Model Development for Monitoring Semi-
Regen Naphtha Reforming Catalyst Activity
and Predicting Reformate Yield
Authors: Gene J. Yeh and Fehed Al-Nafisee
ABSTRACT
Monitoring the semi-regen naphtha reforming catalyst activity
is essential for smooth operation of the naphtha reformer. Our
current practice is for the refineries to send operating data to
the catalyst vendor periodically for evaluation of the catalyst
performance. The catalyst vendor, after evaluation, sends the
report back to the refineries. This practice takes time, and the
feedback from the vendor cannot provide any needed in-time
warnings. It is important to monitor the semi-regen naphtha
reforming catalyst activity daily at our own refineries so we
can spot any problems quickly. Therefore, we developed a
normalization spreadsheet model, which allows the refineries
to monitor the semi-regen naphtha reforming catalyst activity
on-site.
Reformate has a high octane number and is a very
important component in the gasoline pool. Knowing the
reformate yield is crucial for planning gasoline production. To
develop a spreadsheet model to predict reformate yield
accurately can facilitate planning of gasoline production.
INTRODUCTION
Saudi Aramco has several semi-regen naphtha reformers.
Currently we rely on catalyst vendors to analyze the operating
data for us. Our refineries send operating data to these
catalyst vendors periodically. After evaluation, the catalyst
vendor sends us the evaluation report. This practice takes time
and does not provide us feedback in a timely manner. It is
important for us to monitor the performance of the semi-
regen naphtha reforming catalyst on-site on a daily basis. The
development of a normalization spreadsheet model in-house
can provide Saudi Aramco the ability to monitor semi-regen
naphtha reforming catalyst activity.
This article shows the development of a normalization
model and examples of its application in monitoring the
catalyst activity for the RTR and RR semi-regen naphtha
reformers.
Reformate is a product of the semi-regen naphtha reformer.
The reformate has a high octane number and is an important
component in the gasoline pool. To forecast the gasoline
production accurately, the reformate yield needs to be
predicted correctly.
This article also summarizes the development of reformate
prediction models and examples of their application in
prediction of reformate yield for RTR semi-regen naphtha
reformers.
NORMALIZATION OF SEMI-REGEN NAPHTHA
REFORMING CATALYST ACTIVITY
The activity of a semi-regen naphtha reforming catalyst is
typically represented by reactor weight average inlet
temperature (WAIT). During operation, the semi-regen
naphtha reforming catalyst could be deactivated by poisons
and coking, so the required WAIT to achieve the same
operating objectives should be higher as days on stream
increase, a positive deactivation rate. Although, the actual
WAIT in operation can fluctuate depending on operating
severities. To evaluate the real catalyst performance,
normalization of the semi-regen catalyst activity is a must.
The required WAIT to achieve a fixed operating goal
mainly depends on feed liquid hourly space velocity (LHSV),
reformate research octane number (RON), and the feed
property of N+3.5A. The effect of WAIT as a function of
LHSV, reformate RON, and the feed property of N+3.5A are
obtained from the general operating manual of Platforming
Process1. The numerical effect on WAIT from the above three
operating parameters is shown in Eqns. 1 to 3, respectively:
WAIT requirement correction for LHSV,
C = -4.0642 *
(LHSV)2 + 29.113 *
LHSV - 25.614 (1)
WAIT response to RON,
C/per RON = 0.0025 *
(RON)2 - 0.3486*
RON + 13.632 (2)
WAIT requirement correction for feed N+3.5 A content,
C = 0.0014 *
(N+3.5 A)2 - 0.5861 *
(N+3.5 A) + 38.028 (3)
SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY WINTER 2009 13
 To compare catalyst activity based on fixed operating
540
parameters, the actual WAIT is normalized to the base
conditions in Tables 1 and 2. 530

WAIT, C
Comparison of Normalized WAIT vs. Actual WAIT 520

510
Actual operating data were used in the normalization of
catalyst activity. Comparison between the actual WAIT and 500
normalized WAIT for RTR Plants A and B and for RR semi-
490
regen naphtha reformer are shown in Figs. 1-3, respectively.
480
LHSV 1.91 0 50 100 150 200 250

RON 97 Days On Stream

N+3.5A 70 normalized WAIT actual WAIT

Table 1. Base conditions for normalization for RTR Plants A and B Fig. 3. Actual and normalized WAIT (RR naphtha reformer).

LHSV 1.86 In Fig. 1, the normalized WAIT always shows a positive

RON 97 deactivation rate, while the slope of the actual WAIT is
N+3.5A 69 sometimes negative. The actual WAIT requirement decreases
from day 100 to day 150, due to an increase in the feed
Table 2. Base conditions for normalization for RR semi-regen naphtha reformer
properties (N+3.5A) and a decrease in the reformate octane
requirement. These two criteria changes result in a lower
Scale for RON, N+3.5A, %LHSV

requirement for WAIT. Therefore, the normalized WAIT is a

1000 120
better indicator of catalyst performance than the actual WAIT.
100
When the normalized WAIT reaches the maximum temperature
80 of 980 F, it is time to regenerate or replace the catalyst.
WAIT, F

950 60 In RTR Plant B, the actual WAIT matches quite well with
40 the normalized WAIT from the start of the run up to day
170, Fig. 2. During this period, LHSV, reformate octane and
20
feed property criteria are relatively steady. After day 170, the
900 0
LHSV is reduced and the reformate octane is lowered in
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
order to achieve the target cycle life. The actual WAIT
Days On Stream
normalized WAIT N+3.5A reformate octane requirement is lower as a result. Although, the normalized
actual WAIT % LHSV
WAIT continues to increase and reveals the real catalyst
performance.
Fig. 1. Actual and normalized WAIT (RTR Plant A).
In Fig. 3, the actual WAIT increases linearly as days on
stream increase, while the normalized WAIT shows three
distinct positive slopes from day 1 to day 70, day 70 to day
120
1040 140, and day 140 to day 240, respectively. As shown, the
slope (deactivation rate) from day 1 to day 70 is low; from
Scale for RON, N+3.5A, %LHSV

100
1020
day 70 to day 140, it is high; and from day 140 to 240, it is
1000 80 low again. The normalized WAIT reveals the real catalyst
WAIT, F

performance history, but the actual WAIT cannot. The

980
60 catalyst performs well from day 1 to day 70, whereas the
960 catalyst is deactivated severely from day 70 to day 140, due
40
940 to heavy, high boiling point (b.p.) material contaminated in
20
the feed. From day 140 onward, the feed end point is reduced
920
and the operating severity, mainly RON and feed rate, is
900 0 adjusted lower, resulting in a lower deactivation rate. In
4 54 104 154 204
general, the normalized WAIT can more accurately reflect the
Days On Stream
activity of the semi-regen naphtha reforming catalyst than the
normalized WAIT % LHSV reformate octane
actual WAIT N+3.5A actual WAIT, which varies with the operating conditions.
The slope of the normalized WAIT vs. days on stream is the
Fig. 2. Actual and normalized WAIT (RTR Plant B). deactivation rate. Based on the maximum WAIT allowed and

14 WINTER 2009 SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY

 Parameter Effect of RON Effect of N+2A Effect of Pressure Effect of 50% b.p.
Value Value Value Value
Y Yield/RON Yield/N+2A Yield/100 psi Yield/50% b.p.
X1 avg. RON avg. N+2A avg. RON 50% b.p.
X2 avg. N+2A avg. RON avg. N+2A avg. RON
pr1 3.04617E+02 1.81406E+01 6.70838E+01 2.13013E+04
pr2 1.01770E+01 -5.96973E-02 2.13260E+00 -2.30828E-01
pr3 -3.49622E-01 6.36255E-01 3.52716E-01 6.74707E+02
pr4 8.26121E-03 1.16427E-03 -1.16126E-02 -1.91000E-03
pr5 -1.13688E-01 1.62857E-05 -2.13971E-02 1.27083E-03
pr6 -3.15001E-04 -7.28626E-03 2.59762E-03 -7.10900E+00
pr7 2.12246E-06 -7.60000E-06 -1.91837E-05 4.80000E-05
pr8 -4.89999E-05 1.05108E-06 7.37144E-05 -1.00000E-05
pr9 4.26079E-04 -2.23906E-07 7.23016E-05 -7.63889E-07
pr10 9.72223E-07 2.84446E-05 -3.05555E-06 2.49005E-02
Function: Y = pr1+pr2*X1+pr3*X2+pr4*X1*X2+pr5*X1^2+pr6*X2^2+pr7*X1*X2^2+pr8*X1^2*X2+pr9*X1^3+pr10*X2^3

Table 3. Equations and their parameters for the effect of reformate yield vs. operating variables

SOR EOR Cycle Life

Scale for RON, N+2A, 50% b.p., %reactor P.

RON 97 97
N+2A 56.1 56.1 90 140
yield% 81.1 80.1 369 days Reformate Yield, vol%
120
sep. P, psig 180 180 85
100
b.p. 50%, F 255 255
80
Table 4. Base reformate yield and operating conditions for reformate yield prediction 80
60

40
75
the deactivation rate, the catalyst replacement date or
20
regeneration date can therefore be determined.
This normalization model can also be applied to obtain the 70 0
0 100 200 300
required WAIT to achieve new operating variables, i.e., feed
Days On Stream
properties (N+3.5A), LHSV and RON. By normalizing the
operating data to a new set of operating variables, the actual yield predicted yield RON feed N+2A feed 50% b.p. % reactor P.

required WAIT can be obtained. Consequently, this

Fig. 4. Reformate yield prediction (RTR Plant A).
normalization model could help decrease the amount of off-
spec products and extend the catalyst life by avoiding
90
unnecessarily high temperatures.
Reformate Yield, vol%

REFORMATE YIELD PREDICTION 85

The reformate yield depends on reactor pressure, the feed

property of N+2A, feed D86 50% b.p. and reformate RON. The 80
effect on reformate yield vs. reformate RON, the feed property of
N+2A, reactor pressure, and feed 50% b.p. are obtained from the
75
general operating manual of Platforming Process1. The equations
and their parameters (pr1 to pr10) for the effect of reformate
yield vs. operating variables are summarized in the Table 3. 70
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
The reformate yield is predicted by correcting for the effect
of the above four factors between the operating data and a set Days On Stream

of projected data provided by the catalyst vendor. The base actual yield predicted yield

reformate yield and operating conditions for yield prediction

are shown in Table 4. Fig. 5. Reformate yield prediction (RTR Plant B).

SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY WINTER 2009 15

Comparison of Predicted Reformate Yield vs. Actual
Reformate Yield
Figures 4 and 5 show the comparison of the actual and
predicted reformate yields vs. days on stream for RTR Plants
A and B, respectively. As shown in Fig. 4, the actual reformate
yields reach 85% or 86% around day 105. These reformate
yields are erroneous since the feed properties, product RON,
and reactor pressure do not change much during those days,
and the reformate yield should not increase from percentages
in the high 70s to 85% to 86%. The only significant change is
that feed N+2A increases from 42% to 57%, but this
difference could not account for such a significant increase of
reformate yield. RTR has confirmed that these high reformate
yields are inaccurate. The predicted yield matches the actual
yield quite well, except in the region of inaccurate high
reformate yield. The actual reformate yield matches quite well
with the predicted yield for Plant B, Fig. 5.
CONCLUSIONS
As seen from Figs. 1 to 3, the normalized WAIT more
accurately reflects the activity of the semi-regen naphtha
reforming catalyst than the actual WAIT. This normalization
model can be used to monitor the semi-regen naphtha
reforming catalyst performance and plan for catalyst
regeneration or replacement. The normalization model can
also be applied to obtain the required WAIT to achieve new
operating variables. The developed reformate yield prediction
model simulates the actual reformate yield quite well, as
shown in Figs. 4 and 5, and can be used to project reformate
and gasoline production.
RTR is currently using this developed spreadsheet model
for monitoring semi-regen naphtha reforming catalyst activity
and predicting reformate yield.
BIOGRAPHIES
Gene J. Yeh is a registered Professional
Engineer in the state of Louisiana. He
has 24 years of experience in oil
refining, catalyst manufacturing and
R&D environments. Gene is currently
working as an Engineering Specialist in
the Process and Control Systems
Department. His support areas include catalyst and
adsorbent selection, hydrogen plant, hydroprocessing and
naphtha reforming.
In 1977, he received his B.S. degree in Chemical
Engineering from the University of Tunghai, Taiwan.
Gene received his M.Eng degree in 1982, and in 1985
he received his Ph.D. degree in Chemical and Fuels
Engineering from the University of Utah, Salt Lake
City, UT.
Fehed Al-Nafisee is a Process Engineer
working as an Operations Foreman at
the Ras Tanura Refinery fixed bed
reforming unit. His 6 years of
experience in oil refining has centered
around hydrocracking and catalytic
naphtha reforming processes.
In 2003, he received his B.S. degree in Chemical
Engineering from the University of New Haven, West
Haven, CT.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank Saudi Aramco management for

their support and permission to present the information
contained in this article.

REFERENCE

1. General Operating Manual of UOP Platforming Process,

1999.

16 WINTER 2009 SAUDI ARAMCO JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY