Innovative Approach to Solve CCR Regenerator Pinning Problem Rabea M. Al-Saggaf, Sajeesh Padmanabhan, Hamzah Z.

Abuduraihem and Neelay Bhattacharya. Saudi Aramco-Saudi Arabia ABSTRACT Saudi Aramco Yanbu Refinery & Process & Control System Department engineers worked jointly to troubleshoot and resolve the successive plugging of the Continuous Catalyst Regeneration (CCR) regeneration tower. The CCR section of the Yanbu' Refinery (YR) Platformer experienced successive catalyst blowouts leading to a regeneration section shutdown. This caused the Platformer section to operate at reduced feed rate and severity. It was concluded that the root cause for this problem was the over sizing of the regeneration gas blower. The available option to reduce pinning was to lower the regeneration gas flow. Installation of the restriction orifice on the regeneration gas blower suction eliminated the pinning problem and normal CCR Platformer operation resumed. INTRODUCTION The YR Platformer unit was revamped in June 2006 from a fixed bed unit to a Continuous Catalyst Regeneration Unit. Coked spent catalyst from the Platforming reactors is continuously sent to the CCR Regeneration Tower where the coke is burnt off and the spent catalyst is regenerated in four steps: 1) Coke Burning 2) Oxychlorination for dispersing the catalyst metals and adjusting the catalyst chloride. 3) Catalyst Drying 4) Reduction for changing the catalyst metals to the reduced state. Finally, the regenerated catalyst is circulated back to the first Platforming reactor. As the catalyst is in a continuous movement, over a period of time catalyst fines plugs the Regenerator screen. The CCR has to be shutdown and the screen removed for cleaning every 12 months. Figure (1) illustrates a schematic of the CCR flow and equipment.

Figure (1): Schematic of Cyclemax Regenerator INCIDENT BACKGROUND Since the first startup in June 2006, the CCR Regeneration Tower has been operating with a partially plugged screen, as a result of catalyst fines, generated in the system from the containment loss in the Platformer reactors, due to a weld failure in the center pipe of the first reactor. This effectively reduced the Regeneration gas flow without affecting the CCR operability. It was recommended by the licensor to clean the screen at the earliest opportunity. The CCR was shutdown for a period of 5 days to carry out the cleaning of the regeneration tower screen. The unit was restarted in black burn mode. The startup was normal and the regeneration tower temperature profile had its peak at the second TI in the Burn Zone. The operation of the regenerator for the next 36 hours was absolutely normal with regenerated catalyst carbon at 0.095 wt% and spent catalyst carbon at 4.3 wt%. A blowout occurred between the disengaging hopper and the regeneration tower, which caused the disengaging hopper level to drop from 52% to 47%. The Disengaging pressure dropped and the Regeneration Tower pressure increased momentarily. Figure (2) below shows the pressure fluctuation and level drop at the time the blow out occurred.

Figure (2): Pressure and level profiles during the incident Due to the blowout, a lot of fines and chips were generated that plugged the Regenerator screen. A shift in burn zone temperature profile was experienced and the peak temperatures shifted to fifth TI, which is at the bottom of the burn zone (refer to Table 1). Maintaining a proper burn profile in this section is extremely important for safe operation of the unit. If the burn profile shifts down, un-regenerated catalyst will enter the chlorination zone, potentially causing catalyst to agglomerate and damage the Regenerator internals. Table (1): Regeneration Tower Normal and Incident Temperature Profiles TI TI -1 TI -2 TI -3 TI -4 TI -5 TI -6 TI -7 TI -8 Licenser Specified Range 479-510C 493-593C 493-593C 493-560C 491-504C 491-504C 491-504C 479-499C Normal Profile 380C 563C 557C 503C 492C 487C 485C 485C Shifted Profile 250C 465C 475C 511C 543C 479C 472C 465C

Intensive discussions were held between Refinery engineers and licensor experts on this subject and it was concluded that it is very difficult to pin-point the root cause of the blowout. An attempt was made, as suggested by the licensor, to stop the Regeneration blower and carry out cold circulation of the catalyst to clear the screen. Accordingly the regeneration tower was cooled, as per procedure, at 50C/Hr. when the blower was switched to low speed at 350C, a blowout was again observed. A similar phenomenon was observed when the blower was switched from low speed to high speed during the reheat. There was no improvement in unit performance. Therefore, the regeneration section was again shutdown as a result of repetitive blowout occurring between the disengaging hopper and the regeneration tower. The CCR Platformer throughput was lowered from the design of 40 to 30 MBD and the operating severity reduced from 100.0 to 95.0 to control coke lay down. ANALYSIS & FINDINGS It is very unusual for a blowout to take place in a CCR because it is normally catalyst full. During normal operation the catalyst flows down due to gravity. The Disengaging Hopper operates at approximately 9.0 kg/cm2 (g) and the Regeneration Tower operates at approximately 2.5 kg/cm2 (g). This huge pressure differential is taken by the catalyst in the long transfer pipes between the Disengaging Hopper and the Regeneration Tower. If due to any reason, a void is created in the Regeneration Tower, the huge differential pressure will force the catalyst down, causing a pressure fluctuation and generating fines and dust. The fines will block the Regenerator screen, causing the temperature profile to slip down. The problem was analyzed with the following facts: 1. One probable cause could be something blocking the catalyst transfer pipe. But this would be a one-time occurrence that would be automatically cleared after the blowout. But since the blowout reoccurred, it was obvious that blowout was not due to plugging of the transfer pipes. 2. The only difference between the two startups was the condition of the screen. Since initial startup the unit was operating with a plugged screen. The recent start-up was the first time with a clean screen. 3. The blowout was clearly related to the blower operation because the blowout had happened on two occasions when the blower speed was switched. A detailed analysis of the blower data was carried out. During the unit start-up, a test run was carried out to evaluate the performance of the blower. The head delivered was equivalent to 29.53 H2O versus 30.94 H2O (design), based on the performance curve of the blower; this motor was delivering 13,300 ACFM versus 12,986 ACFM (design), as indicated in Figure (3).

Figure (3): Performance of blower v/s design conditions It was concluded that the blower flow was 2.4% above design, even with a partially plugged screen, indicating that the actual degree of over design was higher. Once the screen was cleaned, the flow increased, causing the catalyst to pin in the Regeneration Tower. Since the Lock Hopper is removing catalyst, a void was created at some location in the Regeneration Tower. When the differential pressure between the Disengaging Hopper and the Regeneration Tower was high enough, it forced the catalyst to fill the void creating a blowout. This would also explain why the blowout occurred when the blower speed was changed. The first time when the blower was switched from high speed to low speed the catalyst unpinned, causing an immediate blowout. The second time the blower was switched from low-speed to highspeed, causing the catalyst to pin. The blowout did not occur immediately. During subsequent heat-up, the catalyst slumped, creating a void below the pinned area, which caused a blowout. Discussions were held by the team with the licensor, and the licensor was convinced that the blower could be a likely cause for the blowout. They agreed to the following: 1. The licensor would size a restriction orifice to reduce the Regeneration Gas flow by 15-20% to avoid pinning. YR would keep it ready for installation in the Regeneration tower gas outlet line. 2. Conduct inspection of the disengaging hopper and regeneration tower screen. 3. If inspection did not reveal any obvious reason to explain the blowouts, then install the restriction orifice in the Regeneration gas outlet line and observe the unit performance on restart.

FIELD INSPECTION The regeneration tower and the Disengaging Hopper were open for inspection. While unloading the catalyst, the last few drums from the Disengaging Hopper contained fresh catalyst. YR had added 12 drums of fresh catalyst to the Disengaging hopper during the recent reload. Since the catalyst had been circulated for 500 cycles, there should not have been any fresh catalyst remaining in the Disengaging Hopper. This clearly indicated that the catalyst was not moving as a result of localized catalyst pinning on the regeneration tower screen. No clumps or debris were found between the disengaging hopper and the regeneration tower. The Regeneration screen was heavily plugged. There was no sign of integrity loss or severe damage to the screen. It was concluded that the root cause for this problem was the over-sizing of the regeneration gas blower. RECOMMENDATIONS The available option to reduce pinning was to lower the Regeneration gas flow. The least cost-effective option was to install a restriction orifice in the Regeneration gas blower suction line, to reduce the Regeneration gas flow which would increase the pinning margin. Discussions were held with the unit licensor on the most optimum sizing for the restriction orifice. It was concluded that a 15% reduction in the total regeneration gas flow would improve the pinning margin to 25%. The licensor designed a restriction orifice with a bore size of 340mm, which was fabricated by YR and installed in the Regeneration gas outlet line. The reduced burn zone capacity, due to reduction in Regeneration gas flow, would be compensated by an increase in burn zone oxygen content, from the normal operating values of 0.85 mol to 0.95 mol%, to 0.95 to 1.1 mol%. CCR RESTART The regeneration section was restarted after the installation of the restriction orifice. The start-up was smooth without any pressure fluctuations or signs of blowout. No major impact or deficiencies were observed in the Regeneration blower operation. The temperature profiles across the Regeneration tower were back to normal as indicated in Figure (4) below. To test the capacity of the Regeneration Tower, a coke burn test was conducted. The circulation rate was slowly increased to 95% of design and the oxygen concentration was slowly reduced from 1.0 mole% to 0.8 mole%. Laboratory results showed less than 0.07 wt% carbon, indicating complete regeneration. The evaluation of the test results indicated that there was no major reduction in the unit capacity.

CCR Reheat Zone Gas Flow and Top Burn Zone Temperatures
650 2200 600 2000 550 500 450 400 350 23-Dec-2006 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 2-Jan-2007 12-Jan-2007 22-Jan-2007 1-Feb-2007 11-Feb-2007

11TI0342 Burn Zone T1C 11TI0343 Burn Zone T2 C 11TI0344 Burn Zone T3 C 11FI0233 Reheat Flow Nm3/h

Figure (4): Regenerator temperature profiles CONCLUSION In conclusion, the blowouts were caused by pinning that resulted from the over-design of the blower. The installation of the restriction orifice on the Regeneration gas blower suction line eliminated the pinning problem. Normal CCR Platformer operation was resumed.