Pressure Drop Improvements
in a Fixed Bed Reactor
Significant reduction of pressure drop was achieved with the installation of two different catalyst
support systems. The modifications were very minor, inexpensive, resulting in energy savings and
increased production rates.
Venkat Pattabathula and David Craig
Agrium Inc.
Introduction
W
ith the natural gas prices continuing an
upward trend, there has been a push to
reduce the front-end pressure drop in
ammonia plants both to improve energy efficiency and to
increase production rates. In the past, the front-end pres-
sure drop has been reduced by short loading catalyst vol-
umes in the secondary reformer and in the high and low
temperature shift converters. This paper discusses how
significant pressure drop reductions were achieved with
the installation of a catalyst support grid, and low differ-
ential pressure (∆P) support balls in the shift converters.
Analysis of modifications to the catalyst support system
and the resulting benefits are also addressed. These modi-
fications were made in the Agrium plants located in Bor-
ger, Texas and Redwater, Alberta.
PART A:
Background – Borger, Texas Plant
M.W. Kellogg originally designed Agrium Borger
Nitrogen Operations ammonia plant for 1000 stpd and
over the last 30 years, the plant production rates were
increased in steps to the current capacity of 1500 stpd.
This was achieved through many debottlenecking pro-
jects in the process equipment. It became necessary to
2002 31
reduce front-end pressure drop as most of the equipment
was operating close to its maximum allowable working
pressure (mawp). One of the options was to reduce the
∆P across the shift converters.
A project was implemented to reduce the ∆P in the
high temperature shift (HTS) converter with an axial-
radial flow converter and a paper was presented on this
modification in the year 2000 AIChE Ammonia Safety
Symposium held in Seattle. Another opportunity for
pressure drop reduction existed in the low temperature
shift (LTS) guard and main bed reactors. The LTS guard
bed was added to the original plant design a few years
after initial start-up to extend and protect the LTS main
bed catalyst life. In early 2001, the upcoming LTS guard
catalyst change out was seen as a potential opportunity
to reduce front-end pressure drop. Any LTS guard ves-
sel modifications would have to be cost effective, in that
it would take a minimum outage and entail no major
changes to the vessel.
The Borger plant LTS guard has a typical ‘elephant
stool’ gas collection and catalyst support system as
shown in Figure 1. The ‘elephant stool’ carries the load
of the inert support and catalyst directly above the outlet
pipe. There is a solid plate on the top of the stool, which
is supported by vertical flat bars equally spaced around
its circumference and resting on the bottom head. A
screen covers the cylindrical part of the ‘elephant stool’,
ensuring that the inert material will not escape into the
AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL
 CATALYST BED

SCREEN

SUPPORT MATERIAL
ELEPHANT STOOL
WITH SCREEN

Figure 1: LTS Guard Vessel ‘Elephant Stool’ Gas Collection

And Catalyst Support System

outlet pipe. The ‘elephant stool’ design has a proven re- 95% of what can theoretically be achieved with an
liability in the industry; however, the dynamic gas col- empty vessel.
lection characteristics associated with the ‘elephant
stool’ and inert support media can lead to flow maldis-
tributions and additional pressure drop. Borger Ammonia Plant Modifications
Haldor Topsoe, Inc. (HTI) used Computational
Based upon the Haldor Topsoe, Inc. CFD studies, it
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modelling to analyse different
was estimated that the pressure drop across the LTS guard
flow phenomena in both high and low temperature shift
bed could be reduced by 50%, from 12 psi to 6 psi, with
reactors. A CFD study was performed based upon a
the installation of a flat catalyst support grid and replace-
model that incorporated the reactor design, the existing
ment of the bulk of 3/4” balls with 2” support balls.
catalyst and inert support material, and the process con-
With the projected pressure drop savings, it was de-
ditions. The CFD model comprised a reactor section be-
cided to install the first catalyst support grid in the am-
ginning midway through the catalyst bed and extending
monia plant during LTS guard catalyst change out in
into the outlet pipe.
March 2001. Haldor Topsoe, Inc. supplied the new sup-
The CFD study clearly showed that there was a sig-
port grid in parts that could easily fit through the exist-
nificant pressure drop due to unrecoverable exit losses
ing manway. The parts include a support ring with its
from the reactor. The study also confirmed that there
support structure, and 24 pie-shaped sections of the
was a significant pressure drop in the inert support me-
support grid. The support grid was pre-assembled for
dia surrounding the ‘elephant stool’. Some of this pres-
testing in the maintenance workshop by the Borger Ni-
sure loss can be recovered by simply installing larger
trogen Operations (BNO) maintenance team. A picture
support material, but in order to get the maximum bene-
of the pre-assembled grid is shown below in Figure 2.
fit the void fraction and cross sectional entrance area
The catalyst was removed and the reactor inspected
would have to be increased.
before the support plate installation began. The existing
The CFD study also confirmed that the installation
screen on the ‘elephant stool’ was removed since it was
of a flat catalyst support grid around the top of the ‘ele-
no longer needed and would only cause flow resistance.
phant stool’ extending to the wall of the reactor would
A picture of the ‘elephant stool’ prior to screen removal
reduce the pressure drop through the support material by
is shown in Figure 3.

AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL 32 2002

 Figure 2: Pre-assembled Catalyst Support Grid

Figure 3: Old Screen Around ‘Elephant Stool’

The installation of the support grid took less than
24 hours and was easily done by the BNO maintenance
team under the supervision of the HTI mechanical spe-
cialist. The picture of the support ring taken during the in-
stallation is shown in Figure 4.
The picture of the installed support grid taken during
the support ball loading process is shown in Figure 5.
A larger layer of 2” alumina support balls was
loaded on the new support grid. Then a small layer of
3/4” balls was loaded on the 2” balls. The bulk of the
3/4” support balls that were previously in the reactor
were essentially replaced by 2” support balls and the
void space below the support grid around the ‘elephant
stool’. One-inch Raschig rings were reloaded on top of
the catalyst bed, which had replaced the support balls in
the earlier catalyst change out.

2002 33 AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL

 Figure 4: Catalyst Grid Support Ring

Figure 5: Installed Support Grid During Support Ball Loading

The sketch on the following page shows the new
catalyst support system.
The LTS guard bed was put in service on March 7,
2001, and the differential pressure across the vessel was
measured to be 2 psi. Even for the low plant rate of
1200 stpd, this low ∆P was a significant improvement as
a result of using the Haldor Topsoe catalyst support grid
technology.
It is estimated that the ∆P across the LTS guard at a
1500 stpd rate will be 4 psi, which is 6-8 psi lower than
the previous ‘start of run’ reactor pressure drop. Because
of the significant ∆P improvements across LTS guard
bed; Agrium has decided to install the similar grid in the
LTS main bed during the catalyst change out in 2002.

AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL 34 2002


3/4" SUPPORT BALLS
CATALYST SUPPORT GRID
VOID SPACE
Figure 6: LTS Guard Vessel Catalyst Support Grid System (After Modifications)
The installation of the catalyst support grid has re-
sulted in an increase of pressure at the suction of the
syngas compressor that has contributed to a lower en-
ergy consumption in the syngas compressor train at the
same production rates. The modifications to the inter-
nals of both the shift converters have allowed us to in-
crease the plant production rates due to significant re-
duction of front-end pressure drop. The following chart
shows the effect of the catalyst support grid on the LTS
guard bed pressure drop.
Benefits
From the achieved pressure drop reduction, the in-
stallation of catalyst support grid had a 4-month payout
(based on $2.30 US/MMBtu gas cost). This was better
than the projected payout of 5 months as the actual pres-
sure drop improvement was higher than estimated.
2002
CATALYST BED
2" SUPPORT MATERIAL
VOID SPACE
ELEPHANT STOOL
Conclusions
1. An analysis of the BNO LTS guard catalyst support
systemmodifications shows that the pressure drop
from the catalyst/inert interface, through the outlet
pipe, was reduced with the installation of a flat cata-
lyst support grid around the top of ‘elephant stool’
extending to the wall of the reactor.
2. The accuracy of CFD model was confirmed with the
actual pressure drop on the BNO LTS guard bed.
3. The larger size of the inert support material (2”) sur-
rounding the ‘elephant stool’ has a significant im-
pact on the reactor pressure drop.
4. The flat support grid design is relatively simple, the
fabrication is inexpensive and the installation can eas-
ily be done in an existing vessel in less than a day.
5. The pressure drop reduction was achieved due to
the increased void fraction, increased ‘elephant
stool’ entrance area (no support media around the
‘elephant stool’), and the increased support media
particle size.
35 AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL
 History of LTSG Reactor Pressure Drop
2001
14
Pressure Drop (psi) 12
ut
10
O
e
ng
8
ha
tC
6 40
ys
al
4
at
C
2
0 !
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Figure 7: ∆P Across LTS Guard Bed
PART B:
Background – Redwater, Alberta Plant
The Agrium Redwater site has two ammonia plants
both designed by Bechtel / Exxon. Original nameplate
capacity for the plants was 540 and 1600 mtpd. Present
production rates are 800 mtpd and 1900 mtpd. The
plants were built in 1969 and 1983 respectively. The
design of the larger ammonia plant is essentially a con-
ventional ammonia plant design with a gas turbine ex-
haust, being used as source of combustion air for the
Primary Reformer. The modifications described in this
paper were done on the larger ammonia plant.
Catalyst Support System
The present design of the 1900-mtpd plant results in
the Primary reformer/ Secondary Reformer operating
close to its design pressure. The pressure limitation lim-
its the front-end pressure, and therefore the throughput
achievable in this plant. Therefore, any reduction in
pressure drop downstream of the Secondary Reformer
would benefit either the horsepower requirements on the
synthesis gas compressor or increased throughput.
A turnaround was scheduled for June 2000, during
this turnaround it was planned to change out the High
Temperature shift bed. During the catalyst bid process,
Synetix offered, with their catalyst, an option for install-
ing a low-pressure drop system. As part of the offer,
Synetix offered computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
modeling of the reactor to determine the benefits of the
AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL
100
Pressure Drop (kPa)
80
60
se
ea
cr
In
e
at
20
R
!
0
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
change. Details of the present loading and outlet col-
lector were sent to Synetix to determine the modeled
pressure drop on the existing vessel and internals.
Synetix at this point reviewed the HTS, LTS guard and
main bed. The results of these studies showed that the
greatest benefit would be to the HTS bed. Initial projec-
tions showed a 4 - 5 psi pressure drop gain over the ex-
isting bed arrangement at start of run. The cost of the
changes was relatively small and the modifications to
the internals were relatively simple and involved no
welding or modification to the pressure vessel itself.
Synetix Proposed Catalyst
Bed Support System
The system proposed by Synetix was to replace the
outlet collector and support material. CFD modeling had
identified the support material and the zone around the
outlet collector as the major source of pressure drop
within the vessel. The void fraction of traditional ceramic
balls is relatively low resulting in a significant pressure
drop as the gas approaches the outlet collector. The CFD
modeling with the existing support system identified a
10.3-psi pressure drop across the bottom support and out-
let collector (Figure 10). This represented over 80% of
our measured start of run pressure drop
The proposed system resulted in a larger diameter
outlet collector and modified support material that re-
sulted in a greater void fraction than traditional support.
The pressure drop reduction by addition of the modified
support and outlet collector was estimated by CFD model-
ing to be a 4.6-psi pressure drop reduction at start of run.
36 2002
Installation
The installation of the outlet collector took ap-
proximately 3–10 hour shifts to install due to the collec-
tor having to be assembled and welded inside the vessel.
All the parts of the outlet collector had been previously
cut and sized to fit through the top nozzle. No welding
to the shell was required for this modification.
Benefits
The lower pressure drop could benefit the plant in
either reduced horsepower at the synthesis gas compres-
Ceramic Support Balls of
decreasing size (1” -> ¼”)
Figure 8: HTS Vessel Original Catalyst Support
Figure 9: Original Outlet Collector On HTS Vessel
2002
sor or increased throughput. We believed the conserva-
tive approach was to measure the benefit on reduced
horsepower of the synthesis gas compressor. Due to
other modeling projects, we already had a model of the
synthesis gas compressor. By changing the inlet pres-
sure to the synthesis gas compressor model, we were
able to determine the change in horsepower based on an
increase in suction pressure. The horsepower change
meant a change in steam consumption for the turbine.
Since the ammonia plant exports steam into a common
plant system, the ability to export more high-pressure
steam meant a reduction in utility boiler load and gas
savings.
Catalyst
Outlet Collector (Elephant
Stool) Diameter same as outlet
line
37 AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL
 HIGH TEMPERATURE SHIFT COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS with
spherical supports

500.54 psi
(34.52 bar)

P.d = 10.3 PSI (0.71 bar)

490.25 psi
(33.81 bar)

Figure 10: Estimated Pressure Drop with Ceramic Support Balls

AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL 38 2002

 HIGH TEMPERATURE SHIFT COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS with
STREAMLINE™ Low Pressure Drop System

499.24 psi
(34.43 bar)

P.d = 5.7 PSI (0.39 bar)

493.58 psi
(34.04 bar)

Figure 11: Estimated Pressure with Modified Support and Collector

Figure 12: Modified Outlet Collector

2002 39 AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL

 Performance Guarantee
As part of the contract with Synetix, a performance
guarantee for the pressure drop gain was supplied. The
guaranteed performance drop based on a fixed plant rate
was 4 psi, which was lower than the CFD modeling pre-
diction.

Actual Benefits
After the plant was restarted, the actual measured
pressure drop was between 4 – 4.5 psi; lower than the
previous start of run pressure drop. This was very close
to what the modeling had predicted and within the guar-
anteed pressure drop. Based upon the 4-psi pressure
drop reduction, the extra costs incurred to install this
support system had approximately a 6-month payout
(based on $2.30 US/ MMBtu gas cost).

Figure 13: Shaped Ceramic Support Material
The following sketch shows the new catalyst sup-
port system.
Authors’ Acknowledgement
We would like to acknowledge both Haldor Topsoe
Inc. and Synetix for providing the new technology on
catalyst bed support systems. We would also like to
thank the operations and maintenance teams of Agrium
Borger and Redwater Nitrogen Plants in implementing
the pressure drop improvement projects.

CAT

16x1
36x36x10mm SUPPORT

MODIFIED OUTLET COLLECTOR 3" SUPPORT MATERIA

Figure 14: HTS Modified Catalyst Support System

AMMONIA TECHNICAL MANUAL 40 2002