What are the differences between the continuous reforming IFP process and the UOP process?

Different processes have their own advantages and disadvantages! It mainly depends on which area the company focuses on!

The UOP reactors are arranged in an overlapping configuration, which results in less space requirement; the catalyst flows between the reactors due to gravity, without the need for gas propulsion, although the equipment and frameworks are relatively tall； The IFP reactors are arranged in parallel; the catalyst is transported between the reactors using gas, which results in a lower equipment height and makes maintenance easier. However, it requires more space, and the catalyst has to be lifted by gas multiple times. The UOP regenerator uses a thermal cycle, and its process is relatively simple; however, high requirements are placed on the materials used for the equipment and pipelines, as well as on the water content in the regeneration gas ； The IFP regenerator uses a cold circulation and drying process; it involves numerous components, but all of them are made from common materials that are easily available. Moreover, the water content in the regenerated gas is low, which helps to maintain the specific surface area of the catalyst. UOP’s closed hopper is located at the bottom of the regenerator, with the regeneration pressure being lower than the reaction pressure ； The closed hopper of the IFP is located at the upper part of the regenerator; the regeneration pressure is higher than the reaction pressure, which facilitates the coking of the catalyst.

The UOP reactors are arranged in an overlapping configuration, which results in less space requirement; the catalyst flows between the reactors due to gravity, without the need for gas propulsion, although the equipment and frameworks are relatively tall； The IFP reactors are arranged in parallel; the catalyst is transported between the reactors using gas, which results in a lower equipment height and makes maintenance easier. However, it requires more space, and the catalyst has to be lifted by gas multiple times. The UOP regenerator uses a thermal cycle, and its process is relatively simple; however, high requirements are placed on the materials used for the equipment and pipelines, as well as on the water content in the regeneration gas ； The IFP regenerator uses a cold circulation and drying process; it involves numerous components, but all of them are made from common materials that are easily available. Moreover, the water content in the regenerated gas is low, which helps to maintain the specific surface area of the catalyst. UOP’s closed hopper is located at the bottom of the regenerator, with the regeneration pressure being lower than the reaction pressure ； The closed hopper of the IFP is located at the upper part of the regenerator; the regeneration pressure is higher than the reaction pressure, which facilitates the coking of the catalyst.

As the plants become larger, the advantage that UOP once had in terms of space savings through overlapping reactor arrangements is no longer available. As the load on the plants increases, the reactors grow larger and the oil transfer lines also become thicker, which leads to a significant increase in stress on the piping systems and equipment. Therefore, UOP has shifted from the traditional configuration of 4 overlapping reactors to configurations such as 2+2, 3+2, or 2+2+1, likely in order to address the stress issues associated with larger plant sizes； And Axens’ reactor layout has natural advantages in this regard ； There is indeed a difference in the amount of lifters and catalyst wear, but the number of lifters in large UOP units has also increased to 5; after Axens switched to 5 reactors, the number of lifters became 6. Therefore, the catalyst wear differs by not much ； The dry-cooling cycle of Axens slows down the rate of decrease in the catalyst’s specific surface area, which is an advantage ； The overall regeneration design of UOP has relatively limited flexibility, which is also a traditional characteristic of UOP’s designs* ； As the scale of the plants increases, when comparing the two processes, Axens has a clearer overall advantage over UOP ； UOP is slightly better in terms of engineering technical details ；