FOUR PASS TRAY DESIGN TECHNIQUES

By

Daniel R. Summers, P.E.

SULZER CHEMTECH USA, Inc.

Presented at the AIChE Spring National Meeting

Topical 8: Distillation
Multipass & Single-PassTrays:
New Ways of Overcoming Challenges
Paper 48c
April 28, 2009
Tampa, Florida

Copyright © 2009 by Sulzer Chemtech USA, Inc.

Four Pass (4-pass) trays have been employed for many decades in the chemical and refining industries.
Many papers have been published on this subject but none give a concise methodology on how to
design and balance the V/L ratio on each tray panel. This paper will discuss the methodology of
balancing 4-pass trays regardless if the design is based on equal bubbling area or on equal flow path
length and whether or not the trays have vapor tunnels. In addition, deficiencies in current pressure
drop methods will be discussed and how they relate to and affect 4-Pass tray design.

4-Pass trays have been in existence for many decades. They generally are applied in towers that are
highly liquid loaded. In the natural progression of tray design as towers get larger and larger, the
number of tray passes increases with tower diameter. Four pass trays today are commonplace and six
pass trays have also found their way into the industry. There are also the multi-downcomer designs
developed by UOP and Shell for extremely high liquid loads. Multi-downcomer designs are different
than four (or more) pass trays in that the number of downcomers can by unlimited, there is complete
"communication" of both liquid and vapor on the tray and if designed properly, are self balancing.

In general, a maximum allowable weir loading is used to determine when a tray needs to have
additional passes. Economics indicate that the least number of passes has the lowest cost and that
multi-pass trays have a lower cost than multi-downcomer type trays. Therefore when determining how
many tray passes to use for a design, single pass trays should be examined first. If the weir loading is
higher than 12 gpm/inch then 2-pass trays need to be examined. If the weir loading continues to be
larger than 12 gpm/inch then 4-pass trays need to be looked at. If the weir loading continues to be
larger than 12 gpm/inch, then 6-pass of multi-downcomer type trays are the obvious choice. In the
middle of all this are downcomer design features that try and reduce the weir loading. These are
swept-back weirs or ModArc type downcomers. This paper will examine 4-Pass trays exclusively
focusing on design techniques as well as rating existing 4-pass trays.

All trays enable the liquid and vapor to contact on the top of a tray panel or bubbling area. In single
pass configuration, the liquid and vapor each have a single path to follow through the tower. There is
only one tray panel on a single pass tray. For two pass trays, the liquid and the vapor each have a
choice of tray panel to flow through. For those two pass trays that have side downcomers, the liquid to
that tray from the center downcomer and the vapor to that tray from below each have to decide which
tray panel to flow through because there are two panels on each tray that comprise the bubbling area.
Generally, if the tray is designed symmetrically, the vapor and liquid will split evenly between the two
passes. Three pass trays are asymmetrical and are a whole topic for discussion by themselves and will
not be addressed here. This leads us to four pass trays. Here the liquid and vapor have several choices
to make in determining how much liquid and how much vapor must flow to each tray panel. Even with
a symmetrical design, four pass trays naturally have different weir lengths on each tray panel and
cannot have identical hydraulics on each trays panels without manipulating the design somehow.

A four pass tray really is two very different tray types in combination. One of these trays will have two
side downcomers and a center downcomer while the second tray will only have two off-center
downcomers, see Figure 1. Shown here, Tray 1 has two off-center downcomers and Tray 2 has two
side downcomers and a center downcomer. As you can see from this schematic, the liquid that pours
out the bottom of the off-center downcomer has a choice of flowing to either Panel A or B. In
addition, upwards flowing vapor also has the same choice to make of flowing either to Panel A or
Panel B.
 Tray 1

A B Tray 2

C D

L
C
Figure 1 – Schematic of a Simple 4-Pass Tray Arrangement showing Panel Designations

Typically 4-Pass trays are designed with their total downcomer area being the same on both tray types.
It is obvious that the downcomer areas of the two off-center downcomers are the same and comprise
half of the total required area. However, the tray with the side downcomers has several different
choices for each downcomer area depending on how much liquid is anticipated to flow to the side or
center downcomers. It is well understood that maintaining equal percentage liquid and vapor to each
of the tray panels (A through D) is desired(1). The common measure of efficient overall mass transfer
contacting between the liquid and vapor on multi-pass trays is the V/L ratio. The V/L ratio is
commonly defined as the percent vapor through an individual tray panel divided by the percent liquid
to same tray panel. There are other definitions in use but this is the most common. The ideal
performing tray has all of the individual tray panel V/L ratios equal to 1.0. This is not always possible.
Therefore, practical experience has shown that values that are within 5% of 1.00 are considered to be
acceptable designs. Bolles(2) defined the term "distribution ratio" as the maximum L/V ratio divided by
the minimum L/V ratio and showed that a distribution ratio less than 1.2 would provide good tray
efficiency. Common practice today is to keep the distribution ratio less than a value of 1.1. The
distribution ratio is the same regardless if the distribution ratio is between L/V ratios or V/L ratios.

The vapor generally will distribute to the various tray passes dependant upon the open area of each of
the tray passes. The liquid will generally distribute between the tray passes dependant upon the weir
length and weir height presented. Bolles used inlet weirs to control the liquid distribution on the
various tray panels. However, this is not common practice today as pointed out by Pilling(3). For the
vapor, as long as the open area is proportional to the active area of each tray panel, the vapor will have
a good foundation for distributing proportionately to each tray panel based on active area. The liquid
on the other hand has several variables that must be satisfied to allow it to match the vapor distribution
to each tray panel (and enable a V/L ratio of 1.0 on each tray panel). These variables, that are found on
each individual tray panel, are weir length, weir height, clearance area under the downcomer and
finally flow path length. Outlet weir length and weir height will have the largest influence on the
liquid distribution. Downcomer clearance area has less influence (unless the area is highly restrictive)
on the liquid distribution. Finally, the flow path length has nearly no influence at all unless there is a
significant liquid froth gradient on the tray.

Before any design techniques are established it must be stated that this paper will not address tray
capacity (such as jet flood and downcomer flood) or tray spacing determination. This paper also
assumes that an appropriate overall active area and downcomer area have been established for the
design. The techniques discussed here have to deal strictly with the proper allocation of these areas on
the cross-section of the tray.

There are several schools of thought on how 4-pass trays should be designed. One very popular
method is equal bubbling area (EBA) on each of the tray passes. Another common method is equal
flow path length (EFPL). Each of these two methods has good points and intrinsic limitations and they
will each be discussed in more detail.

Equal Bubbling Area Design Method

The Equal Bubbling Area (EBA) design method is the easiest to understand and to design but
potentially has the lowest capacity and a slightly lower tray efficiency. An EBA design has the four
different flow passes designed with exactly the same active area and utilizes the same weir length for
each pass. On any 4-Pass tray, the liquid and the vapor both have to make a decision as to how much
of each should flow to Panel A or Panel B. The vapor will decide based on the path that equalizes the
pressure drop. The liquid on the other hand is influenced by many factors. It is the author's experience
that Bolles was correct when he stated that "the liquid flow rates are largely controlled by the outlet
weirs". Therefore the major influence on the choice of flow direction of the liquid under the off-center
downcomer is the outlet weir length and outlet weir height on panels A and B. The theory is that the
liquid from the off-center downcomer should split 50% to Panel A and 50% to Panel B as designated in
Figure 1. If the outlet weir length and outlet weir height is the same on both panels A and B, then the
liquid will split evenly to each tray panel. This is true of course assuming that there is no significant
head loss under the off-center downcomer which may influence and force more liquid to one pass over
the other. As long as the head loss under the off-center downcomer is below 0.5 inches of hot liquid,
there is insufficient head loss to influence the flow direction the liquid must take. If the head loss
under the off-center downcomer is higher than 0.5 inches of hot liquid, then flow distribution of liquid
between panels A and B may be highly influenced by the head loss. For example, with an equal
bubbling area design, the liquid from the off-center downcomer is supposed to split 50% to Panel A
and 50% to Panel B. If the weir length, weir height, active area, and open area are all the same on
panels A and B, the liquid could still not split 50/50 to each panel if the downcomer head loss under the
off-center downcomer is significant. This is because the clearance length (and subsequent clearance
area) is larger on the Panel B side than the Panel A side. Since the downcomer backup in the off-center
downcomer must be the same for both underflows to Panel A and Panel B, then the liquid flow to
Panel B must be larger to Panel B than Panel A.
 C D

E F
A B

Figure 2 – Downcomer Backup in Off-Center Downcomer

DCBackF = ∆PD + HINLET B + HCLD F (Eq. 1)

DCBackE = ∆PC + HINLET A + HCLD E (Eq. 2)
where,
DCBack = Downcomer Clear Liquid Backup, inches liquid
∆P = Pressure Drop, inches liquid
HINLET = Hydrostatic Head of liquid at tray inlet, inches liquid
HCLD = Downcomer Head Loss, inches liquid

Experience has shown that the pressure drop and Inlet Head are typically very much larger than the
head loss under the downcomer. For example, typical tray pressure drops are about 3 to 4 inches of
liquid, inlet heads are typically about 1.5 to 2 inches of liquid while head losses under the off-center
downcomer are typically less than 1 inch of liquid. It takes a very slight change in liquid flow to
change the pressure drop (the larger component) and balance these two equations. Only when the head
loss is very large (> 1.5 inches of liquid) or one side of the off-center downcomer has a large difference
in clearance area than the other side, will the liquid distribution to panels A and B be highly influenced.
To ensure uniform distribution of liquid to panels A and B at all operating conditions, the clearance
under the off-center downcomer should have the same elevation on both sides and the B side should
have blanking plates added to make the clearance length the same as the A side. This is similar to the
concept proposed by Auger(5) in 1991. He proposed varying the clearance height to influence the flow
under the off-center downcomer. This will work for a single set of loads but will break down at turn-
up and turndown conditions.

To achieve the same weir loading on both Panel A and Panel B, the outlet weir from Panel B must have
the same length as Panel A. To do this one must picket the outlet weir on Panel B, which is the center
downcomer. Pickets are spaced evenly along the full length of the outlet weir with the maximum
width of the pickets being 6" and the minimum width of the opening being 2". Care should be taken to
ensure that the pickets do not extend completely to the vessel wall to allow liquid to flow over the full
flow path width. Bolles suggested adding inlet weirs to the 4-pass trays to influence the split of liquid
to panels A and B instead of outlet weir picketing. Experience has shown that picketing the outlet weir
is much more practical (and economical) than adding an inlet weir. An inlet weir will reduce the active
area of a tray, can cause hydraulic "rooster tails" on the tray and will result in an area on the tray where
foulants (if present) can collect.
The liquid, once split evenly to panels A and B, will then be split just as evenly to panels C and D. The
outlet weir length of panel C in round vessels, will always be shorter than panel D. It is highly advised
that the outlet weir length of panel D be picketed such that its length be identical to the outlet weir
length of Panel C. This will ensure that the weir loading will be identical on tray panels C and D.
With equal weir loading, outlet weir height and active area, the pressure drop across panels C and D
will be identical.

Pressure Drop Determination on EBA Trays

Vapor will always find the path of least resistance through a tray. Preferably this path is through the
tray decks on a 4-Pass tray and preferably the vapor will flow through the tray decks uniformly. For
EBA designed trays, the flow of vapor through the trays decks should be identical provided the open
area on each tray deck is the same. The overall pressure drop on 4-Pass trays however can be affected
by the ability of the vapor to communicate between the volumes above panels A and B.
Communication is obviously enabled when the off-center downcomer is truncated. Another way vapor
communication is possible is if a vapor tunnel is present or when a lattice truss passing through the
downcomer is not sealed completely. If there is vapor communication, the pressure drop on a 4-pass
tray is determined solely by the pressure drop across a single tray. However, without a way for the
vapor to communicate in the volumes above Panel A and Panel B, such as when an impervious off-
center downcomer is present, it is possible that the pressure above Panel A could be different than
above Panel B. The pressure drop can only be equalized across two trays in this instance. Therefore,
for 4-Pass trays with no vapor communication across the off-center downcomer, the pressure drop
through Panels A plus Panel C must be equal to the pressure drop through Panels B plus Panel D. For
EBA designs where the weir lengths, weir heights, and open areas are all designed for an even split of
the vapor and liquid to all tray panels, the pressure above Panel A should be equal to the pressure
above Panel B and if vapor communication is possible, there should be NO flow. Please note that the
open area on all the tray panels of an EBA design must be the same. This is sometimes difficult to do
if one is laying out a sieve or valve pattern and trying to keep the pitch (space) between the openings as
uniform as possible. Panel A and Panel C typically have more mechanical obstructions (such as a
longer support ring segment) than Panel B and Panel D.

Downcomer Design with EBA Designs

Downcomer design starts with a determination of the maximum allowable downcomer velocity. There
are many choices of equations for this, see Lockett(9), but once chosen this maximum allowable
velocity applied to the highest potential liquid load, determines the minimum downcomer area at the
top of the downcomers. The best utilization of the tower's cross-sectional area is to ensure that the
downcomer velocity in all the downcomers is the same. Since the there are only two Off-Center
downcomers and they are symmetrical, then they each must have 50% of the liquid under all loading
conditions. For Equal Bubbling area design we have already established that the liquid from the off-
center downcomer will split 50% to the side downcomer and 50% to the center downcomer. This then
means that the side downcomers will see 25% of the liquid on the tray and the center downcomer will
see 50% of the liquid on the tray. Therefore the downcomer top areas need to be allocated accordingly.
The center and off-center downcomers each must have 50% of the minimum downcomer area as
established above and each side downcomer must and area that is 25% of the minimum area
established above.

If the designer chooses to use straight downcomers that have the same area at the top as at the bottom,
the geometry of the 4-pass tray is quite simple. Straight downcomers are often chosen for grass-roots
towers that do not have large downcomer requirements (less than 10% overall downcomer area) for
their economic appeal. A 4-pass EBA tray design with straight downcomers has a geometry that is
straightforward to determine with a few iterations on a computer. The iterations are necessary to
determine the location of the centerline of the off-center downcomer. It is assumed that a tray's total
cross-sectional area and diameter has been chosen using an active area determination from a typical
capacity equation such as Glitsch Equation 13(4).

Sloped downcomers make the geometry a little more cumbersome than if the downcomers were
straight. For sloped downcomers it is common practice to make the bottom area of the downcomers a
uniform percentage of the top area. It is not uncommon for the area at the bottom of the downcomer to
be as small as 50% of the top area even though 60% is a typical choice. With sloped downcomers it is
common practice to make the centerline of the off-center downcomer the same distance from the vessel
wall at both the top and the bottom. As a result of this constraint, either the active areas will not all be
uniform in area or the downcomer top areas will not be exactly 50% for the center and off-center
downcomers or 25% for the side downcomers. Common practice with 60% (for example) sloped
downcomers in EBA designs is to make the side downcomer top area 25% of the minimum required,
the center downcomer top area 50% of the minimum required, active Panels A and B equal in area and
the two off-center downcomer bottom areas 60% of the top area (or 30% each of the minimum
downcomer top area). This then establishes the placement of the off-center downcomer centerline.
This location of the off-center downcomer centerline will remain fixed for the tray with the off-center
downcomers and the fact that we have chosen to keep the downcomer bottom area fixed at 60% of the
top area forces the active area of panel area C to be slightly larger than panel D. Some people have
designed 4-Pass trays where the centerline of the off-center downcomer is not a fixed distance from the
vessel wall from top to bottom. This design approach will result in a more perfectly balanced tray but
a more cumbersome geometric design with additional cost. Typically the movement of the off-center
downcomer centerline from top to bottom to satisfy this design criteria (with EBA designs) is less than
1 inch and it is hard to justify the additional cost for such a minor adjustment to the off-center
downcomer placement.

Equal Flow Path Length Design Method

The Equal Flow Path Length (EFPL) design method is a bit more complicated to work with and
understand than the EBA method but potentially has a higher tray efficiency and more capacity. An
EFPL design has the 4 different flow passes designed with the same flow path length. As was
presented for the EBA design method above, the major influence on the choice of flow direction of the
liquid under the off-center downcomer is the outlet weir length and outlet weir height on panels A and
B. The theory with EFPL designs is that the uniform flow path length will enable the same amount of
mass transfer (flow path enhancement) on each tray panel and the compositions in each of the
downcomers on any tray will be the same. This potentially allows the EFPL trays to have a higher tray
efficiency than EBA tray designs. In addition, because Panel A has less active area than Panel B, more
vapor and more liquid should flow to Panel B than to Panel A. This results in the center downcomer
needing less picketing than with EBA designs which lowers the weir loading and provides more
capacity with EFPL designs.

Liquid from the off-center downcomer should split to Panel A and to Panel B according to the outlet
weir lengths on each tray panel. It is good practice to use identical outlet weir heights on each tray
panel to ensure uniform loading over the full operating range. Adjusting weir heights to balance 4-Pass
trays (both EBA and EFPL) is a poor practice because you may be able to balance the 4-Pass tray at
one set of operating conditions but at turndown and turn-up the tray will not be balanced. If the outlet
weir length and outlet weir height is the same on both panels A and B, then the liquid will split
proportional to the weir length of each tray panel. This is true of course assuming that there is no
significant head loss under the off-center downcomer which may influence and force more liquid to
one pass over the other. As long as the head loss under the off-center downcomer is below 0.5 inches
of hot liquid, there is insufficient head loss to influence the flow direction the liquid must take. If the
head loss under the off-center downcomer is higher than 0.5 inches of hot liquid, then flow distribution
of liquid between panels A and B may be highly influenced by the head loss.

The complicated part about EFPL design is that the top or entrance area of any particular downcomer
should be proportional to the active area(s) feeding that downcomer. In addition, the downcomer top
area of any particular downcomer should be proportional to the total weir length serving that
downcomer and the outlet weir length needs to be proportional to the active area serving that outlet
weir. For straight downcomers with EFPL designs, the placement of the off-center downcomer
centerline is typically 27% of the vessel diameter away from the tower wall. This distance is typically
within +/- 5% of this value. The side downcomer also typically has about 21% of the total desired
downcomer area. With both of these values we have a good place to start the iterative process to
determine overall geometry of EFPL designs. The iterative process is strictly geometric.

With the areas split as determined through this iterative process for straight downcomers, the outlet
weir length of panel C divided by the area of Panel C will always be larger than the outlet weir length
of panel D divided by the area of Panel D. It is highly advised that the outlet weir length of panel C be
picketed such that its length be equal to Panel D's weir length times the area ratio of panel C over Panel
D. This will ensure that the weir loading will be identical on tray panels C and D and the pressure drop
across Panel C will equal the pressure drop across Panel D.

Pressure Drop Determination on EFPL Trays

As stated above, vapor will always find the path of least resistance through a tray. For EFPL designed
trays, the flow of vapor through the trays decks should be proportional to the active area of each tray
panel provided the open area on each tray panel is also proportional to the active area. The overall
pressure drop on 4-Pass trays however can be affected by the ability of the vapor to communicate
between the volumes above panels A and B. Communication is obviously enabled when the off-center
downcomer is truncated. Another way vapor communication is possible is if a vapor tunnel is present
or when a lattice truss passing through a downcomer is not sealed completely. If there is vapor
communication, the pressure drop on a 4-pass tray is determined solely by the pressure drop across a
single tray. However, without a way for the vapor to communicate in the volumes above Panel A and
Panel B, such as when an impervious off-center downcomer is present, it is possible that the pressure
above Panel A could be different than the pressure above Panel B. The pressure drop can only be
equalized across two trays in this instance. Therefore, for 4-Pass trays with no vapor communication
across the off-center downcomer, the pressure drop through Panel A plus Panel C must be equal to the
pressure drop through Panel B plus Panel D. For EFPL designs where the weir lengths, downcomer
areas and open areas are proportional to their respective active area, the vapor and liquid split should
also be proportional and the pressure above Panel A should be equal to the pressure above Panel B. If
vapor communication is possible in this instance, there should be NO flow between the volume above
Panel A and above Panel B. Please note again that the open area on all the tray panels of an EFPL
design must be proportional to the active area of each tray panel. This is sometimes difficult to do if
one is laying out a sieve or valve pattern and trying to keep the pitch (space) between the openings as
uniform as possible. Panel A and Panel C typically have more mechanical obstructions (such as a
longer support ring segment) than Panel B and Panel D.

Downcomer Design with EFPL Designs

Downcomer design starts with a determination of the maximum allowable downcomer velocity. It is
not part of the scope of this work to tell the user how to determine the overall maximum downcomer
velocity. It is assumed that a value has been chosen and this maximum allowable velocity has been
applied to the highest potential liquid load, determining the minimum downcomer area at the top of the
downcomers. The best utilization of the tower's cross-sectional area is to ensure that the downcomer
velocity in all the downcomers is the same. Since the there are only two Off-Center downcomers and
they are symmetrical, then they each must have 50% of the liquid under all loading conditions. For
Equal Flow Path Length (EFPL) designs we have already established that the liquid from the off-center
downcomer will split proportionately to the side downcomer and to the center downcomer according to
their weir lengths (provided the weir heights are the same and there is no significant head loss under
the downcomer). Straight downcomer design has already been established above for EFPL designs.
Sloped downcomers make the geometry a little more cumbersome than if the downcomers were
straight. For sloped downcomers it is common practice to make the bottom area of the downcomers a
uniform percentage of the top area. It is not uncommon for the area at the bottom of the downcomer to
be as small as 50% of the top area even though 60% is a typical choice. With sloped downcomers it is
common practice to make the centerline of the off-center downcomer the same distance from the vessel
wall at both the top and the bottom. As a result of this constraint, the flow path length of panel C
cannot be the same as the other three tray panels. This is because the slope of the area reduction on a
center or off center downcomer is not as large as the slope on a side downcomer. For example, an off-
center downcomer that has a bottom area that is 50% of the top area will slope inwards 1/4th (25%) the
top width on each side. The side downcomer for the same 50% downcomer bottom area will slope in
about 38%. To match the same 25% slope of the off-center downcomer the side downcomer bottom
area needs to be close to 65% of the top area. Common practice therefore with 50% (for example)
sloped downcomers in EFPL designs is to make the side downcomer bottom area 65% of the top area.

As shown above for straight downcomers, an iterative process is necessary to determine the overall
geometry of EFPL designs. The iterative process is again strictly geometric and starts by assuming that
the side downcomer has 21% of the total downcomer area.

This iterative process then establishes the placement of the off-center downcomer centerline. This
location of the off-center downcomer centerline will remain fixed from top to bottom of the
downcomer. The geometry of the 4-Pass tray with the off-center downcomers is then straightforward
to determine. Some people have designed EFPL 4-Pass trays where the centerline of the off-center
downcomer is not a fixed distance from the vessel wall from top to bottom. This practice will
eliminate the need to make the bottom area of the side downcomers larger than the other downcomers
but will add complications (and additional cost) to the design. It is recommended to widen the bottom
of the side downcomer with EFPL designs to keep the centerline vertical for the off-center
downcomers.

Summary

If the above techniques are employed for the design of a 4-Pass tray, the tray's vapor and liquid loads
cannot help but be balanced and should yield a distribution ratio of exactly 1.0. In theory this is
correct. Common practice however, usually dictates that the downcomer widths need to be rounded to
reasonable ¼ inch or ½ inch (10 to 20 mm) increment values. The off-center downcomer centerline
must also have a reasonable rounded value. In addition, valve placement may also not be perfect
resulting in open areas on the various tray panels not being exactly proportional to their corresponding
active areas. As a result this then leads to the need for tray hydraulics calculations to be able to
determine how an imperfect tray design might behave.
Rating an Actual 4-Pass Tray

There are numerous 4-Pass trays in operation today that were developed well before the above
mentioned guidelines were established that provide for a balanced tray design. It is highly desirable to
be able to rate the capacity and pressure drop of these trays as well as those that are perfectly balanced.
Sulzer Chemtech has developed computational methods to solve the complex computations necessary
to evaluate all forms of 4-Pass trays. The rules of nature that every tray abides by are:

Vapor will always follow the path of least resistance.

Overall tray pressure drop will always be a minimum.
Liquid will always seek the path with the lowest resistance.

Therefore as stated above for those cases when there is complete vapor communication on the tray, the
pressure drop on a 4-pass tray is determined solely by the pressure drop across a single tray. However,
without a way for the vapor to communicate in the volumes above Panel A and Panel B, such as when
an impervious off-center downcomer is present, it is possible that the pressure above Panel A could be
different than the pressure above Panel B. The pressure drop can only be equalized across two trays in
this instance. Therefore, for 4-Pass trays with no vapor communication across the off-center
downcomer, the pressure drop through Panel A plus Panel C must be equal to the pressure drop
through Panel B plus Panel D.

The hydrostatic head, which is a significant portion of the each tray panel's pressure drop, is basically a
function of the outlet weir height and weir loading on the tray. This is supported by both the many
variations of the Francis weir formula(7,8,9,10) as well as today's more commonly used Colwell(11)
equation. Under normal circumstances, any 4-pass tray can be modeled hydraulically by changing the
liquid and vapor split to panels A and B until a minimum pressure balance is established. This is a
tedious task but with a properly tuned convergence routine it can be done. It is especially difficult with
movable valve trays because the tray pressure drop, in the partial open region, is quite constant(12) and
can be insensitive to vapor flow variations at times. However, with the proper understanding of the
pressure drop function, an imperfectly designed 4-pass tray pressure drop can also be solved. Sulzer's
SulCol Program provides this ability to find the solution to 4-Pass tray pressure drops for less than
perfect tray designs.

Side Downcomer Enhanced Design Features

Many times even the best designed and balanced 4-Pass tray has a weir loading that is too high. Weir
loadings in excess of 12 gpm/inch should be avoided if at all possible. The very reason 4-Pass trays
are employed is to bring the weir loading to acceptable levels. However, when the weir loading
becomes too large, there are side downcomer design features that can be added to the tray to potentially
reduce the weir loading. These are such things as swept-back outlet weirs or Modified Arc (ModArc)
downcomers.

A swept-back outlet weir is where the ends of the outlet weir are "bent back" towards the center of the
tray in an attempt to extend the outlet weir length, see Figure 3. This is done at the loss of some active
area on Panel A. However, it is possible with an EFPL design to design a Swept-back weir that results
in a weir length to Panel A ratio that results in no picketing of the center downcomer. If one can
tolerate the loss of tray active area, then this would enable the maximum potential weir length of a 4-
Pass tray.
 Figure 3 – Example of a Swept-Back Outlet Weir

A better design might be to apply a modified arc or ModArc side downcomer. This downcomer
utilizes the weir length features of the Swept-back outlet weir without the loss of Active Area. The
basic concept of the ModArc downcomer is that there are three major segments to it instead of a single
chord. For most ModArc designs the three major segment lengths are equal, see Figure 4.

Figure 4 – Example of a ModArc Downcomer

Both of these weir length enhancing features can be applied to and benefit the design of both EBA and
EFPL 4-Pass trays. The downcomer and active area geometry changes need only be applied to the
iterative design procedure of each as outlined above.

Conclusions

A detailed analysis of 4-pass tray design has been presented here including EBA and EFPL design
techniques. In addition, rating techniques for existing 4-pass trays regardless of their design
philosophy are presented with guidance as how to handle hydraulics convergence issues.
Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge the experience and helpfulness of the Tray Team at Sulzer
Chemtech including Laurent Zuber, Giuseppe Mosca, Mark Pilling, Elena Tacchini, Marcus Fischer,
Lothar Spiegel, Yang Quan and Suyog Kotecha. Without their help and guidance this document would
not be possible.

References
(1) Kister, H.Z. "Distillation Operation", McGraw Hill Inc. 1990, p. 168
(2) Bolles, W.L., "Multipass Flow Distribution and Mass Transfer Efficiency for Distillation Plates",
AIChE Journal, Volume 22 (1) p. 153 (1976)
(3) Pilling, M.W., "Ensure Proper Design and Operation of Multi-Pass Trays", CEP June 2005, pp.
22-27
(4) Glitsch Inc., "Ballast Tray Design Manual" Bulletin 4900 3rd Edition (1974) p. 26
(5) Auger, R.G., US Patent 4,995,946 dated Feb. 26, 1991
(6) Summers, D.R. “Push Valve Experience on Distillation Trays”, in Distillation 2005, Topical
Conference Proceedings, AIChE 2005 Spring National Meeting, Atlanta, GA, April 12, 2005.
(7) Glitsch Inc., "Ballast Tray Design Manual" Bulletin 4900 3rd Edition (1974) Eq. 20, p. 28
(8) Nutter Engineering Co., "Float Valve Design Manual" (August 1981 Rev 1), p. 18
(9) FRI, "Fractionation Tray Design" Volume 2, Sieve Tray Section 5.2 page 29 Revised 15 April
1998 Equation 5.3.1
(10) Lockett, M.J., Distillation Tray Fundamentals, Cambridge University Press (1986), p. 58
(11) C. J. Colwell, “Clear Liquid Height and Froth Density on Sieve Trays”, Ind. Eng. Process Design
and Development, 1981, Volume 20, pp 298-307
(12) Summers, D.R. and van Sinderen, A., “Dry Tray Pressure Drop of Rectangular Float Valve and V-
Grid Trays”, in Distillation 2001, Topical Conference Proceedings, AIChE 2001 Spring National
Meeting, Houston, TX, April 25, 2001.