Trays and Packed Towers

Course Manual
Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)
Chapter 3 Tray and Packed Towers Description
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Chapter # 3 Page # 1 of 72
Course Manual
Chapter 3 Contents
3.1 Choice of Trays or Packing 3.2 Tray Towers
3.2.1 Tower Functions 3.2.2 Arrangement of Processing Steps 3.2.3 Tower Design Considerations 3.2.4 Tower Trays 3.2.4.1 Types of Trays 3.2.4.2 Selection of Tray Type 3.2.4.3 Tray Layout 3.2.4.4 Tray Stability 3.2.4.5 Operating Range 3.2.4.6 Satisfactory Operating Region 3.2.4.7 Tray Construction 3.2.4.8 Material of Construction 3.2.4.9 Tray Design 3.2.4.10 Tower Internals
3.3 Packed Towers

3.3.1 Packed Tower Function 3.3.2 Types of Packing 3.3.3 Tower Internals 3.3.3.1 Packing Support 3.3.3.2 Liquid Distributors 3.3.3.3 Liquid Redistributors 3.3.3.4 Hold-down Plates 3.3.4 Tower Auxiliaries
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Chapter 3
Tray and Packed Towers Description

3.1 CHOICE OF TRAYS OR PACKING
The choice between a tray and backed tower for a particular application can only be made with complete assurance by costing each design. However, this will not always be worthwhile, or necessary, and the choice can usually be made, on the basis of experience by considering main advantages and disadvantages of each type; which are listed below: 1. Plate towers can be designed to handle a wider range of liquid and gas flowrates than packed towers. 2. Packed towers are not suitable for very low liquid rates. 3. The efficiency of a tray can be predicted with more certainty than the equivalent term for packing (HETP or HTU). 4. Plate towers can be designed with more assurance than packed towers. There is always some doubt that good liquid distribution can be maintained throughout a packed tower under all operating conditions, particularly in large towers. 5. It is easier to make provision for the withdrawal of side-streams from tray towers; coils can be installed on the trays. 6. It is easier to make provision for the withdrawal of side streams from tray towers. 7. If the liquid causes fouling, or contains solids, it is easier to make provision for cleaning in a tray tower; man ways can be installed on the trays. With small diameter towers it may be cheaper to use packing and replace the packing when it becomes fouled. 8. For corrosive liquids a packed tower will usually be cheaper than the equivalent plate tower. 9. The liquid hold-up is appreciably lower in a packed tower than a plate tower. This can be important when the inventory of toxic or flammable liquids needs to be kept as small as possible for safety reasons.
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
10.Packed towers are more suitable for handling foaming systems. 11.The pressure drop per equilibrium stage (HETP) can be lower for packing than plates; and packing should be considered for vacuum towers. 12.Packing should always be considered for small diameter towers, say less than 0.6m, where trays would be difficult to install, and expensive.
3.2 TRAY TOWERS

A. Towers Functions 3.2.1 Fractionating Tower Is used in referring to a counter-current operation in which a vapor mixture is repeatedly brought in contact with liquid having nearly the same composition as the respective vapors. Atmospheric Distillation "Tower" Is the first step in any petroleum refinery, in which the separation of the crude oil into various fractions. These fractions may be products in their own right or may be feed stocks for other refining or processing units. Vacuum Distillation "Tower" Is used to reduce the temperature for the distillation of heat-sensitive materials and where very high temperatures would otherwise be needed to distill relatively non volatile materials. Stabilization "Tower" It is a fractionation operation conducted for the purpose of removing high-vapor pressure components. Splitting "Tower" It is a simple distillation process, in which separation of naphtha into two streams before further processing can take place.
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Stripping "Tower" Is the process where the requirements, to strip a volatile component or group of similar components from a relatively non-volatile solution or product by the action of stripping gas or steam. 3.2.2 Arrangement of Processing Steps: This applies only to situations where two or more towers in sequence are being considered. Single tower are designed on the basis of the available feed, but in any multiple product distillation train, there are a number of ways in which the towers can be arranged. Consider, for example, a three component system consisting of propane, isobutene and n-butane which must be separated into relatively pure components. Two routes can be used. The first tower can be depropanizer yielding a propane product distillate followed by a C4 splitter (deisobutanizer). Alternately, the first tower can be a deisobutanizer yielding an n-butane bottoms product followed by a depropanizer. The operating conditions and relative equipment sizes for the two are shown in Figure 3.1. By inspection, it is obvious that Method 1 is the better process design because: 1. Equipment costs will be lower since the large tower will be designed for a lower pressure. 2. Operating costs will be lower since the deisobutanizer condenser load will be approximately half that of Method 2. This will reflected in a lower reboiler duty for Method 1. 3.2.3 Tower Design Considerations Briefly, here are some of the factors that dictate the design of a column. As you might guess, two important factors are 1. The throughput, or flow rate of material, and 2. The ease of separation. One way to quantify the relative ease of separation is to compare the volatilities of the components to be separated. Because the boiling points change with pressure, it is more convenient to look at curves as shown in Figure 3.2 from these curves we can find the boiling point of a compound at any pressure, or conversely, the vapor pressure of a compound at any pressure.
MIDOR (Rev.0) Jan. 2006 Chapter # 3 Page # 5 of 72
Course Manual
Relative no. of trays Relative tower diam. Tower design pressure, psig
Method 1
Relative no. of trays Relative tower diam. Tower design pressure, psig
1 1 300
Method 2 Figure 3.1 Process Design Alternates for Production of Propane i.butane and nbutane
Course Manual
Figure 3.2 Vapor Pressure Light Hydrocarbons
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
For example, we see the vapor pressure of propane at 100F is 190 psia; and the vapor pressure of propylene is 226 psia at 100F. The ratio of these two vapor pressures is an expression of their relative volatilities. 226/190 = 1.2. This ratio is defined as (alpha). The nearer alpha is to 1, the greater the difficulty of separation. The more difficult separations require more trays in a column and more reflux. All this requires more energy. The separation of normal butane and i.pentane is much easier. Alpha at 100F equals 52/20 or 2.6. This separation would require fewer trays and less energy. Alpha is somewhat higher at lower temperatures. Therefore, other things being equal, it is desirable to operate at lower temperatures and, thereby, lower pressures. However, "other things are not equal" and there is a limit as to how low a pressure we can operate. That limit is usually the temperature of the cooling water for the overhead condenser. Because we must condense the overhead product, we must have a coolant whose temperature is below the boiling range of the overhead. Usually it is not economically practical to refrigerate the coolant, so water or air is normally used. The available coolant temperature is usually the factor that establishes the tower design pressure. To see how alpha affects tower design, let's look at two separations. First, a depropanizer - a distillation column designed to separate propane from i.butane and heavier components. Alpha is 190/72 or 2.6. Although there are heavier components in the bottom and lighter components in the overhead, we need only consider what we call the key components, namely the heaviest major component in the overhead and lightest major component in the bottoms. For this separation, propane from butane, the tower typically requires 30 trays, 5 to one reflux, and is about 50 ft. in height. The diameter is largely dependent on the throughput. In contrast, let's look at a tower to separate ethyl benzene and xylene. Alpha is approximately 1.08. A tower for this separation has about 350 trays and uses 100 to 1 reflux. A large depropanizer tower might cost about $500,000, while an ethyl benzene-xylene tower might cost about $5 million. Of course, there is a considerable difference in the cost of utilities to operate these two columns. An additional factor that determines tower size is purity of product. As we say earlier, each equilibrium stage has less of the impurity than the adjacent stage. It follows then that we must specify the desired purity. That is, the mole fraction of an impurity that we will accept in the product. For our depropanizer we might accept, say, 1 to 2 % butane in the overhead propane product and we much tolerate a loss of 2 % propane in the bottoms.
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Obviously, to achieve a lower concentration of butane in the overhead, and still maintain the low loss of propane in the bottom, would require more trays, more reflux, and consequently, a taller and larger diameter tower with its attendant increase in investment and utility costs. To summarize, the height of a tower and number of trays is largely dependent on the relative volatility of the key components and the permissible mole fraction of these key components in the products. Tower design procedure The design of a distillation tower can be divided into the following steps: 1. Specify the degree of separation required: set product specifications. 2. Select the operating conditions, batch or continuous, operating pressure. 3. Select the type of contacting device: plate or packing. 4. Determine the stage and reflux requirements. The number of equilibrium stages. 5. Size the tower: Trays, number of real stages. 6. Design the tower internals: Trays, distributors, packing supports. 7. Mechanical design: vessel and internal fittings. The principal step will be to determine the number of stages and reflux requirement. 3.2.4 Tower Trays 3.2.4.1 Types of Trays Fractional distillation requires mass and heat transfer between vapor and liquid flowing counter currently through a fractionating tower. A large number of devices to ensure a more or less thorough contact between the rising vapors and downcoming liquid had been developed. Bubble-cap trays, valve trays, sieve trays, and grid trays are examples of devices.
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
A. Trays Having Separate Liquid Down comers The great majority of commercial fractionations are carried out in columns where the liquid flows horizontally across each tray. The liquid contacts the rising vapor and is separated from the vapor before flowing through down comers onto the tray below. In nearly all cases, the down comers are segmental parts of the column, and are provided with a liquid-overflow weir to assure a minimum height of liquid on each tray. Inlet weirs for the liquid entering onto a tray are used in some designs. Various types of trays with separate liquid down comers which are in more common use today are illustrated in Figure 3.3. Bubble-Cap Trays (Figure 3.3a) are so widely used in the petroleum and chemical industries that they are generally considered to be "the standard." All new types of trays are compared with "a bubble-cap tray," The outstanding characteristic of a will designed bubble-cap tray is probably its ability to perform satisfactorily over wide ranges of liquid and vapor rates. In which the vapour passes up through short pipes, called risers, covered by a cap with a serrated edge, or slots. The bubble-cap tray is the traditional, oldest type of crossflow tray, and many different designs have been developed. Standard cap designs would now be specified for most applications. The most significant feature of the bubble-cap is that the use of risers to ensure that a level of liquid is maintained on the tray at all vapours flow-rates. Although there are many styles and dimensions of caps (Figure 3.4) in use, the round bell shaped bubble-cap is quite practical and efficient (Figure 3.5). Dimensions, it is available in sizes of 3,4,5,6 and 7 inches, but the most popular and most adaptable size is about 4 inches O.D. The 3-inch and 6-inch are also in common use for the smaller and larger diameter towers. Slots are the working part of the cap. Slots are usually rectangular of trapezoidal in shape. The rectangular slots give slightly greater capacity while the trapezoidal slots gives slightly better performance at low vapor rates. Shroud Ring, it is recommended to give structural strength to the prongs or ends of the cap.
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.3 Trays Having Liquid Down comer
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.4 Bubble Caps & Risers
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.5 Bubble Cap
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Sieve or Perforated Trays (Figure 3.3b) have been in use longer than bubble-cap trays but have not received the same wide acceptance. This is partly because of inadequate performance data with respect to liquid and vapor capacities. Recently more attention has been given to sieve trays, and it appears as though they will find increased use by industry. The vapour passes up through perforations in the tray and the liquid is retained on the tray by the vapour flow. There is no positive vapour liquid seal, and at low flow rates liquid will "weep" through the holes, reducing the tray efficiency. The perforations are usually small holes, but larger holes and slots are used. Valve Trays (Floating Cap) (Figure 3.3c) Valve trays are proprietary designs. They are essentially sieve trays with large diameter holes covered by movable flaps, which lift as the vapour flow increases. As the area for vapour flow varies with the flow rate, valve trays can operate efficiently at lower flow rates than sieve trays the valves closing at low vapour rates. Is somewhere between a bubble-cap and a sieve tray in operating principle. It is a bubble-cap tray where the vapour, makes one 90-degree turn to enter the liquid horizontally, there are no risers, and the caps have no teeth. It can also be considered as a modified sieve tray where the vapor emerges horizontally into the liquid instead of vertically, and the perforations have variable area. Float-Valve Trays (Figure 3.3d) is a recent development worthy of consideration, although there is very little published information about its operation. It is a valvetype tray with floating rectangular caps positioned by end-brackets. One edge, the heavy edge, of each cap is turned upward 90 degrees. At low vapor rates the light edge of each cap opens first, and at higher vapor rates the heavy edge opens. Like the Flexitray, it can be considered as somewhere between a bubble-cap and a sieve tray in operating principle. Uniflux Trays (Figure 3.3e) is a third newcomer to the field. It has had considerable industrial use already, but there is very little published information about its operation. It is a bubble-cap tray, modified so as to reduce fabrication costs considerably and to have possible other advantages. The tray is made of a number of S-sections, with the vapor making a 180-degree turn between the riser and the cap, and then emerging from one side (the downstream side) of the cap, after a 90-degree turn through the cap slots. In this way the vapor emergence should help the liquid flow across the tray, reducing hydraulic gradient.
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
B. Trays Having No Liquid Down comers Traditionally, fractionating columns that have no liquid down comers have been packed columns, where the ascending vapor contacted the descending liquid in true countercurrent action. Recent developments have substituted perforated trays, where the liquid and vapor both pass through the same openings, for the continuous packing. There is not the same degree of differential contacting here as for the continuously packed columns, but there are many possible advantages for this modified "packing," compared with either conventional packed columns or the conventional tray columns. Turbo grid Trays (Figure 3.6 a) consists of a flat grid of parallel slots extending over the entire cross sectional of the column. The slots can be stamped perforations in a flat metal plate, or can consist of the spaces between horizontal bars. Liquid level on each tray is maintained by dynamic balance of liquid and vapor rates. The Turbo grid tray has had considerable industrial applications already, but there is little published information about its operation. Ripple Trays (Figure 3.6 b) is the latest arrival in the field of liquid-vapor contacting devices. It is made by corrugating a conventional sieve plate into sinusoidal waves. The perforations extend over the entire cross sectional area of the column. Liquid level is maintained on each tray by a dynamic balance of the fluid flows, being a very recent development, there is little published information about its use and operation.
Figure 3.6 Trays having no Liquid Down comers

Course Manual
3.2.4.2 Selection of Tray Type The principal factors to consider when comparing the performance of bubble-cap, sieve and valve trays are: cost, capacity, operating range, efficiency and pressure drop. Cost Bubble-cap trays are appreciably more expensive than sieve or valve trays. The relative cost will depend on the material of construction used; for mild steel the ratios, bubble-cap: valve: sieve, are approximately 3.0:1.5:1.0. However, comparative quotations over the last few years show the relative costs in dollars per square foot of tray area to be: bubble-cap tray, 20; flexitray, 14; Uniflux, 10; sieve, 10; and turbo grid, 10. These are costs before installation. Capacity There is little difference in the capacity rating for the three types (the diameter of the column required for a given flow-rate); the ranking is sieve, valve, and bubble-cap. Operating range This is the most significant factor. By operating range is meant the range of vapour and liquid rates over which the plate will operate satisfactorily (the stable operating range). Some flexibility will always be required in an operating plant to allow for changes in production rate, and to cover start-up and shut-down conditions. The ratio of the highest to the lowest flow rates is often referred to as the "turn-down" ratio. Bubble-cap trays have a positive liquid seal and can therefore operate efficiently at very low vapour rates. Sieve trays rely on the flow of vapour through the holes to hold the liquid on the tray and cannot operate at very low vapour rates, but, with good design, sieve trays can be designed to give a satisfactory operating range; typically, from 50 per cent to 120 per cent of design capacity. Valve trays are intended to give greater flexibility than sieve trays at a lower cost than bubble-caps.
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Efficiency The Murphree efficiency of the three types of trays will be virtually the same when operating over their design flow range and no real distinction can be made between them. Pressure Drop The pressure drop over the trays can be an important design consideration, particularly for vacuum columns. The trays pressure drop will depend on the detailed design of the tray but, in general, sieve plates give the lowest pressure drop, followed by valves, with bubble-caps giving the highest. Summary Sieve trays are the cheapest and are satisfactory for most applications. Valve trays should be considered if the specified turn-down cannot be met with sieve trays. Bubble-caps should only be used where very low vapour (gas) rates have to be handled and a positive liquid seal is essential at all flow-rates. 3.2.4.3 Tray Layout Flow Paths, (Figure 3.7) The simplest tray arrangement considering fluid flow and mechanical details is the cross-flow. It fits the majority of designs. When liquid flows become small with respect to vapor flow the reverse flow tray is recommended; when liquid load is high with respect to vapor, the double pass tray is suggested, as the path is cut in half and the liquid gradient reduced; and for the extremely high liquid loads, the double-pass cascade is suggested. A guide for tentative selection of the tray type for a given capacity is given in Table 3.1. Figure 3.8 and Table 3.2 identify the distribution of areas of a tray by the action of tray area.
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Table 3.1 Guide for Tentative Selection of Tray Type
Table 3.2 Approximate Distribution of Areas as Percent of Tower Area (Allocated cap area is determined by difference)
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.7 Liquid over Tray Flow Path
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.8 Classification of Tray Area
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Cap Layout, (Figure 3.8) caps should be arranged on the tray in 60 equilateral layout, with the liquid flowing into the apex of the triangle rather than parallel to the base. The liquid flows normal to each raw of caps. Inlet Weirs, these contribute to the uniform distribution of liquid as it enters the tray from the down comer. It is not recommended for fluids that are dirty or tend to foul surfaces. Outlet Weirs, these are necessary to maintain seal on the tray, thus insuring bubbling of vapors through liquid. Down comer, (Figure 3.9) the down comer from a tray must be adequate to carry the liquid flow plus entrained foam and froth. The vertical and straight segmental down comer is recommended although the segmental tapered design has been used quite successfully, the wide mouth of the inlet as compared to the outlet is considered to provide better foam disengagement conditions. The Dow comer seal on the tray is recommended based on the liquid flow path. The segmental, or chord down comer, shown in Figure 3.9 is the simplest and cheapest form of construction and is satisfactory for most purposes. The down comer channel is formed by a flat plate, called an apron, which extends down from the outlet weir. The apron is usually vertical, but may be sloped to increase the plate area available for perforation. If a more positive seal is required at the down comer at the outlet, an inlet weir can be fitted or a recessed seal pan used. Circular down comers (pipes) (Figure 3.17) are sometimes used for small liquid flow-rates. Liquid Bypass Baffles, also known as redistribution baffles, these short stub baffles guide the liquid flow path to prevent excessive by-passing of the bubble-cap field or active area. Weep Holes, holes for drainage must be adequate to drain the tower in a reasonable time, yet not too large to interfere with tray action. Draining of the tower through the trays is necessary before any internal maintenance can be started. The majority of the holes are placed adjacent to the outlet or down comer weir
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.9 Segment (Chord) Down comer Designs 3.2.4.4 Tray Stability A tray is stable when it can operate with acceptable efficiencies under conditions which fluctuate, pulse, or surge, developing unsteady conditions. This type of operation is difficult to anticipate in design, and most trays will not operate long without showing loss in efficiency.
Course Manual
Flooding, occurs when the pressure drop across a tray is so high that the liquid cannot flow down the tower as fast as required. The pressure drop across the tray increases to very high values, and the tray efficiency drops markedly. When the froth and foam in the down comer back up to the tray above and begin accumulating on this tray. The down comer then contains a mixture of lower density than the clear liquid, its capacity becomes limited, disengagement is reduced, and the level rises in the down comer. The level extends onto the tray above, and will progress to the point of filling the tower, if not detected and if the liquid and vapor loads are not reduced. Pulsing occurs when the vapor rate is low and unsteady, when the slots and holes opening are low, and when the liquid dynamic seal is low. With irregular vapor flow enters the caps or holes, the liquid pulses or surge, even to the point of dumping. The best cure is a steady vapor rate and good slot or hole opening to allow for reasonable upsets. Dumping liquid occurs at high liquid rates and low vapor loads. Some of slots or hales will dump liquid instead of passing vapor, resulting in poor tray efficiency. For towers with conventional down comers, dumping usually occurs at the upstream raw of caps or holes, where the liquid has the largest head and kinetic energy. Blowing, occurs when the vapor rate is extremely high, regardless of the liquid rates, causing large vapor streams or continuous bubbles to be blown through the liquid. Blowing is usually accompanied by accessing entrainment of large droplets and slugs of liquid up to the tray above. The pressure drop across the tray can be quite high and increase very rapidly with any increase in vapor rate. The efficiency and contact is low and entrainment is usually high. Coning occurs at low liquid rate or seals. The vapor pushes the liquid back from the slots or holes and passes upward with poor liquid contact. This causes poor tray efficiency. Entrainment occurs when mist and liquid particles carry up in the vapor from the liquid on one tray through the riser or holes to tray above. Sufficient tray spacing must be available to prevent the quantity of material from significantly affecting the efficiency of the tower.
Puking usually occurs at a high liquid rate and low gas rate. At high liquid rate the
Course Manual
liquid level on each tray will rise. As the level rises, the flow of gas up the tower is restricted. The gas pressure in the bottom of the tower will begin to rise. It will reach the point that a surge of a gas will suddenly move up the tower with enough velocity to carry the liquid with it. Reducing the liquid flow rate will usually eliminate puking. Puking should not be confused with "carryover". Puking occurs almost instantaneously. Furthermore, if the liquid rate is not reduced, the tower will puke again when the liquid stacks up. Carryover is usually caused by a high vapor flow rate. It happens continuously, whereas puking is an intermittent thing. 5.2.4.5 Operating Range Satisfactory operation will only be achieved over a limited range of vapour and liquid flow rates. A typical performance diagram for a sieve plate is shown in Figure 3.10. The upper limit to vapour flow is set by the condition of flooding. At flooding there is a sharp drop in plate efficiency and increase in pressure drop. Flooding is caused by either the excessive carry over of liquid to the next plate by entrainment, or by liquid backing-up in the down comers. The lower limit of the vapour flow is set by condition of weeping. Weeping occurs when the vapour flow is insufficient to maintain a level of liquid on the plate. "Coning" occurs at low liquid rates, and is the term given to the condition where the vapour pushes the liquid back from the holes and jets upward, with poor liquid contact.
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.10 Sieve Plate Performance Diagram
Figure 3.11 Qualitative Region of Satisfactory Operation

Course Manual
3.2.4.6 Satisfactory Operating Region We have indirectly defined the region of satisfactory operation by defining the surrounding objectionable phenomena. The direct definition is now easier to make. The region of satisfactory operation is that range of liquid and vapor rates where (1) The contacting efficiency of the tray is at or near maximum, and. (2) The column is mechanically able to handle the liquid and vapor loads in a steady-state manner. Usually, flooding is the only limitation for which there is a sharp line of distinction between satisfactory and unsatisfactory operation. The other limitations are ordinarily not so abruptly critical. Satisfactory Operating Regions for Bubble-Cap Trays Visual Observations The functioning of a bubble-cap can be best understood by observing a tray in operation. Typical profiles of vapor leaving a bubble-cup are shown in Figure 3.12. Figure 3.12 illustrates the cap action at a reasonable liquid rate for different vapor rates. Spouting or jetting of the liquid upward (commonly called "foam" or "froth") occurs between the caps, and may extend up to the tray above. Each cap acts as a calming zone for de-aerating this froth. Liquid drains continuously from the froth onto the top of each cap, and runs over the sides of the cap down into the slots. It is sucked into the vapor stream at the top of the slots, and finally emerges with the main vapor stream closer to the tray floor. At the vapor rate is increased, vapor issues from a variable slot area at slightly increasing slot velocities until full slot opening is reached. As the vapor rate is increased still further, the liquid inside the annular space between the cap and riser is depressed down to the tray floor. Thereafter, the cap acts as a fixed orifice and the slot velocity increases at a more rapid rate.
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.12 Bubble Cap Tray Schematic Dynamic Operation Figure 3.13 shows that around normal design rates, the vapor has depressed the liquid down to the tray, and has pushed the froth about 2 inches away from the cap at the top. The impinging of vapor streams from adjacent caps, as dictated by the cap spacing, appears to be the important factor in vapor escape. At typical cap spacing a top view of the tray at normal vapor rates would show some vapor holes blown through the liquid.
Figure 3.13 Bubble Cap Performance

Course Manual
As the vapor rate is increased above normal loadings, a point is reached where the tray is practically blown dry, and a vapor pocket surrounds each cap. Liquid is jetted to the tray above, causing large amounts of entrainment, poor liquid-vapor contact, and large pressure drops. Satisfactory Operating Regions for Other Types of Trays The other types of trays which have considerable promise today are comparatively new. They are all proprietary devices, and most of them are being improved through continuous research and development. Trays Having Separate Liquid Down comers Flexi trays, The two different weights of caps which are generally used on a tray are in alternate rows parallel to the outlet weir. The lighter caps open during the first 2030% of vapor loading, and the heavier ones open from this range to about 50-70% of vapor loading. At higher rates all caps are fully open and thrust against the blow down spiders. This arrangement insures a wide range of vapor loading and also good vapor distribution across the tray at low vapor loads, something which is not possible with either the conventional bubble-cap or sieve tray. The smaller cap diameter, about 2 inches, and the large pitch of 3-6 inches, should permit the Flexitray to have appreciably lower pressure drop and entrainment than the bubble-cup tray has, and about the same order of magnitude as a perforated tray. The liquid-handling capacity should be greater than that of a bubble-cap tray because of less liquid gradient across the tray. We would expect a Flexitray column to handle about 20-40% higher vapor loads than a bubble-cap column and about the same loads as a sieve-tray column. The Flexitray column should handle satisfactorily smaller vapor rates than a bubble-cap column and considerably smaller rates than a sieve-tray column. Float Valve Trays. The float-valve tray is regarded as being similar to the Flexitray in operating principle. At around 20% of the vapor loading, the light edges of the valves are open, and the heavy edges open between 40 and 70% of design vapor loading. At higher rates, the valves are fully opened and held against the support brackets. Proper spacing of the valves should permit the float-valve tray to have lower pressure drop and entrainment than the bubble-cap tray has, and in the same order of magnitude as the sieve tray. The liquid-handling capacity should be greater than that of a bubble-cap tray because of less liquid gradient across the tray. It is believed that the liquid gradient would be slightly higher across the Float-valve tray than across the Flexitray, but this difference might not be significant.
Course Manual
We would expect that a Float-valve tray could handle about 20-40% more vapor load than a bubble-cap tray, and about the same as a sieve tray. It should be able to handle satisfactorily smaller vapor rates than a bubble-cap tray, and much smaller rates than a sieve tray. Uniflux Trays is regarded as a modified bubble-cap tray. The vapor emerging only from the downstream portion of the caps (sections) could aid in reducing the liquid gradient across the tray. Such a reduction may or may not be significant in tray performance. The absence of available data leaves us with the opinion that the Uniflux tray should have about the same operating characteristics as a bubble-cap tray, but with the definite advantage of economy of fabrication and installation. Trays Having No Liquid Down comers Turbo grid Tray is considered as a modified packed column. The liquid and vapor has counter currently through the same openings, so there is no liquid gradient across a tray. It would be expected that Turbo grid trays would have a capacity 20-50% greater than bubble-cap trays, but a much smaller operating range (say, from 100% maximum down to 50%). This would be expected because the liquid level on each tray is maintained by dynamic balance. At low vapor rates the contacting efficiency should decrease appreciably. On the other hand, the Turbo grid tray should have a very small pressure drop and should be the most economical of all trays to fabricate. Ripple Tray, has smaller openings than the Turbo grid tray for the phases to pass through and probably has a higher efficiency. The Ripple tray would be expected to handle 20-40% more vapor load than can be bubble-cap tray, but it should have a much smaller operating range, comparable to that of the Turbo grid. At low vapor rates, the contacting efficiency should decrease appreciably. The Ripple tray should have a pressure drop about the same as sieve trays and should be economical to fabricate. 3.2.4.7 Tray Construction The mechanical design features of sieve trays and described. The same general construction is also used for bubble-cap and valve plates. Two basically different types of plate construction are used. Large-diameter trays normally constructed in sections, supported on beams. Small trays are installed in the column as a stack of pre-assembled trays.
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Sectional Construction A typical tray is shown in Figure 3.14. The tray sections are supported on a ring welded round the vessel wall, and on beams. The beams and ring are about 500 mm wide, with the beams set at around 0.6 m spacing. The beams are usually angle or channel sections, constructed from .folded sheet. Special fasteners are used so the sections can be assembled from one side only. One section is designed to be removable to act as a man way. This reduces the number of man ways needed on the vessel, which reduces the vessel cost. Stacked Trays (Cartridge Trays) The stacked type of construction is used where the column diameter is too small for a man to enter to assemble the trays, say less than 1.2 m (4ft). Each tray is fabricated complete with the down comer, and joined to the above and below using screwed rods (spacers); (see Figure 3.15). The trays are installed in the column shell as an assembly (stack) of ten, or so, trays. Tall columns have to be divided into flanged sections so that tray assemblies can be easily installed and removed. The weir, and down comer supports, are usually formed by turning up the edge of the tray. The trays are not fixed to the vessel wall, as they are with sectional trays, so there is no positive liquid seal at the edge of the tray, and a small amount of leakage will occur. In some designs the tray edges are turned up round the circumference to make better contact at the wall. This can make it difficult to remove the trays for cleaning and maintenance, without damage. Side-stream and Feed Points Where a side-stream is withdrawn from the column, the plate design must be modified to provide a liquid seal at the take-off pipe. A typical design is shown in Figure 3.19. When the feed stream is liquid it will be normally introduced into the down comer leading to the feed plate, and the plate spacing increased at this point.
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.14 Sectional Tray Design
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.15 Stacked Tray Tower
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.16 Cross flow Bubble-Cap Plate
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
General Notes - For 2-pass trays it's preferable to have the top and bottom trays with side down comers. If the top and bottom must be different, use side down comer at the bottom and center at the top. - Inlet weirs are sometimes used to distribute reflux. - Slotted distributors are used for liquid and 2-phase feeds and pump rounds. - Vapor feed are usually flush connections. - Check the location of all internal piping to make sure it does not internal with tray man ways. Liquid feed, Two Phase feed or Pump rounds In general, liquid feed should be directed to the entrance of the feed tray. In some cases liquid can be fed into the down comer above the feed tray. However, if vapor can be present, or if the feed is at a temperature greatly different from the feed tray, then the feed should not be introduced into the down comer (Figure 3.19). Vapor feed, (Figure 3.20) feed location at two or more trays should be either all even numbered trays or all odd, for same feed details at all locations. Draw Pan (Draw off) (Figure 3.21) used for draw off connections to side stream strippers, side stream products, and no-foaming pump rounds. Equalizer pipe arrangements for double cross flow towers are to be covered. 3.2.4.8 Material of Construction Bubble-cap trays have been constructed of cast iron, sheet carbon steel, and sheet metal of various alloys. Cast iron caps and trays used to be common. However, they are very heavy and required heavy foundations and tower structures, furthermore, cast iron caps are thick and more consequently wasteful of tower cross-sectional area. Sheet metal trays and caps overcome these disadvantages, as well as being cheaper; carbon steel trays are considerably cheaper then cast iron. As a result, cast iron trays are seldom specified anymore.
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Nearly all of the common metals and alloys have been used in the construction of sheet metal trays and caps. Low carbon steel is the usual standard for non-corrosive service. The use of other metals and alloys are dictated by the conditions of corrosion expected. In order to indicate the effect of materials of construction on cost, the following relative tray costs are illustrative of some of the common metals and alloys. Material Relative Tray Cost 1 2 2 1/2 3 1/2
Carbon steel 11-13% chrome type 400 18-8 type 304 18-8 Type 316 Monel 3.2.4.9 Tray Design a. Bubble Cap Tray Design
The tray and caps operate as a unit or system; therefore they must be so considered in design (Figures 3.16 and 3.17) Standardization The custom design of the trays for each application is usually unnecessary and uneconomical. Instead most designers utilize a standard reference tray layout and cap size to check each system. If the results of the tray hydraulics study indicate operation unsatisfactory for the standard tray, then alterations of those features controlling the out-of-line performance is in order, utilizing the same method as will be outlined for the initial design of a custom tray. It is understood that such a standard tray cannot be optimum for every application but experience has demonstrated that many applications fit. The economic advantages of utilizing a limited number of bubble cap sizes and designs are reflected in warehouse stocks. The standardization of layouts, down comer areas, weir lengths and many other features are reflected in savings in engineering mechanical design time. At the same time, systems which do not adapt themselves to this standardization should be recognized and handled as special designs.
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Design Objectives Each tray design should ultimately resolve and achieve the following: 1. Capacity: High for vapor and/or liquid as required. This yields the smallest column diameter for a given throughput. Flexibility or adaptability to high and low fluctuations in vapor and liquid rates. 2. Pressure drop: Low pressure drop is necessary to reduce temperature gradients between top and bottom of the column. High pressure drop is usually (but not always) associated with uneconomical design. In some systems pressure drop is not a controlling feature, within reasonable limitations. 3. Efficiency: High efficiency is the objective of each tray performance. The better the contact over a wide range of capacities, the higher will be the efficiency throughout this range. 4. Fabrication and installation costs: Details should be simple to maintain low costs. 5. Operating and Maintenance Costs: Mechanical details must account for the peculiarities of the system fluids (coking, suspended particles, immiscible fluids, etc.) and accommodate the requirements for drainage, cleaning (chemical or mechanical), corrosion, etc., in order to keep the daily costs of operation and downtime to a minimum. b. Sieve Tray Design The basic requirements of a tray contacting stage are it should: provide good vapourliquid contact. Provide sufficient liquid hold-up for good mass transfer (high efficiency) has sufficient area and spacing to keep the entrainment and pressure drop within acceptable limits. Have sufficient down comer area for the liquid to flow freely from tray to tray. Tray design, like most engineering design, is a combination theory and practice. The design methods use semi-empirical correlations derived from fundamental research work combined with practical experience obtained from the operation of commercial towers. Proven layouts are used, and the plate dimensions are kept within the range of values known to give satisfactory performance.
Course Manual
Tray design procedure A trial-and error approach is necessary in tray design: starting with a rough tray layout, checking key performance factors and revising the design, as necessary, until a satisfactory design is achieved. A typical design procedure is set out below Procedure 1. Calculate the maximum and minimum vapour and liquid flow-rates/for the turn down ratio required. 2. Collect, or estimate the system physical properties. 3. Select trial tray spacing. 4. Estimate the tower diameter, based on flooding considerations. 5. Decide the liquid flow arrangement. 6. Make a trial tray layout: down comer area, active area, hole area, hole size, weir height. 7. Check the weeping rate, if unsatisfactory return to step 6. 8. Check the plate pressure drop, if too high return to step 6. 9. Check down comer back-up, if too high return to step 6 or 3. 10.Decide tray layout details: calming zones, imperforated areas, check hole pitch, if unsatisfactory return to step 6. 11.Recalculate the percentage flooding based on chosen tower diameter. 12.Check entrainment, if too high return to step 4. 13.Optimize design: repeat steps 3 to 12 to find smallest diameter and tray spacing acceptable (lowest cost). 14.Finalize design: draw up the tray specification and sketch the layout.
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
5.2.4.10 Tower Internals The arrangements for a tower internal include the following: 1. Reflux. (Figure 3.18) 2. Liquid feed, vapor, and two phase. (Figure 3.19 & 20) 3. Pump around (Figure 3.19) 4. Draw-pan draw offs (Figure 3.21) 5. Tower bottom for Kettle reboiler (Figure 3.22), thermo siphon (Figure 3.23), and once-through thermo siphon (Figure 3.24).
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.18 Reflux Arrangement
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.19 Liquid Feed, Two Phase Feed or Pump rounds
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.20 Feed Vapor
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.21 Draw off (Pan) Tray
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.22 Tower Bottom for Kettle Reboiler
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.23 Tower Bottom for Thermo siphon Reboiler
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.24 Tower Bottom for Once through Thermo siphon Reboiler
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
3.3 PACKED TOWERS

3.3.1 Packed Towers Function Packed towers are used for distillation, gas absorption, and liquid-liquid extraction. Stripping (desorption) is the reverse of absorption. The gas liquid contact in a packed bed tower is continuous, not stage wise, as in a plate tower. The liquid flows down the tower over the packing surface and the gas or vapour, counter-currently, up the tower. In some gas absorption towers co-current flow is used. The performance of a packed tower is very dependent on the maintenance of good liquid and gas distribution throughout the packed bed, and this is an important consideration in packed tower design. A schematic diagram, showing the main features of a packed absorption tower, is shown in Figure 3.26. A packed distillation tower will be similar to the plate towers, with the plates replaced by packed sections. Packed Tower Design Procedures The design of packed tower will involve the following steps: 1. Select the type and size of packing. 2. Determine the tower height required for the specified separation. 3. Determine the tower diameter (capacity), to handle the liquid and vapour flow rates. 4. Select and design the tower internal features: packing support, liquid distributor, redistributors.
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
B. Packed Absorption Column
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
A. Cross-Section Typical Packed Tower
Figure 3.26 Packed Towers
Course Manual
3.3.2 Types of Pickings Many types of packing materials have been used ranging from simple, readily available solids such as stones or broken bottles to expensive complex geometrical shapes. In general, the packing material should have the following characteristics: 1. It should have a large wetted surface area of packed space so as to present a potentially large interfacial area for phase contacting. 2. It should have a large void volume. These will allow reasonable throughputs of phases without serious pressure drop. 3. It should be corrosive resistant. 4. It should have good wetting characteristics. 5. It should have a low bulk density. In large packed towers, the weight of the packing can be quite large resulting in serious support problems. 6. It should be relatively inexpensive. Many diverse types and shapes of packing have been developed to satisfy these requirements. They can be divided into two broad classes: 1. Stacked packing, which are regular arrangements of the packing elements, and 2. Random packing. Stacked packing, such as grids, have an open structure, and are used for high gas rates, where a low-pressure drop is essential, for example, in cooling towers. Random packing are more commonly used in the process industries. Design data for these packing are given in Table 5.3 The design methods and data given in this section can be used for the preliminary design of packed columns, but for detailed design it is advisable to consult the packing manufacturers.
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Rasching rings. (Figure 3.27) Are one of the oldest specially manufactured types of random packing, and are still widely used in the process industries because of their lower cost than the others, but are less efficient, and the total cost of the tower will usually be higher, the wall thickness of the rasching ring is an important factor because, as the thickness is decreased, mechanical strength decreases. A greater wall thickness will result in an increased pressure drop, lower free space, and reduced surface area. Best results are obtained when walls are relatively thin. The diameter and the height of rasching ring are equal. Rasching rings may be fabricated from porcelain, clays, carbon or metals. Ball rings. (Figure 3.28) Are essentially rasching rings in which wall stamped and bent inward this increases the free area and improves the liquid distribution characteristics. They are available in a variety of materials (ceramic, metal, and plastics). Metal and plastics (polypropylene) rings are more efficient than ceramic rings. Berl saddles. (Figure 3.29) Are costly to produce but do have some advantage over other packing, they can be packed with more randomness than rings, and they give a relatively large amount of surface area per unit volume, they are available in a variety of materials: ceramics, metals, plastics, and carbon.
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Table 3.3 Particulars of Hy Contact Tower Packing (approximate values)
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.27 Rasching Rings Packing

Course Manual
Figure 3.28 Pall Rings Packing

Course Manual
Figure 3.29 Berl Saddles Packing
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Intalox Saddles. (Figure 3.30) Can be considered to be an improved type of berl saddle, their simple shape makes them easier to manufacture than berl saddles. Hypac and Super Intalox packing. (Figure 3.31) Can be considered improved types of ball ring and Intalox saddle, respectively. Lessing and cross partition rings. (Figure 3.32) Are simple modifications of rasching ring to improve operating. illustrate some other common packing shapes. Figure 3.33
The choice of material will depend on the nature of the fluids and the operating temperature. Ceramic packing will be the first choice for corrosive liquids, but ceramics are unsuitable for use with strong alkalis. Plastic packing are attacked by some organic solvents and can be used up to moderate temperature, so are suitable for distillation towers. Where the tower operation is likely to be unstable metal rings should be specified. For new towers, the choice will normally be between pall rings and berl or intalox saddles. Packing size In general, the largest size of packing that is suitable for the larger size of column should be used; up to 50 mm. Small sizes are appreciably more expensive than the larger sizes. Above 50 mm the lower cost per cubic meter does not normally compensate for the lower mass transfer efficiency. Use of too large size in a small column can cause poor liquid distribution.
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.30 Ionic Saddles Packing

Course Manual
Hypac
Figure 3.31 Hypac and Super Intalox Packing
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.32 Lessing and Cross Partition Rings Packing

Course Manual
Figure 3.33 Some Other Packing
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Recommended size ranges are: Column diameter < 0.3 m (1 ft) 0.3 to 0.9 m (1 to 3 ft) > 0.9 m Use packing size < 25 mm (1 in.) 25 to 38 mm (1 to 1.5 in) 50 to 75 mm (2 to 3 in.)
Packing application, Table 3.4 represents packing applications. 3.3.3 Tower Internals The internal fittings in a packed tower are simpler than those in a plate tower but must be carefully designed to ensure good performance. As a general rule, the standard fittings developed by the packing manufacturers should be specified. Some typical designs and their use are discussed in the following paragraphs. 3.3.3.1 Packing Support The function of the support plate is to carry the weight of the wet packing, whilst allowing free passage of the gas and liquid. These requirements conflict, a poorly designed support will give a high pressure drop and can cause local flooding. Simple grid and perforated plate supports are used, but in these designs the liquid and gas have to be check for the same openings. Wide-spaced grids are used to increase the flow area, with layers of larger size packing stacked on the grid to support the small size random packing (Figure 3.34). The best design of packing support is one in which gas inlets are provided above the level where the liquid flows from the bed; such as the gas-injection type shown in Figure 3.35 and these designs have a low pressure drop and no tendency to flooding. They are available in a wide range of sizes and materials: metals, ceramics and plastics.
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Table 3.4 Packing Type Application
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.34 Types of Packing Support
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.35 Typical Designs of Gas Injection Supports

Course Manual
3.3.3.2 Liquid Distributors The satisfactory performance of a packed tower is dependent on maintaining a uniform flow of liquid throughout the tower, and good initial liquid distribution is essential. Various designs of distributors are used. For small-diameter towers a central open feed pipe, or one fitted with a spray nozzle, may well be adequate; but for larger towers more elaborate designs are needed to ensure good distribution at all liquid flow-rates. The two most commonly used designs are the orifice type, shown in Figure 3.36 and the weir type, shown in Figure 3.37. In the orifice type the liquid flows through holes in the plate and the gas through short stand pipes. The gas pipes should be sized to give sufficient area for gas flow without creating a significant pressure drop; the holes should be small enough to ensure that there is a level of liquid on the plate at the lowest liquid rate, but large enough to prevent the distributor overflowing at the highest rate. In the weir type the liquid flows over notched weirs in the gas stand-pipes. This type can be designed to cope with a wider range of liquid flow rates than the simpler orifice type. For large-diameter towers, the trough-type distributor shown in Figure 3.38 can be used, and will give good liquid distribution with a large free area for gas flow. All distributors which rely on the gravity flow of liquid must be installed in the tower level, or misdistribution of liquid will occur. A pipe manifold distributor, Figure 3.39 can be used when the liquid is fed to the tower under pressure and the flow-rate is reasonably constant. The distribution pipes and orifices should be sized to give an even flow from each element.
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.36 Orifice Type Distributor
Figure 3.37 Weir Type Distributor

Course Manual
Figure 3.38 Weir Trough Distributors
Figure 3.39 Pipe Distributor

Course Manual
Table 3.5 Effect of Liquid Distributor Performance in Packed Towers

Course Manual
3.3.3.3 Liquid Redistributors Redistributors are used to collect liquid that has migrated to the column walls and redistribute it evenly over the packing; they will also even out any misdistribution that has occurred within the packing. A full redistributor combines the functions of a liquid distributor; a typical design is shown in Figure 3.40. The "wall-wiper" type of redistributor, in which a ring collects liquid from the column wall and redirects it into the centre packing, is occasionally used in smalldiameter columns, less than 0.6 m. Care should be taken when specifying this type to select a design that is shown in Figure 3.41. The maximum bed height that should be used without liquid redistribution depends on the type of packing and the process. Distillation is less susceptible to mal distribution than absorption and stripping. As a general guide, the maximum bed height should not exceed 3 column diameters for rasching rings, and 8 to 10 for pall rings and saddles. In a large diameter column the bed height will also be limited by the maximum weight of packing that can be supported by the packing support and column walls; this will be around 8 m. If the columns must be packed dry, for instance to avoid contamination of process fluids with water, the packing can be lowered into the column in buckets or other containers. Ceramic packing should not be dropped from a height of more than half a meter. Liquid Hold-up An estimate of the amount of liquid hold up in the packing under operating conditions is needed to calculate the total load carried by the packing support. The liquid hold-up will depend on the liquid rate and, to some extent, on the gas flowrate. The packing manufacturers design literature should be consulted to obtain accurate estimates. As a rough guide, a value of about 25 per cent of the packing weight can be taken for ceramic packing.
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.40 Full Redistributors
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.41 Wall Wiper Redistributor
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Wetting Rates If very low, liquid rates have to be used, the packing wetting rate should be checked to make sure it is above the minimum recommended by the packing manufacturer.
Wetting rate = Volumetric liquid rate per unit cross sectional area Racking surface area per unit volume
Norman recommends that the liquid rate in absorbers should be kept above 2.7 Kg/m2 s. If the design liquid rate is too low, the diameter of the column should be reduced. For some processes liquid can be recycled to increase the flow over the packing. A substantial factor of safety should be applied to the calculated bed height for process where the wetting rate is likely 3.3.3.4 Hold-down Plates At high gas rates, or if surging occurs through miss-operation, the top layers of packing can be fluidized. Under these conditions ceramic packing can break up and the pieces filter down the column and plug the packing; metal and plastic packing can be blown out of the column. Hold-down plates (Figure 5.42) used with ceramic packing to weigh down the top layers and prevent fluidization; a typical design is prevent expansion of the bed when operating at a high-pressure drop. They similar to hold-down plates but are of lighter construction and are fixed to the column walls. The openings in hold-down plates and bed-limiters should be small enough to retain the packing, but should not restrict the gas and liquid flow. Installing Packing Ceramic and metal packing are normally dumped into the column wet to ensure a truly random distribution and prevent damage to the packing. The column is partially filled with water and the packing dumped into the water. A height of water must be kept above the packing at all times. Calculated bed height for process where the wetting rate is likely to be low.
MIDOR
(Rev.0) Jan. 2006
Course Manual
Figure 3.42 Hold-down Plate Design 3.3.4 Tower Auxiliaries Intermediate storage tanks will normally be needed to smooth out fluctuations in column operation and process upsets, these tanks should be sized to give sufficient hold-up time for smooth operation and control. The hold-up time required will depend on the nature of the process and on how critical the operation is; some typical values for distillation processes are given below: Operation Feed to a train of columns Between columns Feed to a column from storage Reflux drum Time, minutes 10 5 2 5 to to to to 20 10 5 15
The time given is that for the level in the tank to fall from the normal operating level to the minimum operating level if the feed ceases. Horizontal or vertical tanks are used, depending on the size and duty. Where only a small hold-up volume is required this can be provided by extending the column base or for reflux accumulators, by extending the bottom header of the condenser.

Trays and Packed Towers

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Trays and Packed Towers

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Course Manual

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

Chapter 3 Tray and Packed Towers Description

(Rev.0) Jan. 2006

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

3.3 Packed Towers

(Rev.0) Jan. 2006

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

Tray and Packed Towers Description

(Rev.0) Jan. 2006

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

3.2 TRAY TOWERS

(Rev.0) Jan. 2006

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

Figure 3.2 Vapor Pressure Light Hydrocarbons

(Rev.0) Jan. 2006

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

(Rev.0) Jan. 2006

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

(Rev.0) Jan. 2006

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

(Rev.0) Jan. 2006

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

Figure 3.3 Trays Having Liquid Down comer

(Rev.0) Jan. 2006

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

Figure 3.4 Bubble Caps & Risers

(Rev.0) Jan. 2006

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

Figure 3.5 Bubble Cap

(Rev.0) Jan. 2006

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

(Rev.0) Jan. 2006

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

Figure 3.6 Trays having no Liquid Down comers

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

(Rev.0) Jan. 2006

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

(Rev.0) Jan. 2006

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

Table 3.1 Guide for Tentative Selection of Tray Type

(Rev.0) Jan. 2006

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

Figure 3.7 Liquid over Tray Flow Path

(Rev.0) Jan. 2006

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

Figure 3.8 Classification of Tray Area

(Rev.0) Jan. 2006

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

(Rev.0) Jan. 2006

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

(Rev.0) Jan. 2006

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

Figure 3.10 Sieve Plate Performance Diagram

Figure 3.11 Qualitative Region of Satisfactory Operation

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

(Rev.0) Jan. 2006

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)

Figure 3.13 Bubble Cap Performance

Crude Distillation (Tray and Packed Tower)