalysts are employed in graded beds in approximately 300 hydrotreating units worldwide.
Continuing our study of two-phase flow, Topse researchers began to evaluate ways of
improving liquid distribution and liquid contacting with the catalyst. The purpose was to
eliminate bypassing and hot spots due to channeling, and consequently reduce reactor
operating temperatures. This work has led to the development of liquid distribution tray and
quench mixing devices having superior performance to the equipment that is currently
employed commercially in most hydroprocessing units. The remainder of this paper discusses
the development history of liquid distribution tray design and compares different types of liquid
distributors typically used in hydroprocessing reactors. A comparison of the performance of
the Topse Dense Pattern, Flexible Distribution Tray and new Vapor-Lift Distribution Tray
designs with other trays commonly used in petroleum hydroprocessing is included. These tray
designs are also utilized in major revamps and grass roots units licensed by Topse. Examples
of Topse designs for revamps and grass roots units are presented.

Main Body - Discussion

Properly designed reactor internals are needed to ensure efficient control of multiphase flow
through hydroprocessing reactors. The internals elements include a means of dispersing the
flow velocity at the reactor inlet, provisions for distributing the liquid and gaseous reactants
evenly across the top catalyst bed, graded beds to collect feed contaminants and control
pressure drop build-up, structures for catalyst support, and a device to quench the catalyst bed
effluents, re-mix the reactants and quench medium, and redistribute the liquid and gaseous
reactants evenly across each subsequent catalyst bed. The most critical of these elements for
ensuring efficient catalyst performance are the liquid distribution trays, graded catalyst beds,
and quench mixing devices. The purpose of the liquid distribution tray is to establish an even
liquid distribution radially across the catalyst bed. Poor liquid distribution can contribute to
channeling through the catalyst bed resulting in inefficient utilization of the catalyst,
development of hot spots and catalyst deactivation due to coke formation. The impact of
channeling becomes more pronounced as hydrotreated product sulfur specifications are
reduced or significant reductions in aromatics content are needed. Figure 2 shows the
contribution of sulfur in the product from various quantities of feed that do not react with the
catalyst, in effect bypasses the catalyst. This chart indicates that it may not be possible to
achieve very low product sulfur targets with a given quantity of bypassing even if the
remainder of the feed is treated to 0 wt ppm. As an example, consider a feed containing 1.5
wt% sulfur is to be hydrotreated to 100 wt ppm. This is not possible if 1% bypassing is

-5occurring. This is a simplistic analysis, but it demonstrates the need to have good distribution,
especially as product sulfur targets are lowered. Over the years patents describing many
different distributor designs have been granted. Many of these distributor designs are
modifications or variations of the concepts developed by early researchers. However, many of
these designs can actually promote flow mal-distribution. The liquid flow through individual
distributors across the tray can vary significantly when the tray is not perfectly level, when the
distributors become fouled with corrosion products and/or when the vapor/liquid ratio changes
due to changing conditions from start-of-run to end-of-run.

Until recently, very little work has been undertaken to study and significantly improve the
performance of existing distribution tray designs. Catalyst manufacturers are well equipped to
test and develop new catalyst candidates, but have neither the testing facilities nor the expertise
to study flow distribution devices; engineering companies typically do not have the facilities
nor the interest to undertake reactor internals developmental studies which fall outside the
scope of their process and detailed engineering activities, oil companies are downsizing and
cutting back on research, and most technology licensors seem to have the opinion that
hydroprocessing is a mature technology and are content to continue with existing designs.

Sulfur Contribution from

Bypassed Product (wt ppm)

Feed S ulfur = 1.5 wt%

300
200
100
0
0.5

1
Feed Bypassing (%)

Bypassing
Poor Flow Profile

Figure 2: Sulfur Contribution from Bypassing

Topse has taken another approach realizing that there was plenty of room for improvements
of the hydroprocessing technology. Studies in Topses research laboratories have identified a
number of parameters that are very important for ensuring efficient liquid and gas distribution
in hydroprocessing reactors. The important parameters that must be considered during the
design of a liquid distribution tray include the spacing of the distributors, the pressure drop
across the tray, the sensitivity to tray levelness, and the flexibility to operate over a wide range
of vapor/liquid ratios.

-6-

The importance of distributor spacing is characterized by the following correlation

proposed in a study by Hoftyzer [Hoftyzer, 1964]:
Kcrit = y2/(dp^0.5 * Z)

(1)

Where: y = the radial spacing between distribution points in centimeters

dp = the catalyst particle diameter in centimeters
Z = the axial distance down into the catalyst bed in centimeters
Data collected by several investigators indicates that uniform flow will be achieved if the value
of Kcrit is no greater than 4.0. With this parameter held constant, the correlation expressing the
axial penetration into the catalyst bed as a function of the distributor spacing and particle
diameter becomes:
Z = y2 / 4*dp^0.5

(2)

which predicts that better liquid dispersion will be achieved nearer the top of the catalyst bed
with closer spacing of the distributors and a greater number of drip points. This is illustrated in
Figure 3.

2X

Z
y

4Z

0.28V

0.28V

2y

Figure 3: Impact of Distributor Spacing

Tray levelness must be carefully considered so that liquid does not preferentially flow
through only some of the distribution points. This is illustrated in Figure 4.

-7-

Perforated Plate Distributor

Poor Flow Profile

Chimney Distributor

Improved Flow Profile

Vapor Lift Distributor

Uniform Flow Profile

Figure 4: Impact of Tray Levelness

Vaporization over the run cycle, increases the vapor/liquid ratio which can reduce the
liquid level on the tray below a point where liquid can flow through some of the
distributors.

Vulnerability to plugging by coke or corrosion products must be considered to ensure

equal liquid flow from all distribution points.

Vapor/liquid mixing is also an important feature for ensuring that the reactants reaching the
catalyst are at an equilibrium temperature so that an even reaction occurs throughout the
entire catalyst bed.

As we review some of the different distributor designs that have been patented over the years
we will discuss how well these devices address the above design considerations.
One type of distribution tray found in hydrotreating reactors is a perforated plate or sieve tray
with gas chimneys as illustrated in Figure 5. This tray is rather simple to construct and is
capable of providing the greatest number of drip points over the cross section of the catalyst
bed. However, the performance of this type of distribution device will not properly satisfy the
above design considerations. Liquid on an un-level tray will gravitate to the low points, and
consequently the sensitivity to tray levelness will be very high. The perforations can easily
become plugged by coke, corrosion products, or other debris carried into the reactor by the
feed. Finally, the flexibility to liquid load is very poor. Typically, this type of distribution tray
can be designed to give good performance at either the design conditions or at turndown
conditions, but not at both situations. Consequently, the tray has a tendency to run dry as
vaporization increases toward the end of the cycle. This type of design would therefore not be
seriously considered to provide good distribution.

-8-

Vapor Chimneys

Perforated Plate
Figure 5: Simple Perforated Plate Distributor
A step improvement, proposed by tray designers to eliminate some of the drawbacks of the
perforated plate design discussed above, is the simple chimney tray designs illustrated in Figure
6 [Grosboll et al., 1978], [Fouad et al., 1989]. These designs have chimneys evenly spaced
across the distribution tray. These chimneys allow the vapor to pass through the top opening.
The liquid flow is distributed through weep holes or notches cut into the side of the riser.
These designs eliminate the sensitivity to plugging but also fall short of meeting the above
design considerations. In essence, the simple chimney tray is equivalent to a perforated tray
with elevated liquid ports. The flow of liquid is governed by the overflow principle, and since
all of the notches or weep holes on these distributors are essentially at the same level, the trays
are very sensitive to tray levelness and changes in liquid loading. Furthermore, this design
offers significantly fewer drip points than the perforated plate type previously discussed. In
order to provide some turndown capability, the simple chimney distribution trays are designed
to maintain a liquid level at the design conditions somewhere above the level of the weep holes
or notch bottom, but below the top of the chimney. However, to keep the distributors
reasonably sized, the designer has to compromise the flexibility to deal with changing
operations. If the feed rate is increased or a heavier feed is processed, the level on the tray will
increase and can flood over the top of the chimney. Likewise, vaporization will increase due to
rising temperature during the cycle and the liquid level will be reduced accordingly. When the
level either floods over the top of the distributor, or reaches the elevation of the weep hole or
notch, the tray becomes very sensitive to levelness and some of the distributor points will
preferentially pass greater amounts of liquid.

U.S. Patent No.

4,126,540

U.S. Patent No.

4,836,989

Figure 6: Simple Chimney Distributors

Early ARCO
Notched Chimney

-9A further improvement in distributor design is the multi-port chimney distributors described in
patents by Chevron and by Arco, as illustrated in Figure 7.

U.S. Patent No.

4,126,540

U.S. Patent No.

4,235,344

Figure 7: Multiply Port Chimney Distributors

These distributor designs have weep holes spaced vertically up the axis of the chimney which
provide a greater flexibility to changing vapor/liquid ratios, and an increased tolerance to tray
levelness problems. It is, however, important for the multiple weep holes to be properly sized.
If the weep hole diameter is too large the liquid will rapidly drain to the level of the lower hole
at turndown conditions. The weep hole diameters may therefore be reduced to maintain the
desired liquid level on the tray. Ideally, the lower weep holes might be even smaller in diameter
to directionally maintain good liquid distribution at very low liquid rates (high vapor/liquid
loading). This tray design can still experience liquid mal-distribution at very high vapor/liquid
ratios, when some of the small liquid ports become plugged with debris, or when the tray is not
level.
Several distribution tray patents describe layouts with separate vapor and liquid chimneys, as
illustrated in Figure 8 [Riopelle et al., 1967].

U.S. Patent No. 3,353,924

Figure 8: Separated Vapor and Liquid Chimney

- 10 In these designs, vapor flows through larger diameter chimneys while liquid is distributed
through much smaller diameter nozzles that are spaced closer together. In some designs the
liquid distributors are simple standpipes while others offer notched liquid distributors or multiport nozzles. These trays offer improved liquid distribution resulting from the increased
number of drip points, but must be designed carefully to operate properly over wide variations
in vapor/liquid ratio. The designs using multi-port liquid nozzles and gas chimneys provide the
greatest flexibility.
A different concept in liquid distributor design was described by Unocal in a 1965 patent. This
bubble-cap design shown in Figure 9 operates on a vapor assist principle compared to the
liquid overflow principle employed by most distributors. As illustrated in Figure 10, vapor
passing through slots cut in the bubble cap aspirate liquid held up on the tray, carrying it over a
central downcomer.

U.S. Patent No. 3,218,249

Figure 9: Vapor Assisted Distributor
Bubble Cap
Distributor

Figure 10: Liquid Distributor Operating Mode

Chimney
Distributor

- 11 The bubble-cap design has been believed for many years to be much less sensitive to tray
levelness than its chimney distributor counterparts, because the only way for liquid to be
removed from the tray is to be carried away by the vapor. However, perhaps the real difference
between the performance of a bubble-cap, compared to a multi-port chimney is the stable
sensitivity it demonstrates over a very broad range of liquid loading. A properly designed
distributor with multi-port nozzles and gas chimneys can demonstrate lower sensitivity over a
narrower operating range than a bubble cap distributor. However, the chimney type distributor
will have very erratic sensitivity performance at operating conditions where the liquid level
approaches and/or crosses the elevation of the weep holes.
Another desirable quality of a vapor-assist distributor type is that it acts as an additional
quenching device, bringing the liquid and vapor closer to an equilibrium temperature, before
they enter the catalyst. The relatively high vapor velocity through the slots in a vapor assisted
distributor not only provides intimate contacting of the vapor and liquid, but also sweeps
debris away and makes this type of device less vulnerable to fouling compared to a chimney
tray. On the downside, the bubble cap distributor can have a diameter approximately 50 to
100% larger than its chimney tray counterparts and therefore must be spaced further apart.
This wide spacing establishes fewer drip points onto the top of the catalyst bed which
necessitates deeper penetration into the bed before an equilibrium liquid dispersion is reached.
This feature somewhat compromises the benefits of the bubble cap design.

New Distribution Tray Designs

As is evident from the review of distribution tray development, the tray designs predominantly
used in hydroprocessing reactors today were originally conceived some 20 to 30 years ago,
and have evolved very little since that time. In the early 1990s, Topse recognized the need to
develop improved distribution tray designs to work in concert with our TK-Ring graded bed
technology and more efficiently utilize our high activity TK-Series catalysts. Topse initially
designed and constructed a cold flow pilot unit, and has since installed additional equipment
used for testing different liquid distributor designs at both atmospheric and elevated pressures.
An extensive, ongoing test program was undertaken with the objective of developing
distribution trays with the attributes summarized in Figure 11, and to date over 7000 research
and engineering man-hours have been devoted to this program. A model, based on this work,
has been developed that can predict the operating performance of most typical liquid
distributor designs, and data collected from the test units have confirmed the ability of the
model to accurately predict pressure drop, and liquid level on the tray. Another factor for
consideration is the sensitivity of a distributor to tray levelness as defined by the following
formula:
Sensitivity = (Fl - Fh)/Fave * 100
where,
Fh - liquid flow through the high distributor.
Fl - liquid flow through the low distributor.
Fave - average flow through both distributors.

(3)

- 12

Topse Liquid Distribution Tray Development

Program began early 1990
Program objectives (distributor tray attributes)
- capable of handling high turn-down rates
- flexible operation over wide vapor/liquid ratio range
- low sensitivity to tray levelness problems
- low pressure drop
- close spacing
Cold flow testing equipment was designed and fabricated
Commitment to ongoing test program currently exceeds 7000 engineering
manhours
Flow model has been developed to:
- design new distributor trays
- evaluate existing distribution trays performance

Figure 11: Reactor Internals Development Program

The model has been calibrated to estimate the sensitivity of a distributor to an assumed
difference in tray levelness. This tool can be very helpful when evaluating the performance of
the distributor trays in existing reactors to determine whether they are strong candidates for
replacement.
Based on this test work, Topse developed a first generation distribution tray. This design,
named the Dense Pattern, Flexible Distribution Tray has recently been accepted for a U.S.
patent. This tray design comprises a dense array of small multi-port liquid nozzles surrounding
separate vapor chimneys. Designs for thirty-six (36) Dense Pattern, Flexible Distribution Tray
have been prepared and about two-thirds of these are currently in operation. The remaining
tray designs are in units that have yet to be commissioned. Figures 12 and 13 summarize
operating data collected from some of the commercial hydrotreating units retrofitted with
Topse Dense Pattern, Flexible Distribution Trays.
Figure 12 shows the improvement in radial temperature spread that was achieved in a resid
hydrotreating reactor after a Topse Dense Pattern, Flexible Distribution Tray was installed.
Identical loading of Topse catalysts were in the reactors during both operating runs, only the
distribution tray was changed. Prior to installation of the Topse distribution tray, the radial
temperature spread at opposite sides of the catalyst bed increased to over 22C at the bottom
of the reactor. However, after installation of the Topse distribution tray, the radial
temperature spread was reduced to less than 5C.
Figure 13 compares the operation of the Phillips diesel hydrotreater at the Borger, Texas
refinery before and after a Topse Dense pattern, Flexible Distribution Tray was retrofitted
into the reactor. There is a reduction of 25C in the start of run reactor average bed
temperature and a cycle length that is a factor of two higher for the run using the Topse tray
even though the processing severity is higher. This translates to a relative catalyst activity
improvement of 250% even though the catalyst for the two runs was the same, Topses TK554. This demonstrates the requirement for good reactor internals for maximizing benefits of a
high activity catalyst. This is described in further detail in a paper co-authored by David Yeary
of Phillips 66 Company and presented at the 1997 NPRA Annual Meeting in San Antonio,
Texas.

- 13 -

30

Temperature Difference, Deg C

25

Topsoe Distribution
Tray Installed

20
15
10
5
0
-5

Cycle B

Cycle A

-10
-15
-20

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160

Run Days

Top DT

Mid DT

20

40

60

80 100

Bottom DT

Figure 12: Topse Distribution Tray Performance

LHSV
Average Bed Temperature, C
Feed Sulfur, wt%
Product Sulfur, wt%
Relative HDS activity

Without
Distribution
1.0 to 1.1
343 - 349
(346 average)
0.7
0.03 0.08
(0.05 average)
0.5 1.5
(1.0 average)

With
Distribution
1.0 to 1.1
318 - 327
(321 average)
0.9
0.02 0.05
(0.035 average)
2.0 3.0
(2.5 average)

Figure 13: Improvement in Catalyst Efficiency Diesel Hydrotreater Performance

In mid 1996, Haldor Topse engineers, in their continuing efforts to develop better
technology, conceived a new Vapor-Lift Distribution Tray design. This breakthrough design
incorporates the advantages normally associated with vapor-assist distributors, such as a
bubble cap, (vapor/liquid mixing, low vulnerability to plugging) but has the much smaller
footprint of a well designed chimney which enables the installation of more distribution points
across the tray area. The center-to-center spacing between the Vapor-Lift nozzles is
approximately one-half the spacing required for bubble cap nozzles. In addition, the VaporLift Distribution Tray design exhibits very stable, low sensitivity, operation over a broad range
of liquid loading (vapor/liquid ratios). Due to its unique geometry, the measured sensitivity of
the Vapor-Lift Distribution Tray can be as much as an order of magnitude lower than that
demonstrated by a standard bubble-cap distribution tray operating at the same conditions.

- 14 Figure 14 compares the sensitivity of several different distributor tray designs to a 10 mm

elevation difference between the liquid nozzles. The operations simulated in the test units are
high liquid loading (typical of most hydrotreater operations), medium liquid loading (typical of
a hydrocracker pretreater, FCC pretreater or a hydrotreater processing a cracked feedstock),
and a low liquid loading (typical of a hydrocracking reactor operation) or diesel hydrotreater
unit operated for production of ultra-low sulfur diesel. The data compares the performance of
a bubble cap distributor, the first generation, Topse Dense Pattern, Flexible Distributor, and
a Topse Vapor-Lift Distributor. As can be seen, the Topse Dense Pattern, Flexible
Distributor out-performs the bubble cap distributor at high liquid loading applications and has
a comparable sensitivity at low liquid loading. However, the sensitivity of the new Vapor-Lift
Distributor is significantly better over the entire operating range tested, compared to either
Topses first generation design or a bubble cap design. The Topse Vapor-Lift Distributor
has the stable performance over a broad range of liquid loading expected of a vapor-assist
design, but with a much lower sensitivity than a standard bubble-cap.

Sensitivity of liquid flow %

Sensitivity of liquid flow to 10mm elevation difference

35
Bubble Cap Tray
Topsoe Dense-Array Tray
Topsoe Vapor-Lift Tray

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

High Liquid load

Medium Liquid load Low Liquid load

Figure 14: Haldor Topse Internals Design Performance of Distributors

This low sensitivity to tray levelness over a wide operating range, combined with closer
distributor spacing should guarantee superior performance of this new Vapor-Lift Distribution
Tray compared to any other tray design currently in commercial use.
Designs for 19 Vapor-Lift distribution trays have been prepared and the first of these will go
into operation during the autumn 1998. A major part of the remaining tray designs will be put
into service during the first part of 1999.
Reactor internals technology is only a small but important part of Topses hydroprocessing
technology resources. Intimate knowledge of heterogeneous catalysis and process technology
has resulted in Topse licensing and preparing complete engineering design packages for
grassroots hydroprocessing units as well as for major revamps of existing units.
Our most recent revamp effort was a conversion of a single stage hydrotreater to an integrated
two stage hydrotreater (HDS stage) / aromatics saturation unit (HDA stage). The low
aromatics were required to meet regulations for marketing diesel in California.

- 15 The existing unit is a single stage heavy gas oil hydrotreater capable of processing 33,000 bpsd
of straight run diesel and light coker gas oil. The product from this unit is a hydrotreated diesel
that has an aromatics content of 37%. After the addition of the integrated second stage, this
unit will be capable of processing a more difficult feed containing LCO with product diesel
aromatics content of 6% and with essentially no sulfur or nitrogen. This is summarized in
Figure 15.
Feed Blend
- Straight-run diesel
- Light coker gas oil
- Light FCC cycle oil

Vol%
67
12
21
Feed

Rate, BSPD
Sulfur, ppm
Nitrogen, ppm
Aromatics

33,000
9000
600
40

HDS
Product
33,500
5
3
37

HDA
Product
34,000
1
2
6

Figure 15: Revamp Project Addition of HDA Stage

The engineering design package prepared by Topse will minimize client cost for the revamp.
This is accomplished by reusing all of the major equipment from the existing unit and
minimizing addition of new equipment. Part of the equipment savings was a result of utilizing a
hot stripper mid way in the first stage reactor effluent train which minimized the cooling and
reheating required for first stage product to second stage feed. Equipment addition was also
minimized by cascading products form first stage to the second stage and using a single recycle
gas loop. Modifications to the existing recycle gas compressor were not required. This was
partly due to the fact that liquid quench was used in the second stage to reduce recycle gas
requirement. The use of liquid quench required Topses proprietary reactor quench section
and redistribution tray technology.
Figure 16 is a simplified process flow diagram for the existing unit and Figure 17 outlines the
modifications required to the existing unit for the addition of an integrated HDA stage.
Innovative design reduced the revamp cost for our client.
We have also licensed grass roots units, with the most recent one being a 45,000 bpsd diesel
hydrotreater. This unit is designed to produce an ultra low sulfur diesel with a product sulfur
target of 30 ppm. One unique design feature of this project was the fact that the client wanted
to design the reactor for processing a wide variety of feeds form 100% straight run diesel to
100% cracked naphtha (blend of coker and FCC). A variety of process studies were also
carried out including 1) determination of recycle scrubber addition, 2) determination of high
pressure hot separator addition and other features.

- 16 -

Reactor
Charge
Heater

Recycle Gas
Compressor

HDS
Reactors

PC

Amine
Scrubber
Make-up
Hydrogen

Effluent Air Cooler

LSRGO
Purc GO
LCGO
M

Water

Effluent to Existing
Fractionation Section

Wash
Water
Surge
Drum

Charge Pump

Sour Water

M
HALDOR TOPSOE INC

Figure 16: Existing HDS Units

Reactor
Charge
Heater

HDS
Reactors

Recycle Gas
Compressor
Make-up
Hydrogen

M
Amine
Scrubber

HDS Strip
OH Drum

HDS
Stripper
PC
M

Effluent to Existing
Fractionation Section

LSRGO
Purc GO
LCGO
LCO

Wash
Water
Charge Pump

Sour
Water
Product
Separator
HDA
Reactor

HALDOR TOPSOE INC

New
Equipment

ORANGE
CALIFORNIA

JOB NO

Figure 17: Revamped HDS/HDA Unit

DOC
GRP

DWG. NO.

41

PF02 A

REV

- 17 -

Conclusions
Prior to Topses development work begun in the early 1990s, no significant efforts were
undertaken by licensors, engineering contractors, or catalyst manufacturers, to improve the
design of liquid distribution trays over the original designs patented by oil company researchers
in the mid 1960s. The advantages and disadvantages of the various trays that have been
presented are summarized in Figure 18.

Distributor
Type
Perforated
Plate
Simple
Chimney
Multiport
Chimney
Bubble Cap
Topse Dense
Array
Topse
Vapor-Lift

Distributor
Spacing
Density
Best

Level
Sensitivity
Worst

Liquid
Turndown
Ratio
Worst

Flexibility
Vapor/
Liquid Ratio
Worst

Liquid/
Vapor Mixing
Capability
Worst

Average

Poor

Poor

Poor

Poor

Average

Average

Average

Average

Poor

Worst
Best

Average
Good

Good
Good

Good
Good

Best
Worst

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Figure 18: Conclusion Reactor Internals

Two new tray designs have emerged from Topses development program. Thirty six first
generation Dense Pattern, Flexible Distribution Trays have been designed for reactors in
several new or revamped hydrotreating units and those currently in commercial operation have
demonstrated superior, improved performance. Studies in cold flow test units have shown that
Topses newest Vapor-Lift Distribution Tray demonstrates significantly better performance
than other commercially available distributor designs including bubble cap trays and Topses
first generation Dense Pattern, Flexible Distribution Tray. At last, these distributor tray
designs offer the refiner an economical means of correcting or improving poor hydrotreater
reactor performance caused by uneven flow distribution through the catalyst beds. First
commercial application of Topses Vapor-Lift Distribution Tray should be commissioned
during the autumn 1998 in a diesel hydrotreater. A total of 19 Vapor-Lift Distribution trays
have been designed.
Topse offers innovative design not only for the liquid distribution tray, but also for quench
section as well as for the rest of the reactor internals. Reactor internals technology is only small
but important part of Topses hydroprocessing technology, which includes engineering design
packages for grassroots hydroprocessing units as well as for major revamps of existing units.

- 18 -

References
1. Ballard et al., U.S. Patent 3,218,249, (Union Oil Company of California), 1965.
2. Dreyer et al., U.S. Patent 3,235,344, (Standard Oil Company of California), 1965.
3. Fouad, et al., U.S. Patent 4,836,989, (Mobil Oil Corporation), 1989.
4. Grosboll et al., U.S. Patent 4,126,540, (Atlantic Richfield Company), 1978.
5. Hansen, L., J. Mikkelsen, and J. Bartholdy, Haldor Topse internal publication, 1994.
6. Hoftyzer, P.J., Trans. Inst. Chem. Engers, (London) 42 (1964), T109-T117.
7. Moyse, B. M., Raschig Ring, HDS Catalysts Reduce Pressure Drop, Oil & Gas Journal,
December 31, 1984.
8. Moyse, B.M., Graded Catalyst Systems to Combat Bed-Fouling Problems, UOP
Unicracking/Unifing Conference, March 1996.
9. Riopelle et al., U.S. Patent 3,353,924, (Shell Oil Company), 1967.
10. Simpson, S.G., Refining Catalysts for High Specification Transportation Fuels, presented
by UOP Limited, at the Institute of Petroleum Meeting : Improved Catalytic Processes,
London, April 10, 1997.
11. Yeary, D.L., et al, Revamp For Low Sulfur Diesel A Case Study, 1997 NPRA Annual
Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, March 16, 1997.