Development  of  a  Kinetic  Model  for  Catalytic  Reforming  

Catarina  Alexandra  Semedo  Barros  Ferro

Abstract  
The   Catalytic   Reforming   is   the   main   process   in   a   refinery   to   produce   gasoline   with   a   high   octane   number.   It   is  
equally   an   excellent   producer   of   hydrogen   reused   for   hydrotreatment   processes   and   BTX   production   (benzene,  
toluene  and  xylene)  widely  used  in  petrochemical  industry.    
The   aims   of   this   work   were   monitoring   an   industrial   unit   of   catalytic   reforming   and   study   a   kinetic   model  
developed  by  CEPSA  Company  for  a  year  of  cycle.    
The  monitoring  was  performed  in  order  to  understand  the  functioning  of  an  industrial  unit.  The  unit  diagram  was  
studied   in   detail,   the   process   variables   were   collected   and   subsequently   represented   in   order   to   understand   their  
variations.  
The   kinetic   selected   for   this   model   was   Henningsen   and   Bundgaard   –   Nielson   in   which   the   reaction   rates   are  
represented  by  simple  first  order  and  the  reaction  rate  constants  shown  by  Arrhenius  Law.    
Posteriorly   simulations   were   realized   to   comprehend   if   the   chosen   kinetic   would   be   the   most   appropriated.   It   was  
also   tested   the   calculus   change   of   RON   and   it   was   verified   that   the   initial   correlation   produces   better   results   than  
other  correlations.  
The   model   developed   by   CEPSA   Company   presents   consistent   data   with   the   real   ones,   noting   that   the   chosen  
kinetic  for  the  model  was  a  good  possibility.    
 
Keywords:  Catalytic  Reforming,  Monitoring,  Kinetic  Model,  Simulations,  Octane  Number  

1. Introduction   The   octane   number   represents   the   ability   of   a  

The   first   Catalytic   Reforming   industrial   unit   was   gasoline   to   resist   knocking   during   combustion   of   the  

developed   in   1940   by   UOP   and   is   worldwide   air-­‐gasoline   mixture   in   the   engine.   This   number   is  

recognized  as  Platforming  process.     defined   as   a   volume   percentage   of   isooctane   in  

The  goal  of  this  process  is  to  convert  naphtha  with   blending   with   n-­‐heptane   that   equals   the   knocking  

low  octane  number  into  high  octane  number  gasoline   performance  of  the  gasoline.  By  definition  the  octane  

called   reformate   as   a   blending   component   of   motor   number   of   n-­‐heptane   is   zero   and   the   octane   number  

fuels.   It   is   also   a   primary   source   of   hydrogen   and   of  isooctane  is  100.    

aromatics  used  in  the  petrochemical  industry.     Normally   there   are   two   ways   to   measure   octane  

  number,   the   research   octane   number   (RON)   and   the  

motor  octane  number  (MON).  

  1  
2.  Catalytic  Reforming  Process   by   the   effluent-­‐to-­‐feed   heat   exchanger   for   maximum  

A  typical  feed  to  Catalytic  Reforming  is  a  mixture  of   heat  recovery.    

medium   and   heavy   straight   run   naphtha   obtained   After   the   effluent   is   charged   to   the   separation  

directly   from   the   atmospheric   crude   oil   distillation   section,   where   the   liquid   and   gas   products   are  

column.   This   naphtha   normally   contains   40-­‐70   wt.%   separated.    

paraffins,   20-­‐50   wt.%   naphthenes,   5-­‐20   wt.%   A   fraction   of   the   gas   from   the   separator   is  

aromatics  and  0-­‐2  wt.%  olefins.  [1]   compressed  and  recycled  back  to  the  reactor  section.  

The   distribution   of   paraffins,   olefins,   naphthenes   The   separator   liquid   is   pumped   to   the   reformate  

and   aromatics   in   the   feed   to   catalytic   reforming   stabilizer  for  separate  the  desired  product,  reformate,  

determines   the   richness   of   the   feedstock,   which   is   from  the  rest  of  hydrogen  and  light  hydrocarbons.    

normally   rated   by   its   naphthenes   +   aromatics   or  

naphthenes  +  2  aromatics  value.  A  high  concentration  
of   aromatics   means   that   the   octane   number   is   quite  
high.   The   naphthenes   are   transformed   into   aromatics  
with   a   high   selectivity   and   a   high   octane   number   is  
easily   achieved.   However   a   paraffinic   feedstock   has   a  
low  octane  number  and  it  is  more  difficult  convert  into    
naphthenes.   Figure  1  –  Catalytic  Reforming  flow  diagram  [2]  

Presently  the  standard  operating  conditions  in  this   These  processes  are  commonly  classified  according  
process   are   elevated   temperature   (450-­‐520ºC)   and   to  the  frequency  and  mode  of  catalyst  is  regenerated,  
moderate  pressure  (4-­‐30  bar).  [1]   into   semiregenerative,   cyclic   regeneration   and  
A   large   number   of   reactions   occur   in   catalytic   continuous   regeneration.   The   main   difference  
reforming   such   as   dehydrogenation   of   naphthenes   to   between   the   three   types   of   processes   is   the   need   of  
aromatics,  isomerization  of  paraffins  and  naphthenes,   shutdown   of   the   unit   for   catalyst   regeneration   in   the  
dehydrocyclization   of   paraffins   and   hydrocraking   of   case   of   semiregenerative   process,   the   use   of   an  
paraffins  and  naphthenes  to  lower  hydrocarbons.   additional   swing   reactor   for   catalyst   regeneration   for  
All   reactions   are   desirable   except   hydrocraking,   the   cyclic   process   and   catalyst   replacement   during  
which   occurs   at   high   temperature   and   consumed   a   normal   operation   for   the   continuous   regeneration  
high  amount  of  hydrogen.   type.  

2.1. Process  Description   2.2. Catalyst  

An   usual   Catalytic   Reforming   unit   is   presented   in   Catalytic  reforming  reactions  are  conducted  in  the  
Figure   1.   The   feed   is   initial   mixed   with   recycled   presence  of  heterogeneous  and  bifunctional  catalysts.  
hydrogen   gas,   and   then   the   mixture   passes   through   The  double  function  is  provided  by  the  acid  sites  of  the  
the   effluent-­‐to-­‐feed   heat   exchanger.   The   charge   is   support,  usually  alumina  (Al2O3),  and  the  metallic  sites,  
completely   vaporized   and   it   is   transported   to   the   platinum  (Pt)  dispersed  on  the  support.    
reactor  section.  Effluent  from  the  last  reactor  is  cooled  

  2  
 The   addition   of   components   to   the   acid   function,   carbons   atoms   within   each   class.   Hydrogen   and   light  
such  as  chloride  or  fluoride,  changes  the  strength  and   gases  were  also  taken  into  account.  
amount  of  support  acid  sites.   This   model   involves   five   pseudocomponents:  
A   simplified   schematic   diagram   of   the   alumina   paraffins,   naphthenes,   aromatics,   light   gases   and  
functionality  is  given  in  Figure  2.   hydrogen  and  four  reactions.  [5]  

  Figure  3  -­‐  Reaction  schemes  of  Smith  model. [4]  

Figure  2  -­‐  Alumina  schematic  [3]  
Krane   et   al.   also   in   1959   proposed   another   model  
The  acid  function  catalyses  the  C-­‐C  bond  reactions   for   catalytic   reforming   reactions.   In   this   model   there  
such   as   isomerization,   dehydrocyclization   and   are   20   pseudocomponents,   containing   hydrocarbons  
hydrocraking.   For   other   hand   the   dehydrogenation   from   C6   to   C10.   It   is   also   recognized   the   difference  
and  hydrogenolysis  reactions,  C-­‐H  bond,  are  catalysed   between   paraffins,   naphthenes   and   aromatics   within  
by  a  metallic  function.     each   carbon   number   group.   All   reactions   are  
Currently   catalysts   are   bimetallic   or   multimetallic,   represented  by  a  pseudo-­‐first  order  rate  equation  with  
the   platinum   has   remained   the   key   component   and   respect  to  hydrocarbons  concentration.    
the  second  element  is  Re,  Sn,  Ge  or  Ir  which  interacts   The   model   chosen   by   CEPSA   Company   was  
with   platinum   and   offers   a   better   selectivity   and   developed   in   1970   by   Henningsen   e   Bundgaard   –  
stability.   Nielson   (Figure   4)   and   it   was   considered   an  
improvement  to  Krane’s  model.    
2.3.  Kinetics  Model  
Naphtha  is  a  very  complex  mixture  of  hydrocarbon  
and   there   are   more   than   300   components   present   in  
this  mixture.  [4]  Different  reactions  occur  through  the  
process   such   as   dehydrogenation,   hydrocraking,  
isomerization  and  dehydrocyclization.  
 
Due   to   the   large   number   of   components   involved   in   Figure  4  -­‐  Reaction  schemes  of  Henningsen  and  Bundgaard  –  
Nielson  model. [6]  
the   reactions,   the   development   of   kinetic   models  
becomes   a   very   complex   process.   To   simplify   this   This   model   takes   into   account   the   differences   in  
problem   were   used   groups   of   compounds,   known   as   the  behaviour  of  cycloalkanes  with  five  and  six  carbon  
lumps,   which   organise   the   species   as   a   single   entities   atoms  in  the  ring.  [7]    
when  they  present  affinity  (chemical,  structural,  etc.).   The   reaction   rates   are   normally   represented   by  
The   first   effort   to   model   a   reforming   system   has   simple   first   order   with   respect   to   partial   pressures   of  
been   made   by   Smith   in   1959   and   is   described   by   hydrocarbons   and   the   pressure   drop   through   the  
Figure   3.   His   model   contained   three   classes   of   reactores  is  despised.  [7]  The  reaction  rates  constants  
hydrocarbons:   paraffins,   naphthenes   and   aromatics.   are   expressed   in   the   form   of   an   Arrhenius   law   to  
No  distinction  was  made  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of  

  3  
account  for  the  influence  of  temperature  and  catalyst   phases,   one   solid   and   other   vapour.   Reactors   are  
deactivation  were  also  included  in  the  model.  [5]   tubular  fixed-­‐bed  with  axial  or  radial  flow  and  work  in  
A   heat   balance   was   added   into   the   system   of   the  adiabatic  regime.  
equations.   This   was   a   considerable   improvement   on    
the   previous   models   that   treated   catalytic   reforming  
as  an  isothermal  system.  [6]  
The   differential   equations   that   describe   the  
reaction  rates  are  equations  (1)  to  (6).  [6]  [7]    
𝑑C
= 𝑘! (𝑃!" + 𝑃!" )   (1)  
𝑑𝜏
𝑑𝑁𝑃
= −(𝑘! + 𝑘! + 𝑘! + 𝑘! )𝑃!" + 𝑘! 𝑃!"#
𝑑𝜏 (2)  
+ 𝑘! 𝑃!"# + 𝑘! 𝑃!"  
𝑑𝐼𝑃
= −(𝑘! + 𝑘! + 𝑘! + 𝑘!" )𝑃!" + 𝑘! 𝑃!"#
𝑑𝜏 (3)  
+ 𝑘! 𝑃!" + 𝑘!! 𝑃!"#  
𝑑𝐴𝐶𝐻
= −(𝑘! + 𝑘! + 𝑘!" + 𝑘!" )𝑃!"# + 𝑘! 𝑃!"
𝑑𝜏 (4)  
+ 𝑘! 𝑃!" + 𝑘!" 𝑃!"#  
𝑑𝐴𝐶𝑃
= −(𝑘! + 𝑘!! + 𝑘!" )𝑃!"# + 𝑘! 𝑃!"
𝑑𝜏 (5)  
+ 𝑘!" 𝑃!" + 𝑘!" 𝑃!"#  
𝑑𝐴𝑅
= 𝑘!" 𝑃!"#   (6)  
𝑑𝜏
The   differential   equation   that   describes   the   heat  
balance  is  equation  (7).  [6]  [7]  
 
!" !
 
=− (𝑘! 𝑃!" ∆𝐻!"→! + (7)  
!" !! !!!  
𝑘! 𝑃!" ∆𝐻!"→! + 𝑘! 𝑃!"# ∆𝐻!"#→!" + 𝑘! 𝑃!" ∆𝐻!"→!"# +
Figure  5  –  Model  calculation  flowchart  
𝑘! 𝑃!"# ∆𝐻!"#→!" + 𝑘! 𝑃!" ∆𝐻!"→!"# + 𝑘! 𝑃!" ∆𝐻!"→!"# +
𝑘! 𝑃!"# ∆𝐻!"#→!" + 𝑘! 𝑃!" ∆𝐻!"→!" + 𝑘! 𝑃!" ∆𝐻!"→!" +  
𝑘!" 𝑃!" ∆𝐻!"→!"# + 𝑘!! 𝑃!"! ∆𝐻!"#→!" + Since   the   differential   equations   described   by  
𝑘!" 𝑃!"# ∆𝐻!"#→!"# + 𝑘!" 𝑃!"# ∆𝐻!"#→!"# + Henningsen   and   Bundgaard   –   Nielson   kinetic   are  
𝑘!" 𝑃!"# ∆𝐻!"#→!" )   complex   equations   is   necessary   use   a   numerical  
    method  to  solve  these  equations.  The  method  chosen  
was   the   Euler   method   described   by   the   equation   (8)  
3. Analysis  of  Kinetic  Model  
with  unit  step  size.  
For   a   better   understanding   of   the   model  
𝑑𝑦
developed   by   CEPSA   Company   was   made   a   detailed   𝑦 𝑡 + ∆𝑡 = 𝑦 𝑡 +  ∆𝑡   (8)  
𝑑𝑡
study   and   in   Figure   5   is   shown   a   flowchart   to   explain  
 
the  functioning  of  the  simulator.  
The   reactors   used   in   this   type   of   processes   are  
heterogeneous   because   there   is   a   presence   of   two  

  4  
4. Experimental  section   35  
30  

Recycle  Gas  Pressure  (atm)  

In  this  chapter  is  described  whole  the  work  process   25  

to  obtain  the  results.   20  

15  
10  
4.1. Monitoring  of  Industrial  Unit   5  
0  
The   data   used   in   this   study   were   obtained   from   0   50   100   150   200   250   300   350   400   450   500   550  
Days  of  OperaJon  
Excel   Tool,   called   Pl@nt@.   This   tool   gets   all   the   tags    
related   to   the   industrial   unit   as   well   as   all   the   Figure  7  –  Recycle  Gas  Pressure  for  18  months  of  operation  

laboratory  analyses.   In  Figure   7  it   is   obvious   that   this   variable   as   other  

Figure   6   shows   the   process   diagram   of   Catalytic   shows   discrepant   values   for   a   few   days   of   operation.  
Reforming  unit  designed  from  the  available  plans.   This   fact   is   justified   with   stops   in   the   unit   for   catalyst  
  regeneration  or  operational  problems.    
Due   to   the   presence   of   these   shutdowns   and  
consequently   missing   of   laboratory   analysis   data,   it  
was   only   considered   the   days   of   operation  
represented  by  the  circle.    

4.2. Real  Data  Simulation  of  Industrial  Unit  

Before   using   the   simulator   it   was   important   to  
conduct   a   study   of   the   optimal   number   of   iterations   in  
  order   to   minimize   adjustment   function   selected.   For  
Figure  6  –  Process  Diagram  of  Catalytic  Reforming  unit.  
this   study   several   iterations   were   performed   as   is  
  noticeable  in  Figure  8.  
Initially   data   were   extracted   for   six   months   of    
operation   just   to   get   an   idea   of   how   the   refinery   Adjustment  Funcgon   Iteragon  Time  (mim)  

operated  and  how  the  process  variables  were  changed   3500   200  
180  
Adjustment  FuncJon  

3000  
through  the  working  days.     160  
IteraJon  Time  

2500   140  
After   this   first   approach   it   was   verified   that   for   a   120  
2000  
100  
better  utilization  of  the  simulator  it  would  be  better  to   1500   80  
60  
use   more   data   to   have   a   greater   range   of   values   for   1000  
40  
500  
comparison.  To  accomplish  this  goal  it  were  extracted   20  
0  
0   1000   2000   3000   4000   5000   6000   7000   8000   9000   10000  
further  data,  in  this  case  18  months  of  operation.    
Number  of  IteraJons  
   
Figure  8  –  Adjustment  Function  and  Iteration  Time  as  
function  of  number  of  iterations  

 
As   show   in   Figure   8   the   adjustment   function  
decreases  steeply  until  3000  iteration,  and  this  value  is  
relatively   lower.   It   is   also   perceptible   that   from   5000  

  5  
iterations   the   value   of   adjustment   function   does   not   The   chosen   correlation   is   described   by   equation  
change  too  much  and  since  the  simulation  time  begins   (10),   and   it   takes   into   account   the   contributions   of  
to   be   excessive,   the   best   choice   is   5000   iterations   to   each  hydrocarbon  family  presents  in  reformate.  [8]  
have   one   minimization   of   adjustment   function   and   a    
simulation  time  reasonable.     𝑅𝑂𝑁 = 𝑥!" 𝑅𝑂𝑁 !" + 𝑥!" 𝑅𝑂𝑁 !" + (10)  

Moreover   to   prove   the   choice   of   5000   iterations   𝑥! 𝑅𝑂𝑁 ! + 𝑥!" 𝑅𝑂𝑁 !"    

five   trials   were   conducted   where   it   was   verified   that    

results  were  consistent.   Where   xNP,   xIP,xN,   xAR   are   molar   fraction   of   n-­‐

  paraffins,   iso-­‐paraffins,   naphthenes   and   aromatics  

groups,  respectively.  
5. Results    
For   each   hydrocarbon   family   the   value   of   RON   is  
This  chapter  presents  some  results  of  the  study.  
described  by  equation  (11).  
5.1. Simulation  of  the  real  data   𝑅𝑂𝑁 = 𝑎 + 𝑏 𝑇 + 𝑐 𝑇 !
+𝑑 𝑇 !
+ 𝑒 𝑇 !   (11)  

The  results  of  this  subchapter  are  associated  to  an  

 
interval   of   425   days   of   operation   and   in   all   figures  
Where   T=Tb/100   in   which   Tb   is   the   normal   boiling  
there  are  points  which  don´t  converge  represented  by  
point  given  by  an  average  value  between  initial  boiling  
the  yellow  colour.  
point   and   final   boiling   point   in   the   ASTM   D86.  
Real  RON   Model  RON   Coefficients  a-­‐e  are  given  in  table  1.    
110  
 
105  
Table  1  –  Coefficients  for  equation  (11)  for  Estimation  of  
100   RON  
RON  

95  
HC  
a   b   c   d   e  
90   Family  

85   N-­‐Paraffins   92,81   -­‐70,97   -­‐53   20   10  

91   141   191   241   291   341   391   441   491   541  
Days  of  Operation   Iso-­‐  Paraffins  
           
2-­‐
Figure  9  -­‐  Comparison  between  Real  and  calculated  RON  
Methylpenta 95,93   -­‐157,53   561   -­‐600   200  
nes  
The  expression  used  to  calculate  the  model  RON  is   3-­‐  
Methylpenta 92,07   57,63   -­‐65   0   0  
indicated   by   the   equation   (9).   This   RON   depends   nes  
2,2-­‐  
exclusively   on   the   molar   percentage   of   aromatics  
Dimethylpen 109,38   -­‐38,83   -­‐26   0   0  
present  in  reformate.     tanes  
2,3-­‐  
(9)   Dimethylpen 97,65   -­‐20,8   58   -­‐200   100  
𝑅𝑂𝑁 = 𝑚  𝑥!" + 𝑏   tanes  

  Naphthenes   -­‐77,53   471,59   -­‐418   100   0  

In   Figure   9   is   visible   that   RON   calculated   by   the   Aromatics   145,66   -­‐54,33   16,27   0   0  

simulator  follows  the  same  trend  as  the  real  RON,  but    

their  values  are  always  higher.  Due  to  this  fact  it  was   In  Figure  10  is  visible  that  the  correlation  described  

tested  a  new  correlation  for  the  calculated  RON.   by  equation  (10)  despite  follows  the  same  tendency  as  
the   real   RON   is   not   appropriate   because   its   values  
show   a   percentage   error   of   16   %   while   the   values   of  

  6  
RON   calculated   by   equation   (9)   show   an   error   of   5%   From   Figure   12   it   is   observed   that   production   of  
compared  to  the  real  values.   aromatics  present  consistent  values  with  experimental  

Real  RON   RON  Equagon  9   RON  Equagon  10  

results  with  percentage  error  of  1%  

110    
105   Mol  %  Real  AR  in  Reformate  
100   Mol  %    Model  AR  in  Reformate  
90  
95  
RON  

85  

 
Mol%  of  AromaJcs
90   80  
85   75  

80   70  
65  
75  
186   196   206   216   226   236   60  
Days  of  OperaJon   55  
  50  
91   141   191   241   291   341   391   441   491  
Figure  10  -­‐  Comparison  between  Real  RON  and  calculated  
RON  by  equation  (9)  and  (10)   Days  of  OperaJon  

 
Due   to   these   results,   the   equation   (10)   was   Figure  12  –  Comparison  between  the  percentage  real  and  
modified   to   take   into   account   only   the   compounds   calculated  of  aromatics  in  reformate  

with   a   high   value   of   octane   number,   such   like   iso-­‐ The   process   variable   most   frequently   used   by  
paraffins   and   aromatics.   This   new   correlation   is   refiners   to   control   reformer   operation   is   weighted  
described  by  equation  (12)  and  the  calculation  method   average  inlet  temperature  (WAIT).  This  variable  is  the  
is  the  same  described  previously.   sum   of   the   inlet   temperature   to   each   reactor  
𝑅𝑂𝑁 = 𝑥!" 𝑅𝑂𝑁 !" + 𝑥!" 𝑅𝑂𝑁 !"   (12)   multiplied   by   the   weight   percent   of   total   catalyst   in  
each  reactor.    
Likewise   equation   (12)   is   not   appropriated   for  
522  
adjustment   the   real   data.   Therefore   the   correlation  
520  
described  by  equation  (9)  remains  the  best  option,  as   518  
516  
confirmed  in  Figure  11.   514  
WAIT  (ºC)  

512  
  510  
Real  RON   RON  Equagon  9   508  
RON  Equagon  10   RON  Equagon  12   506  
110   504  
502  
105  
91   141   191   241   291   341   391   441   491   541  
100   Days  of  Operation  
 
95  
RON  

Figure  13  –  WAIT  

90  

85   It   is   observed   that   the   value   of   WAIT   in   Figure   13  

80  
increases   due   to   the   loss   activity   and   stability   of  
75  
186   196   206   216   226   236   catalyst.   This   loss   of   activity   happens   because   coke  
Days  of  OperaJon  
  deposition  in  both  acid  and  metal  sites.    
Figure  11  -­‐  Comparison  between  Real  RON  and  calculated  
This   increase   in   temperature   happens   to   allow  
RON  by  equation  (9),  (10)  and  (12)  
octane   number   keeps   constant   and   produces   the  
desired  reformate.  
 

  7  
 mol%  nP   mol%  IP   mol%  N   to  a  pilot  unit  and  how  to  change  any  variable  affects  
mol%  AR   mol%  C  
the  whole  production  of  reformate.    
50  
45   A   study   of   the   optimal   number   of   iterations   was  
40  
Mol%  of  Compounds  

35  
done  to  ensure  that  the  adjustment  function  would  be  
30   minimized   within   a   reasonable   simulation   time.   We  
25  
20   conclude  the  more  appropriate  number  of  iterations  is  
15  
10  
5000.  
5  
The   correlation   used   initially   by   kinetic   model   for  
0  
EvoluJon  over  of  reacJon  system   estimate   of   RON   is   the   best   option   despite   having  
  higher  values  than  the  real.    
Figure  14  –  Evolution  of  compounds  along  reforming  
catalytic   The   real   values   were   compared   with   those  
calculated   by   the   model.   The   values   for   the   aromatics,  
Figure   14   shows   the   evolution   of   compounds  
n-­‐paraffins   and   iso-­‐paraffins   are   consistent   with  
present   in   naphtha   along   the   reaction   system.   It   is  
percentage  error  of  2%.  
observed  that  molar  percentage  of  aromatics  through  
However   in   relation   to   naphthenes   there   is   a  
the  reaction  system  increases  while  molar  percentage  
greater   discrepancy   in   the   values.   This   difference   can  
of   naphthenes   and   paraffins   decreases,   as   expected,  
be   explained   by   the   fact   that   their   values   are   lower  
because   aromatics   formation   by   dehydrogenation  
and   the   possible   integration   errors   made   in  
reaction   requires   a   lower   amount   of   naphthenes   and  
chromatography  equipment  (GC-­‐Reformulizer).  
consequently   the   formation   of   naphthenes   leads   to   a  
On   the   other   hand   one   of   the   assumption   of  
reduction  of  the  amount  of  paraffins.    
chosen  kinetic  indicates  there  is  a  distinction  between  
It   is   also   noted   that   the   largest   decrease   in   the  
the   behaviour   of   alkyl-­‐cyclopentanes   and   alkyl-­‐
naphthenes   percentage   occurs   in   the   first   reactor,  
cyclohexanes.   However   this   assumption   in   the   model  
because  hydrogenation  reaction  is  the  fastest  and  the  
was   not   considered,   feedstock   presents   only   alkyl-­‐
most  endothermic  reaction  happens  mainly  in  the  first  
cyclohexanes   and   reactions   where   ACP   appears   were  
reactor.  
not   taken   into   consideration.   This   fact   can   also   be   a  
Furthermore   it   is   observed   that   the   molar  
possible  reason  for  the  disparity  of  values.    
percentage   of   cracked   products   undergoes   a  
The  difference  between  model  yield  and  real  one  is  
significant   increase   in   the   second   and   third   reactor,  
5%  and  it  is  considered  acceptable.    
because   these   reactions   are   considered   the   slowest  
In   a   following   work   the   model   used   should   be  
reactions.    
complemented   using   more   reactions   to   describe   the  
 
process  as  well  as  improve  the  way  of  calculating  the  
6. Conclusions  
RON.  
The   kinetic   model   developed   by   Cepsa   Company  
 
was   applied   to   real   data   of   an   industrial   unit   of  
 
reforming  catalytic.    
 
In   relation   to   the   monitoring   carried   out   it   was  
 
observed  the  behaviour  of  an  industrial  unit  compared  

  8  
7. Nomenclature     Jersey:  John  Wiley  &  Sons,  Inc,  2011.  

∆𝐻!→!  -­‐  Heat  of  reaction     [6]  Raseev,  Serge;,  "Chapter  13  -­‐  Catalytic  Reforming,"  
𝐶!  -­‐  Heat  capacity   in  Thermal  and  Catalytic  Processes  in  Petroleum  
𝑘!  –  Reaction  rate  constant   Refining.  New  York:  Marcel  Dekker,  Inc.,  2003,  pp.  
𝑃!  -­‐    Partial  pressure  of  the  component  i   771-­‐786.  
ACH  –  Alkyl-­‐cyclohexanes   [7]  Henningsen,  J;  Bundgaard-­‐Nielson,  M;,  "Catalytic  
ACP  –  Alkyl  –  cyclopentanes   Reforming,"  Bristish  Chemical  Engeneering,  vol.  15,  
AR  –  Aromatics   no.  11,  pp.  1433-­‐1436,  November  1970.  
C  –  Hydrocraking  products  
[8]  M.  R.  Riazi,  Characterization  and  Properties  of  
HC  -­‐  Hydrocarbon  
Petroleum  Fractions,  1st  ed.,  AMERICAN  SOCIETY  
IP  –  iso-­‐Paraffins    
FOR  TESTING  AND  MATERIALS,  Ed.  Philadelphia,  
𝑛  -­‐  Hydrogen/Hydrocarbon  ratio  
PA,  2005.  
N-­‐Naphthenes  
 
NP-­‐  normal-­‐Paraffins  
 
WAIT  -­‐  Weighted  Average  Inlet  Temperature  
 
τ  –  Reaction  time  
 

8. Bibliography  
[1]  Antos,  George  J;  Aitani,  Abdullah  M;,  Catalytic  
Naphtha  Reforming,  2nd  ed.  New  York:  Marcel  
Dekker,  Inc.,  2004,  Revised  and  Expanded.  

[2]  Lapinski,  Mark;  Baird,  Lance;  James,  Robert;,  

"Chapter  4.1  UOP  Platforming  Process,"  in  
Handbook  of  Petroleum  Refining  Processes,  3rd  
ed.:  McGraw-­‐Hill,  pp.  4.3-­‐4.31.  

[3]  Mark  Moser  and  Peter  R.  Pujadó,  "Chapter  5  -­‐  

Catalytic  Reforming,"  in  Handbook  of  Petroleum  
Processing.  The  Netherlands:  Springer,  2006,  pp.  
217-­‐237.  

[4]  Rahimpour,  Mohammad  Reza;  Jafari,  Mitra;  

Iranshahi,  Davood;,  "Progress  in  catalytic  naphtha  
reforming  process:  A  review,"  Elsevier,  no.  109,  pp.  
79-­‐93,  2013,  www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy.  

[5]  Jorge  Ancheyta,  "Chapter  4  -­‐  Modeling  of  Catalytic  

Reforming,"  in  Modeling  and  Simulation  of  
Catalytic  Reactors  for  Petroleum  Refining.  New  

  9