Fractionation Research, Inc.

RESEARCH KEY TO BETTER DESIGN

Effect of Tray
y Spacing
p g on Tray
y
Performance
Simon Chambers
T. J. Cai
A. N. Vennavelli
A. Y. Ogundeji
M. R. Resetarits
J C.
J. C Redden
R dd
AIChE Spring Meeting
Houston, TX

Paper 94c
03 April 2012
 History of Tray Spacings 2

mm inches
Oldershaw columns 76.2 3
Air separation columns 152 - 457 6 - 18
Counterflow trays 254 - 610 10 - 24
THE STANDARD 610 24
Others 914 & 1219 36 & 48

AIChE Meeting/Houston/April/2012 Effect of Tray Spacing on Tray

Performance
 Recent TS Trends 3

Spacings getting smaller

To reduce tower height
g
To eliminate second tower
To increase feed rate
o Counterintuitive
o Complex
C l revamps
3-for-2
2-for-1
2f 1
Industry getting more comfortable at close
spacings
i
AIChE Meeting/Houston/April/2012 Effect of Tray Spacing on Tray
Performance
 4

Complex Revamp

Before
Revamp

Equilibrium
Stages Simple
Revamp

Feed Rate

Reflux Ratio

AIChE Meeting/Houston/April/2012 Effect of Tray Spacing on Tray

Performance
Simple Versus Complex Revamps 5

TS NAT NTT R/D F

Before Simple Complex

Actual Trays 100 100 150
Tray Spacing, in 24 24 16
Efficiencyy 80% 80% 80%
Equilibrium
80 80 120
Stages
Reflux Ratio 5 5 3
Feed Rate 100 110 120
TS (mm) = inch x 25.4

AIChE Meeting/Houston/April/2012 Effect of Tray Spacing on Tray

Performance
 Rangeability 6

#1 TS range

#2 Deck type
At TS = 24 inches (610 mm) Versus design point
Sieve deck range 110% to 50%
Fixed valve deck range 110% to 40%
M i valve
Moving l deck
d k range 110% to 30%

AIChE Meeting/Houston/April/2012 Effect of Tray Spacing on Tray

Performance
Rangeability by DRP Computer Program 7

100
Cyclohexane/n-heptane 24 psia (1.65 bara)

2540mm TS, 3.5% OA

90
ciency, %

80
verall Effic

70

610mm TS, 10% OA

60
Ov

50 305mm TS, 15% OA

1219mm TS, 7.5% OA

40
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Capacity Factor, Cb, ft/s
24" TS, 10% OA 12" TS, 15% OA 48" TS, 7.5% OA 100" TS, 3.5% OA

AIChE Meeting/Houston/April/2012 Effect of Tray Spacing on Tray

Performance
 8

AIChE Meeting/Houston/April/2012 Effect of Tray Spacing on Tray

Performance
Tray Efficiency: Moving Valve vs. Sieve 9
Nominal 13% Open Areas; 457 mm Column, TS = 457mm (Anderson et.al. 1976)

Fs-Factor, ft/s(lb/ft3)0.5
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.3 0.33 0.36 0.39
100
Benzene-n-Propanol
p
90 Binary 1.01 bara
Nutter Moving Valve, Type B
Efficiency EOC, %

80
6.35 mm Hole Sieve
17%
70

60

50
erall Tray E

40

30

20
Ove

13%

10

0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00

Fs-Factor, Pa0.5

AIChE Meeting/Houston/April/2012 Effect of Tray Spacing on Tray

Performance
 Tray Efficiency: Fixed Valve vs. Sieve 10
14% Open Areas; 500 mm MES Column, TS = 610mm (Nutter & Perry AIChE 1995)

Capacity Factor, Cs , ft/s

0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.3 0.33 0.36 0.39
100
Cyclohexane/n-Heptane
y p
1.01 bara
90
MVG Fixed Valve
Efficiency EOC, %

12 mm Hole Sieve
80

70

60
erall Tray E

22%

50

30%
Ove

40

30
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
Capacity Factor, Cs , m/s

AIChE Meeting/Houston/April/2012 Effect of Tray Spacing on Tray

Performance
 11

AIChE Meeting/Houston/April/2012 Effect of Tray Spacing on Tray

Performance
 12

Glitsch Fig. 5b
0.7
oad, ft/s

0.6
48" TS
zero liquid lo

36" TS
0.5
24" TS

18" TS
0.4
AF0, Capacitty factor at z

12" TS
0.3

0.2

0.1
CA

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Dv, Vapor Density, lb/ft3
TS (mm) = inch x 25.4

AIChE Meeting/Houston/April/2012 Effect of Tray Spacing on Tray

Performance
 TS Impacts Capacity 13

Glitsch Manual
CAF0 = a TSX

Vapor Density X
0.001 0.64
0.005 0.63
0.010 0.64
0 050
0.050 0 57
0.57
0.10 0.47
1.00 0.36
4.00 0.32

0 52 = average
0.52

AIChE Meeting/Houston/April/2012 Effect of Tray Spacing on Tray

Performance
 TS Impacts Capacity 14

Glitsch Manual

CAF0 = a TSX

vapor density X

CAF0 = a TS0.5 on average

AIChE Meeting/Houston/April/2012 Effect of Tray Spacing on Tray

Performance
 Capacity Data 15
FRI 1.22 m Distillation Unit 1950s

AIChE Meeting/Houston/April/2012 Effect of Tray Spacing on Tray

Performance
 Capacity Data 16
Studies in FRI 1.22 m Column

8% HA 12.7 mm
Sieve Trays

14% HA 12.7 mm
Sieve Trays

AIChE Meeting/Houston/April/2012 Effect of Tray Spacing on Tray

Performance
 Capacity 17
Studies in FRI 1.22 m Column
Cyclohexane/n-Heptane
0.276 bar Pressure Weir Liquid Load, gpm/inch
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
0.18 0.7
14%
8% HA
HA12.7mm
12.7mm
0.16 Hole Sieve Tray 0.6
Capacitty Factor, Cs, m/s

0.14

city Factor, Cs, ft/s

0.5
0.12

0.10 0.4

0.08 0.3

Capac
0.06
0.2
0.04
0.1
0 02
0.02

0.00 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Weir Liquid Load, m3/h/m
914 mm (36 inch) T.S. 610 mm (24 inch ) T.S. 305 mm (12 inch) T.S.

AIChE Meeting/Houston/April/2012 Effect of Tray Spacing on Tray

Performance
 Capacity 18
Studies in FRI 1.22 m Column
Cyclohexane/n-Heptane
0.276 bar Pressure Weir Liquid Load, gpm/inch
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
0.18 0.7
14% HA 12.7mm
0.16 Hole Sieve Tray
0.6
Capacitty Factor, Cs, m/s

0.14

city Factor, Cs, ft/s

0.5
0.12

0.10 0.4

0.08 0.3

Capac
0.06
0.2
0.04
0.1
0.02

0.00 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Weir Liquid Load, m3/h/m
914 mm (36 inch) T.S. 610 mm (24 inch ) T.S. 305 mm (12 inch) T.S.

AIChE Meeting/Houston/April/2012 Effect of Tray Spacing on Tray

Performance
 Capacity 19
Studies in FRI 1.22 m Column
Cyclohexane/n-Heptane
1.62 bar Pressure Weir Liquid Load, gpm/inch
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
0.18 0.7
8%
14%HAHA12.7mm
12.7mm
0 16
0.16 Hole
Hole Sieve
Sieve Tray
Tray 0.6
Capacitty Factor, Cs, m/s

0.14

city Factor, Cs, ft/s

0.5
0.12

0.10 0.4

0.08 0.3

Capac
0.06
0.2
0.04
0.1
0.02

0.00 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Weir Liquid Load, m3/h/m
914 mm (36 inch) T.S. 610 mm (24 inch ) T.S. 305 mm (12 inch) T.S.

AIChE Meeting/Houston/April/2012 Effect of Tray Spacing on Tray

Performance
 Capacity 20
Studies in FRI 1.22 m Column
Cyclohexane/n-Heptane
1.62 bar Pressure Weir Liquid Load, gpm/inch
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
0.18 0.7
14%
14%HAHA 12.7mm
12.7mm
0 16
0.16 Hole
Hole Sieve
Sieve Tray
Tray 0.6
Capacitty Factor, Cs, m/s

0.14

city Factor, Cs, ft/s

0.5
0.12

0.10 0.4

0.08 0.3

Capac
0.06
0.2
0.04
0.1
0.02

0.00 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Weir Liquid Load, m3/h/m
914 mm (36 inch) T
T.S.
S 610 mm (24 inch ) T
T.S.
S 305 mm (12 inch) T
T.S.
S
914 mm TS DRP Calc 610 mm TS DRP Calc 305 mm TS DRP Calc

AIChE Meeting/Houston/April/2012 Effect of Tray Spacing on Tray

Performance
 Capacity 21
Studies in FRI 1.22 m Column
Iso/N-Butane
11.4 bar Pressure Weir Liquid Load, gpm/inch
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
0.18 0.7
14%
8% HA 12.7mm
0 16
0.16 Hole
HoleSieve
SieveTray
Tray 0.6
Capacitty Factor, Cs, m/s

0.14

city Factor, Cs, ft/s

0.5
0.12

0.10 0.4

0.08 0.3

Capac
0.06
0.2
0.04
0.1
0.02

0.00 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Weir Liquid Load, m3/h/m
914 mm (36 inch) T.S. 610 mm (24 inch ) T.S. 305 mm (12 inch) T.S.
914 TS DRP 610 TS DRP 305 TS DRP

AIChE Meeting/Houston/April/2012 Effect of Tray Spacing on Tray

Performance
 Capacity 22
Studies in FRI 1.22 m Column
Iso/N-Butane
11.4 bar Pressure Weir Liquid Load, gpm/inch
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
0.18 0.7
14%
14% HA
HA 12.7mm
12.7mm
0 16
0.16 Hole
HoleSieve
SieveTray
Tray 0.6
Capacitty Factor, Cs, m/s

0.14

city Factor, Cs, ft/s

0.5
0.12

0.10 0.4

0.08 0.3

Capac
0.06
0.2
0.04
0.1
0.02

0.00 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Weir Liquid Load, m3/h/m
914 mm (36 inch)
i h) T.S.
TS 610 mm (24 iinch
h)T
T.S.
S 305 mm (12 inch)
i h) T.S.
TS
914 mm TS DRP Calc 610 mm TS DRP Calc 305 mm TS DRP Calc

AIChE Meeting/Houston/April/2012 Effect of Tray Spacing on Tray

Performance
 23

AIChE Meeting/Houston/April/2012 Effect of Tray Spacing on Tray

Performance
 Effects of TS on Tray Efficiency 24
8% HA 12.7 mm Hole Sieve Tray 1.22 m FRI Column (Kister, CEP 2008)

Tray Spacing, inch

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36

120
ciency, %

100
olumn Effic

80

60
Overall Co

40 Isobutane-n-Butane, 11.4 bar

Cyclohexane-n-Heptane, 1.65 bar
Eoc, O

20 Cyclohexane-n-Heptane, 0.3 bar

0
0 305 610 915
Tray Spacing, mm

AIChE Meeting/Houston/April/2012 Effect of Tray Spacing on Tray

Performance
 Effects of TS on Tray Efficiency 25
14% HA 12.7 mm Hole Sieve Tray (1.22 m FRI Column)
120

100
Overrall Column Efficiency, %

80

60

40 FRI Hydrocarbon data, Column diameter 1.2m, Hole area 14 %,

Weir height 50.8 mm, Hole size 12.7 mm, Flow path length 760 mm

20

0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000
Tray Spacing, mm

C6/C7, 0.3 bar C6/C7, 1.65 bar iC4/nC4, 11.4 bar

AIChE Meeting/Houston/April/2012 Effect of Tray Spacing on Tray

Performance
 Effects of TS 26

TS range
TS capacity
p y
More entrainment
Less disengagement space
Less room for downcomer back-up
TS efficiency ??
More entrainment
Shorter outlet weirs
Lesser froth heights
g

AIChE Meeting/Houston/April/2012 Effect of Tray Spacing on Tray

Performance
 Recent FRI Tests 27

TS = 12 inches (305 mm)

o Sieve decks
o Fixed valve decks
p
o Impacts of support
pp beams
o Impacts of de-entrainment devices

AIChE Meeting/Houston/April/2012 Effect of Tray Spacing on Tray

Performance
 Fractionation Research, Inc.
RESEARCH KEY TO BETTER DESIGN

Effect of Tray
y Spacing
p g on Tray
y
Performance

Thank you for Your Attention

AIChE Spring Meeting

Houston, TX

Paper 94c
03 April 2012