How Trays Work: Flooding

3. How Trays Work: Flooding

3.1. History of Distillation
The ancient Egyptians produced beer from barley that had a few percent of
alcohol. Next, wine was produced by fermenting grape juice, which had a
greater sugar content than barley. This brought the content of alcohol up to
about 14 percent. Next, fortied wines (like sherry or port) were made by
adding extra sugar and yeast to the fermenting grape juice. This increased
the alcohol up to about 17 percent. Much above this point, alcohol kills o the
yeast.
Next, distillation was used. I visited a primitive distillation plant in Peru. It
was a single-stage evaporation process. The fermented grape juice is
partially vaporized and the alcoholwater vapors are totally condensed. The
resulting condensate is 40 to 44 percent alcohol. The higher alcohol content
is obtained by vaporizing less of the still's content.
To go much beyond the 44 percent alcohol, one needs to introduce modern
process engineering technology:
Partial condensation
Reux
Reboiler
I've shown a sketch of such a facility in Fig. 1.3. The idea is to generate reux
to improve the separation between water and ethanol. To generate reux, a
partial (rather than a total) condenser is required. Also, a way of adding

more heat to the still, to match up with the capacity of the partial condenser,
is needed. I've now introduced a complex control loop into my plant. Alcohol
levels of 60-plus percent can be obtained with this two-stage evaporator.
Finally, we have the Patent Still, introduced by the Scots in the 1830s. Now,
distillation trays equipped with bubble caps and feed preheat are used. I
visited an apple orchard in England, which used the original design of the
Patent Still to produce apple brandy. A sketch of this apparatus, whose
design has not been altered in 180 years, is shown in Fig. 3.1. The sketch has
been copied from the original patent application led in London in the 1830s.

Figure 3.1. The very rst distillation tower was the Patent Still. This
drawing was led with the original patent application submitted in
1835. Column on the right is a bubble-cap trayed tower. Column on
the left is a feed preheater vs. an overhead vapor condenser.
With the multitrayed distillation column, ethanol concentrations (as limited
by the alcoholwater azeotrope) of 90-plus percent can be obtained, if
enough reux and enough trays are used.

3.2. Tray Types

Distillation towers are the heart of a process plant, and the working
component of a distillation column is the tray. A tray consists of the following
components, as shown in Fig. 3.2:
Overow, or outlet weir
Downcomer

Tray deck

Figure 3.2. Perforated trays.

There are two types of tray decks: perforated trays and bubble-cap trays. In
this chapter, we describe only perforated trays, examples of which are
Valves or utter caps
V grid, or extruded-valve caps
Sieve decks
Jet trays
Possibly 90 percent of the trays seen in the plant are of these types.
Perforated tray decks all have one feature in common; they depend on the
ow of vapor through the tray deck perforations, to prevent liquid from
leaking through the tray deck. As we will see later, if liquid bypasses the
outlet weir and leaks through the tray deck onto the tray below, tray
separation eciency will suer.

3.3. Tray Eciency

Distillation trays in a fractionator operate between 10 and 90 percent
eciency. It is the process person's job to make trays operate as close to 90-

percent eciency as possible. Calculating tray eciency is sometimes

simple. Compare the vapor temperature leaving a tray to the liquid
temperature leaving the trays. For example, the eciency of the tray shown
in Fig. 3.3 is 100 percent. The eciency of the tray in Fig. 3.4 is 0 percent.

Figure 3.3. Hundred-percent tray eciency.

Figure 3.4. Zero-percent tray eciency.

How about the 10 trays shown in Fig. 3.5? Calculate their average eciency
(the answer is 10 percent). As the vapor temperature rising from the top tray
equals the liquid temperature draining from the bottom tray, the 10 trays are
behaving as a single perfect tray with 100-percent eciency. But as there are

behaving as a single perfect tray with 100-percent eciency. But as there are
10 trays, each tray, on average, acts like one-tenth of a perfect tray.

Figure 3.5. Average tray eciency = 10 percent.

Poor tray eciency is caused by one of two factors:
Flooding
Dumping
In this chapter, we discuss problems that contribute to tray deck ooding.

3.4. Downcomer Backup

Liquid ows across a tray deck toward the outlet weir. The liquid over-ows
the weir, and drains through the downcomer to the tray below.
Vapor bubbles up through the sieve holes, or valve caps, on the tray deck,
where the vapor comes into intimate contact with the liquid. More precisely,
the uid on the tray is a froth or foamthat is, a mixture of vapor and liquid.
In this sense, the function of a tray is to mix the vapor and liquid together to
form a foam. This foam should separate back into a vapor and a liquid in the
downcomer. If the foam cannot drain quickly from a downcomer onto the tray
below, then the foamy liquid or froth will back up onto the tray above. This is
called ooding.

3.5. Downcomer Clearance

Referring to Fig. 3.6, note that the downcomer B is ooding. The cause is loss
of the downcomer seal. The height of the outlet weir is below the bottom
edge of the downcomer from the tray above. This permits vapor to ow up
downcomer B. The up-owing vapor displaces the downowing liquid. That
is, the vapor pushes the liquid up onto the tray abovewhich is a cause of
ooding. On the other hand, Fig. 3.7 shows what happens if the bottom edge
of the downcomer is too close to the tray below. The high pressure drop
needed for the liquid to escape from downcomer B onto tray deck 1 causes
the liquid level in downcomer B to back up onto tray deck 2. Tray 2 then
oods. Once tray 2 oods, downcomer C (shown in Fig. 3.7) will also back up
and ood. This process will continue until all the tray decks and downcomers
above downcomer B are ooded.

Figure 3.6. Flooding due to lack of a downcomer seal.

Figure 3.7. Flooding caused by inadequate downcomer clearance.

On the other hand, all trays in a tower below downcomer B will lose liquid
levels and dry out when ooding starts in downcomer B. Thus, the following

rules apply:
When ooding starts on a tray, all the trays above that point will also ood,
but trays below that point will go dry.
An early indication of ooding in a distillation column is loss of liquid level
in the bottom of the column.
If the downcomer clearancewhich means the distance between the
bottom edge of the downcomer and the tray belowis too great, the
downcomer becomes unsealed. Vapor ows up the downcomer, and the
trays above ood.
If the downcomer clearance is too small, then liquid backs up in the
downcomer, and the trays above ood. To calculate the height of liquid in
the downcomer, due to liquid owing through the downcomer clearance:

where H = inches of clear liquid backup in the downcomer, due to head

loss under the downcomer
V = horizontal component of liquid velocity, in ft/s, as the liquid escapes
from the downcomer
To guarantee a proper downcomer seal, the bottom edge of a downcomer
should be about 0.5 inch below the top edge of the outlet weir. This
dimension should be carefully checked by process personnel when a tower is
opened for inspection. It is quite easy for sloppy tray installation to distort
this critical factor.
3.5.1. Height of Liquid on Tray Deck
As the liquid level on a tray increases, the height of liquid in the downcomer
feeding this tray will increase by the same amount. Again, excessive
downcomer liquid or froth levels result in ooding and loss of tray eciency.
The liquid level on a tray is a function of two factors:
Weir height
Crest height

The weir height on many trays is adjustable. We usually adjust the weir
height to between 2 and 3 inches. This produces a reasonable depth of liquid
on the tray to promote good vapor-liquid contact.
The crest height is similar to the height of water overowing a dam. It is
calculated from

where crest height = inches of clear liquid overowing the weir

GPM = gallons (U.S.) per minute of liquid leaving the tray
The sum of the crest height plus the weir height equals the depth of liquid
on the tray deck. One might now ask, "Is not the liquid level on the inlet side
of the tray higher than the liquid level near the outlet weir?" While the
answer is "Yes, water does ow downhill," we design the tray to make this
factor small enough to neglect.

3.6. Vapor-Flow Pressure Drop

We have yet to discuss the most important factor in determining the height of
liquid in the downcomer. This is the pressure drop of the vapor owing
through the tray deck. Typically, 50 percent of the level in the downcomer is
due to the ow of vapor through the trays.
When vapor ows through a tray deck, the vapor velocity increases as the
vapor ows through the small openings provided by the valve caps, or sieve
holes. The energy to increase the vapor velocity comes from the pressure of
the owing vapor. A common example of this is the pressure drop we
measure across an orice plate. If we have a pipeline velocity of 2 ft/s and an
orice plate hole velocity of 40 ft/s, then the energy needed to accelerate the
vapor as it ows through the orice plate comes from the pressure drop of
the vapor itself.
Let us assume that vapor owing through a tray deck undergoes a pressure
drop of 1 psi (lb/in 2). Figure 3.8 shows that the pressure below tray deck 2 is
10 psig and the pressure above tray deck 2 is 9 psig. How can the liquid in
downcomer B ow from an area of low pressure (9 psig) to an area of high
pressure (10 psig)? The answer is gravity, or liquid head pressure.

Figure 3.8. Vapor P causes downcomer backup.

The height of water needed to exert a liquid head pressure of 1 psi is equal
to 28 inches. of water. If we were working with gasoline, which has a specic
gravity of 0.70, then the height of gasoline needed to exert a liquid head
pressure of 1 psi would be 28 inches/0.70 = 40 inches of clear liquid.
3.6.1. Total Height of Liquid in the Downcomer
To summarize, the total height of clear liquid in the downcomer is the sum of
four factors:
Liquid escape velocity from the downcomer onto the tray below.
Weir height.
Crest height of liquid overowing the outlet weir.
The pressure drop of the vapor owing through the tray above the
downcomer. (Calculating this pressure drop is discussed in Chap. 4.)
Unfortunately, we do not have clear liquid, either in the downcomer, on the
tray itself, or overowing the weir. We actually have a froth or foam called
aerated liquid. While the eect of this aeration on the specic gravity of the
liquid is largely unknown and is a function of many complex factors (surface
tension, dirt, tray design, etc.), an aeration factor of 50 percent is often used
for many hydrocarbon services.

This means that if we calculated a clear liquid level of 12 inches in our

downcomer, then we would actually have a foam level in the downcomer of 12
inches/0.50 = 24 inches of foam.
If the height of the downcomer plus the height of the weir were 24 inches,
then a downcomer foam height of 24 inches would correspond to downcomer
ooding. This is sometimes called liquid ood.
This discussion assumes that the cross-sectional area of the downcomer is
adequate for reasonable vapor-liquid separation. If the downcomer loading
(GPM/ft 2 of downcomer top area) is less than 150, this assumption is okay, at
least for most clean services. For dirty, foamy services a downcomer loading
of 100 GPM/ft 2 would be safer.

3.7. Jet Flood

Figure 3.9 is a realistic picture of what we would see if our towers were made
of glass. In addition to the downcomers and tray decks containing froth or
foam, there is a quantity of spray, or entrained liquid, lifted above the froth
level on the tray deck. The force that generates this entrainment is the ow
of vapor through the tower. The spray height of this entrained liquid is a
function of two factors:
The foam height on the tray
The vapor velocity through the tray

Figure 3.9. Entrainment causes a jet ood.

High vapor velocities, combined with high foam levels, will cause the spray
height to hit the underside of the tray above. This causes mixing of the liquid
from a lower tray with the liquid on the upper tray. This backmixing of liquid
reduces the separation, or tray eciency, of a distillation tower.
When the vapor ow through a tray increases, the height of froth in the
downcomer draining the tray will also increase. This does not aect the foam
height on the tray deck until the downcomer lls with foam. Then a further
increase in vapor ow causes a noticeable increase in the foam height of the
tray deck, which then increases the spray height.
When the spray height from the tray below hits the tray above, this is called
the incipient ood point, or the initiation of jet ooding. Note, though, that jet
ood may be caused by excessive downcomer backup. It is simple to see in a
glass column separating colored water from clear methanol how tray
separation eciency is reduced as soon as the spray height equals the tray
spacing. And while this observation of the onset of incipient ood is
straightforward in a transparent tower, how do we observe the incipient
ooding point in a commercial distillation tower?
The reason I can write with condence on this subject is that I worked with a
4-inch demonstration transparent column at the Chevron Renery in Port
Arthur, Texas, in 1989. I used the little distillation tower to explain to plant

technicians how distillation towers worked. The tower's feed was windshield
wiper uid with blue dye. The alcohol went overhead and the blue water was
the bottoms product.

3.8. Incipient Flood

3.8.1. A Fundamental Concept
Figure 3.10 illustrates the operation of a simple propane-butane splitter. The
tower controls are such that both the pressure and bottoms temperature are
held constant. This means that the percent of propane in the butane bottoms
product is held constant. If the operator increases the top reux ow, here is
what will happen:
1. The tower-top temperature drops.
2. The amount of butane in the overhead propane product drops.
3. The tower-bottom temperature starts to fall.
4. The reboiler duty increases, to restore the tower-bottom temperature to its
set point.
5. The weight ow of vapor and the vapor velocity through the tray increase.
6. The spray height, or entrainment, between the trays increases.
7. When the spray height from the lower trays impacts the upper trays, the
heavier, butane-rich liquid contaminates the lighter liquid on the upper
trays with heavier butane.
8. Further increases in the reux rate then act to increase, rather than
decrease, the butane content of the overhead propane product.

Figure 3.10. A simple depropanizer.

Figure 3.11 illustrates this point. Point A is called the incipient ood point,
that point in the tower's operation at which either an increase or a decrease
in the reux rate results in a loss of separation eciency. You might call this
the optimum reux rate; that would be an alternate description of the
incipient ood point.

Figure 3.11. Denition of the incipient ood concept.

3.8.2. Bypassing Steam Trap Stops Flooding

I wake up early to answer email questions before breakfast. Here's today's
question from South Africa:
Hi Norman. We have a distillation tower that oods. Delta P on trays below
feed point is stable; delta P above feed (trays 1622), increase from 9 to 19
KPA. Condenser and reux drum is internal in tower, and we cannot
measure the reux rate. Yesterday, bypassed steam trap on reboiler outlet,
and ooding stopped. Conclude that ooding tower due to defective steam
trap. What's your opinion? Note tower fractionation also improved after
trap bypassed.
Regards,
Jon Sacha
Dear Jon: You're quite wrong. When you bypassed the steam trap, you blew
the condensate seal on the reboiler outlet. This permitted uncondensed
steam to blow through the reboiler, thus reducing the reboiler duty. The
reduction in the reboiler duty reduced the vapor ow up the tower and
hence the internal reux rate. This unloaded the trays and stopped the
ooding. Your observation that the tower fractionation improved as a
consequence of bypassing the steam trap was a positive indication that
you had degraded tray eciency due to entrainment. That is, you were
operating above the tower's incipient ood point. Certainly, there is
nothing amiss with your reboiler steam trap. You should try to water wash
the trays above the feed point onstream, as the trays in this service are
typically subject to NH4Cl salt sublimation. Hope this helps.

Best Regards,
Norman P. Lieberman

3.9. Tower Pressure Drop and Flooding

It is a characteristic of process equipment that the best operation is reached
at neither a very high nor a very low loading. The intermediate equipment
load that results in the most ecient operation is called the best eciency
point. For distillation trays, the incipient ood point corresponds to the best
eciency point. We have correlated this best eciency point for valve and
sieve trays as compared to the measured pressure drops in many distillation
towers. We have derived the following formula:

where P = pressure drop across a tray section, psi

NT = the number of trays
TS = tray spacing, inches
s.g. = specic gravity of clear liquid, at owing temperatures
On the basis of hundreds of eld measurements, we have observed
K = 0.18 to 0.25: Tray operation is close to its best eciency point.
K = 0.35 to 0.40: Tray is suering from entrainmentincrease in reux rate
noticeably reduces tray eciency.
K = 0.5: Tray is in fully developed oodopening a vent on the overhead
vapor line will blow out liquid with the vapor.
K = 0.10 to 0.12: Tray deck is suering from low tray eciency, due to tray
deck leaking.
K = 0.00: The liquid level on the tray is zero, and quite likely the trays are
lying on the bottom of the column.
K = 1.00: Tower is completely full of liquid.
3.9.1. Carbon Steel Trays

One of the most frequent causes of ooding is the use of carbon steel trays.
Especially when the valve caps are also carbon steel, the valves have a
tendency to stick in a partially closed position. This raises the pressure drop
of the vapor owing through the valves, which, in turn, pushes up the liquid
level in the downcomer draining the tray. The liquid can then back up onto
the tray deck and promote jet ood due to entrainment.
Of course, any factor (dirt, polymers, gums, salts) that causes a reduction in
the open area of the tray deck will also promote jet ooding. Indeed, most
trays ood below their calculated ood point, because of these sorts of
problems. Trays, like people, rarely perform quite up to expectations.
The use of movable valve caps in any service where deposits can accumulate
on the tray decks will cause the caps to stick to the tray deck. It's best to
avoid this potential problem. Use of grid trays with xed cap assemblies is
preferred for most services.

3.10. Optimizing Feed Tray Location

From the design perspective, the optimum feed tray, for a feed with only two
components, is that tray where the ratio of the two components matches the
ratio in the feed. If the feed is at its bubble point temperature, then the feed
temperature and the tray temperature will be the same, at the same
pressure.
But that's only for a binary feed composition. In multicomponent distillation,
the ratio of the key components in the feed will typically not coincide with the
ratio of the key components in the liquid on the tray, even though the tray
temperature is the same as the feed at its bubble point temperature.
So the question is, which of the following two criteria should be used to
determine the feed tray location:
Where the ratio of the key components in the liquid on a tray matches the
ratio of the key components in the feed?
Or where the feed temperature matches the temperature of the tray?
My practice is to identify both possible locations and then locate the feed
nozzle halfway between the two options. I would provide two alternate feed

nozzles at each of the other above locations, except the operators would
likely never use them.
Incidentally, when I refer to "Key Components," I mean, for example:
DebutanizerNormal Butane and iso-Pentane
DepropanizerPropane and iso-Butane
De-EthanizerEthane and Propylene
Gasoline Splitteriso-Hexane and cyclo-Hexane
All of the above services have feeds with dozens of other non-key
components.

3.11. Catacarb CO2 Absorber Flooding

I've never told this story to anyone. Not even to Liz or my mom. It occurred in
Lithuania in 2006. I had been hired to expand the capacity of the hydrogen
plant that was limiting renery capacity. The bottleneck was the absorber
that removed CO2 with catacarb solution from the hydrogen product. This
absorber was subject to ooding as the catacarb circulation rate increased in
proportion to H2 production. That is, the solution was carried overhead with
the hydrogen product.
I studied the design of the tower, but could not see an explanation for the
ooding. Nevertheless, I decided to modify all the 40 trays in the absorber.
The materials were ordered, and the labor force organized. However, the
morning the absorber was opened, I received a call from my assistant, Joe.
"Hey, Norm, there's kind of a plate in front of the solution inlet nozzle (see
Fig. 3.12). It don't show on the drawings. What you want to do with that
plate?"

Figure 3.12. Restriction of the inlet distributor causes entrainment

of the catacarb solution.
"Joe," I answered, "I'll be there in 10 minutes."
I looked at the plate. Dimension "x" was only about inch. Evidently, the
plate was intended as an inlet solution distributor. I calculated that the delta
P, as the solution owed underneath the plate, was about 15 inches:
Delta H (inches) = 0.6 (V)2
Where V was the solution velocity through the -inch gap in feet per
second.
The plate was 12 inches high. As the solution rate increased, the liquid
would back up over the top edge of the plate and be blown out of the top
of the absorber. So, I told Joe to have the bottom 2 inches of the plate cut
o to increase "x" to 2 inches.
"And, Joe," I continued, "Also, close up the tower afterward."

"Norm, but what about all the tower tray changes?" Joe protested.
"Don't argue. I know what I'm doing."
When the tower started up a week later, the Hydrogen Plant bottleneck was
gone. The plant manager never found out what I did, or that I had wasted
$20,000 for unused tray materials. Perhaps, since I had achieved the
objective, he wouldn't have cared. Anyway, the alternate proposal to expand
H2 plant capacity, submitted by a major engineering contractor, would have
cost $3,000,000.
"All's well that ends well."
Citation
EXPORT

Norman P. Lieberman; Elizabeth T. Lieberman: Working Guide to Process Equipment,

Fourth Edition. How Trays Work: Flooding, Chapter (McGraw-Hill Professional, 2014),
AccessEngineering

Copyright McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC. All rights reserved.

Any use is subject to the Terms of Use. Privacy Notice and copyright information.
For further information about this site, contact us.
Designed and built using Scolaris by Semantico.
This product incorporates part of the open source Protg system. Protg is
available at http://protege.stanford.edu//