See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305280465

Design of Distillation Column for Separating a Mixture of Benzene and

Toluene

Technical Report · December 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1286.0406

CITATIONS READS

0 5,319

3 authors, including:

Maneet Goyal
Georgia Institute of Technology
7 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Maneet Goyal on 13 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Design of Distillation Column for
Separating a Mixture of
Benzene and Toluene

Sub-Title Workers

Phase I: Vapour Liquid Equilibrium Studies Maneet Goyal, Pratik Kadam,

and Stage Calculations Anand Pandya

Phase II: Hydraulic Tray Design Maneet Goyal

Submitted to:
Department of Petrochemical Engineering,
Maharashtra Institute of Technology, Pune

1|Page
Table of Contents

Industrial Insight ............................................................................................................................................. 3

Vapor Liquid Equilibrium Studies and Stage Calculations ........................................................................ 4

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 4
General Procedure .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Assumptions Made ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Methods Used ................................................................................................................................................. 5
Phase I Procedure and Results ....................................................................................................................... 7
Appendix A .................................................................................................................................................. 14

Plate Hydraulic Design .................................................................................................................................. 15

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 15
Graphical Depiction of the Geometric Parameters of Tray.......................................................................... 16
Phase II Procedure ........................................................................................................................................ 19
Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 21
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................................ XX

References ....................................................................................................................................................... 23

2|Page
 Industrial Insight

In this work, we have designed a distillation column to separate an equimolar mixture of benzene and toluene.
Benzene is a natural component of crude oil and finds its application primarily in the manufacturing of styrene,
cumene, cyclohexane, etc. These products are further processed into polymers such as polystyrene, resins,
nylons, etc. Historically, during the 19th century, benzene had a limited use and was primarily utilized as a
solvent. However, in the 20th century, gasoline blenders discovered that benzene has good gasoline octane
characteristics and consequently, attempts were made to recover all the by-product benzene from coke oven
in steel furnaces. Later, during WWII, benzene catered to the production of explosives and close to the mid-
century, the petrochemical industry started evolving as a major consumer of benzene where it was used to
produce nylon, styrene, etc. [1].
Due to its high demand, many technological improvements took place in its manufacturing process. Processes
like catalytic reforming, toluene hydrodealkylation, and toluene disproportionation soon came into vogue and
later in the 1970s, even olefin plants became a promising source of benzene where it was produced as a by-
product of naphtha and gas-oil cracking. Surprisingly, catalytic reforming was originally developed to produce
high quality gasoline blending component (rich in aromatics) but it is now also used to derive pure aromatics
by incorporating additional separation units.
One such unit is the benzene extraction unit where the reformate produced from the low octane naphtha stream
is first concentrated (by heating) to remove components which boil at slightly lower and higher temperatures
than the bubble point of benzene and the benzene ‘heart cut’ so obtained is then fed to the solvent extraction
unit where solvents like ‘sulfolane, diethylene glycol, or NMP (n-methyl pyrrolidone)’ selectively dissolves
benzene from the concentrated raffinate stream. The benzene laden extract is then heated to a temperature
more than the bubble point of benzene to carry out the fractionation of benzene from the solvent. Finally, the
high purity benzene can be sent to the clay treater to remove any olefins that may be present in the stream
before being sent to the storage tank. [1]
Moving on to the other component, toluene is also an important commodity and about two-thirds of its total
production comes from catalytic reforming of naphtha [2]. Just like benzene, it can also be derived from olefin
plants, crude oil, and coke production processes. Toluene is not only used in the manufacturing of phenol,
polyurethane, benzyl alcohol, benzoic acid, etc., but is also used to produce benzene by undergoing
hydrodealkylation and benzene and xylene by undergoing disproportionation. Due to a high difference in the
boiling points of benzene and toluene, toluene can also be separated from the reformate stream by heating and
later further purified by solvent extraction (in a similar way benzene is separated). Alternatively, the reformate
stream could be concentrated to contain all the aromatics, viz., benzene, toluene, and xylenes [2]. This
aromatic stream can then fractionated to produce virtually pure components.
We are aware that encountering an equimolar feed of benzene and toluene in refineries or petrochemical plants
may not be probable, but this work is done to develop a basic understanding of the design of distillation column
rather than to carry out a real industrial assignment and hence, we believe that the figures are acceptable for
the proposed purpose.

3|Page
 Vapour Liquid Equilibrium Studies and Stage Calculations

Introduction
In this phase of the project, we accomplished the following tasks:
1. Figured out the quantity and composition of distillate and bottoms streams.
2. Calculated the theoretical number of stages required for separation, by the following methods:
a) McCabe Thiele Method
b) Smoker’s Equation
c) Fenske-Underwood-Gilliland Method
3. Studied the change in the following properties with respect to change in reflux ratio:
a) Number of trays
b) Top product purity
The problem statement is defined below and is adapted from a book [3] by Coker (2010):
It is desired to separate an equimolar mixture of benzene and toluene into a top product containing 95 mol %
benzene and a bottom product containing 95 mol % toluene. The distillation is to be carried out at atmospheric
pressure. Use a total condenser.
Feed Conditions:
 Flow rate: 100 kmol/h
 Feed is saturated liquid

Procedure
The entire procedure of distillation column design has been very well summarized in a book, Chemical
Engineering Design by R. K. Sinnott [4]. The steps are highlighted below:
1. Specify the degree of separation required. This includes specifying the recovery of the components of
interest and purity of the product streams.
2. Select the operating condition. This includes specifying the operating pressure of the column and the mode
of distillation: batch or continuous.
3. Select the type of contacting device. Here we need to make a choice between packing and tray. This choice
can be influenced by cost economics, fouling consideration, operating pressures, liquid to gas flow rate
ratio, and ease of cleaning among other important factors [5]. Moreover, it is wise to also refer to some
design manuals/reports and research papers to find out what has been done earlier by the workers dealing
with a similar system and verify whether your choice is correct.
4. Determine the stage and reflux requirements. This step includes finding out the number of equilibrium
stages and the operating reflux. For binary distillation systems, one can use McCabe Thiele method, or if
there is unequal latent heat requirement between liquid and vapour phase, Ponchon Savarit method. Some
other techniques which can be used are: Smoker’s equation, the extended form of Smoker’s equation [6],
and Fenske-Underwood-Gilliland method.
5. Size the column. This step will include finding out the column diameter and the number of real stages.
The column diameter is a function of liquid and vapour flow rates and the tray spacing, and the number of
real stages can be determined after figuring out the Murphree Tray Efficiency or the overall column
efficiency.
6. Design the column internal. This step includes design the plates, packing supports and/or distributors. For
example, for sieve tray design, this step would mean figuring out the hole diameter, weir height, weir
length, number of holes, hole pitch, among others.
4|Page
7. Mechanical design. Finally, in this step, one is required to carry out stress analysis, design supports for the
column, etc. In this work, we will not be discussing the mechanical design aspects.

Assumptions Made
In this work, we have made certain assumptions to simplify the calculations involved. First, we have
considered that the mixture of benzene and toluene forms an ideal gas phase, ideal liquid solution. Our
confidence in the above stated assumption was bolstered by a text on Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics
[7] and some other sources. Further, due to its ideal nature, the relative volatile of benzene with respect to that
of toluene is simply calculated as the ratio of the partial pressures of the two components at the temperature
of interest. More accuracy can clearly be achieved by using models which capture the dynamics of this mixture
in a more comprehensive manner, for instance, by using SRK equation of state. Second, we have assumed that
our column is adiabatic and operating at steady state. The ramifications of this assumption are that any
increment in reflux on the account of heat losses from the walls of the columns is bated and the initially
transient nature of the column which manifests itself in the form of changing product purities, temperature,
and other state variables is ignored. Third, we have assumed a constant relative volatility in each section, viz.,
stripping and rectifying sections. However, this assumption looks plausible because the relatively does not
change considerably with changing temperature. Refer figure 1.

Figure 1: Variation in Relative Volatility w.r.t. Temperature

Methods Used
Unless specified otherwise, the methods highlighted in Table 1 were used to find out the respective properties.
Table 1: Methods used for Calculating Different Properties

S. No. Property Method/Models Used

1. Saturation Pressure Antoine’s Equation
2. Relative Volatility Ratio of Saturation Pressures
3. Dew Point Temperature Lowest Absolute Value of Matrix
4. Bubble Point Temp. Lowest Absolute Value of Matrix and Newton Raphson Method
5. Diffusivity of Liquid Wilke-Chang Equation [8]
6. Viscosity of Liquid Souder’s Equation [9]
5|Page
Lowest Absolute Value of Matrix
In this method, we used the Antoine’s equation, Dalton’s law and Roult’s law to derive a function at constant
total pressure and liquid composition, fBubble(T) such that if T = TBubblePoint, fBubble(T) = 0. Similarly, a function
was derived for dew point calculation at constant pressure and vapour composition. Thereafter, two hundred
different equally spaced values from the interval 1-200 degree Celsius were placed in the function to find f(T).
The ‘T’ for which the absolute value was minimum or in other words, closest to zero, was taken as the dew
point or the bubble point. The MATLAB programs for the calculations are given below.

MATLAB function: DewPoint

function T_D = DewPoint(y_Benzene,Total_Pressure)

% Any answer above and around 136 deg C may not be valid since the Antoine''s Constants involved in the
solution are valid in the range 6-134 deg. C.
A_Ben = 13.7819; % Temperature Range = 6-104 deg. C
B_Ben = 2726.81; % Normal Boiling Point = 80 deg. C
C_Ben = 217.572; % Latent Heat of Vaporization at the Normal Boiling Point = 30.72 kJ/mol
A_Tol = 13.9320; % Temperature Range = 13-136 deg. C
B_Tol = 3056.96; % Normal Boiling Point = 110.6 deg. C
C_Tol = 217.625; % Latent Heat of Vaporization at the Normal Boiling Point = 33.18 kJ/mol
Diff = zeros(1,200);
for T = 1:200
Diff(T) = (1/Total_Pressure) - y_Benzene/exp((A_Ben - (B_Ben/(C_Ben+T)))) - (1-y_Benzene)/exp((A_Tol -
(B_Tol/(C_Tol+T))));
end
for T = 1:200
if abs(Diff(T)) == min(abs(Diff))
T_D = T;
return;
end
end
end

MATLAB function: BubblePoint

function T_B = BubblePoint(x_Benzene,Total_Pressure)

A_Ben = 13.7819; % Temperature Range = 6-104 deg. C
B_Ben = 2726.81; % Normal Boiling Point = 80 deg. C
C_Ben = 217.572; % Latent Heat of Vaporization at the Normal Boiling Point = 30.72 kJ/mol
A_Tol = 13.9320; % Temperature Range = 13-136 deg. C
B_Tol = 3056.96; % Normal Boiling Point = 110.6 deg. C
C_Tol = 217.625; % Latent Heat of Vaporization at the Normal Boiling Point = 33.18 kJ/mol
Diff = zeros(1,200);
for T = 1:200
Diff(T) = (x_Benzene*exp(A_Ben - (B_Ben/(C_Ben + T)))) + ((1-x_Benzene)*exp(A_Tol - (B_Tol/(C_Tol +
T)))) - Total_Pressure;
end
for T = 1:200
if abs(Diff(T)) == min(abs(Diff))
T_B = T;
return;
end
end
end

6|Page
Later on, to check the accuracy of our answers we compared our results with those obtained by employing
Newton Raphson approximation. Both the answers were in quite close agreement with other, however, we did
not carry out any statistical analysis to prove this claim.
MATLAB function: BubT_NewRaph

function T_Bub = BubT_NewRaph(x_Benzene, Total_Pressure)

A_Ben = 13.7819; % Temperature Range = 6-104 deg. C
B_Ben = 2726.81; % Normal Boiling Point = 80 deg. C
C_Ben = 217.572; % Latent Heat of Vaporization at the Normal Boiling Point = 30.72 kJ/mol
A_Tol = 13.9320; % Temperature Range = 13-136 deg. C
B_Tol = 3056.96; % Normal Boiling Point = 110.6 deg. C
C_Tol = 217.625; % Latent Heat of Vaporization at the Normal Boiling Point = 33.18 kJ/mol
T_Bub = 90; % Initial Guess. Can be changed if the solution is not converging.
Fun_T = x_Benzene*exp(A_Ben - (B_Ben/(C_Ben + T_Bub))) + (1-x_Benzene)*exp(A_Tol - (B_Tol/(C_Tol + T_Bub)))
- Total_Pressure;
Fun_D_T_Ben = x_Benzene*exp(A_Ben - (B_Ben/(C_Ben + T_Bub)))*(B_Ben/(C_Ben + T_Bub)^2);
Fun_D_T_Tol = (1-x_Benzene)*exp(A_Tol - (B_Tol/(C_Tol + T_Bub)))*(B_Tol/(C_Tol + T_Bub)^2);
i = 0;
while abs(Fun_T) > 10^(-6)
i = i + 1;
T_Bub = T_Bub - Fun_T/(Fun_D_T_Ben + Fun_D_T_Tol);
Fun_T = x_Benzene*exp(A_Ben - (B_Ben/(C_Ben + T_Bub))) + (1-x_Benzene)*exp(A_Tol - (B_Tol/(C_Tol +
T_Bub))) - Total_Pressure;
end
end

Phase I Procedure
Below is a step-by-step procedure for obtaining the number of theoretical stages.
1. Volatility Check: This step involves finding out which components will be obtained at the top and which
at the bottom. For binary systems, it may be an easy task but for multicomponent systems containing
unfamiliar components, it can be conveniently used to determine the more volatile component. Here, we
found the saturation pressure of benzene and toluene at different temperatures (see Figure 2) and clearly
noted that benzene is more volatile and hence, will be achieved on the top.

Figure 2: Saturation Pressure of Benzene and Toluene at different Temperatures

7|Page
2. Mass Balance: In this step, we simple performed mass balance over the column using the given feed flow
rate, product purities, and recovery. Refer fig. 3.

Top Conditions
D 50 mol/h Recovery 0.95
Benzene 95 mol %
Toluene 5 mol %

Mass Balance Calculations

= +
Feed Conditions
F 100 mol/h z.F = y.D + x.W
Benzene 50 mol %
Toluene 50 mol %
D 50 mol/h
W 50 mol/h

Bottom Conditions
W 50 mol/h
Benzene 5 mol %
Toluene 95 mol %

Figure 3: Mass Balance over the Distillation Column

3. Setting up operating pressure and calculating the number of stages: In this step, we set the top pressure to
be 1 atm because we want our column to operate at atmospheric pressure. Further, we assumed the pressure
drop per plate to be 0.1 psi or 0.6895 kPa. This value is recommended by Henley and Seader (1981) in
their book [10] for columns operating at or above atmospheric pressure. Thereafter, we assumed the
column average operating temperature to be 100 deg. C which lies somewhere between the boiling point
of benzene and toluene. The relative volatility at this temperature was used to carry out McCabe Thiele
calculation. The equilibrium curve so obtained is shown in fig. 4. However, the number of trays calculated
using relative volatility at T = 100 deg. C was very large compared to the value presented in the text by
Coker [3]. So we took the equilibrium curve presented in the book itself to calculate the number of trays
which came out to be 14. Thereafter, using the top pressure and pressure drop per plate, the bottom pressure
was also calculated. Moreover, the operating reflux was taken as 1.2 times the minimum reflux (i.e., 1.07)
obtained from McCabe Thiele method. With 14 trays, the bottom pressure came out to be 110.26 kPa.
Bubble Point was calculated at this pressure and using the operating reflux and top and bottom
temperatures, the number of stages were calculated using Smoker’s equation also, which came out to be
17. Finally, using FUG method, the number of stages came out to be 16. In the FUG method, the value of
relative volatility was taken as the geometric mean of the values existing at the top and bottom of the
column. Temperature at top was taken as the dew point temperature at top pressure and that at bottom was
taken as bubble point temperature at bottom pressure. For all our remaining calculations, we considered
the number of stages to be 14 because it corresponded to the most reliable equilibrium data (See Table 2).
Table 3 gives a summary of the results considered for further calculation.

8|Page
 Figure 4: Equilibrium Curve for Benzene Toluene System at 100 deg. C

Table 2: Number of Theoretical Stages obtained from Different Methods

Method Trays at R = 1.28 Comments

McCabe Thiele (Ludwig’s Plot and 12 Use of ‘True’ Plot

Solution)
McCabe Thiele (Manual) 14 Due to Differences in the values of Relative Volatility

Smoker 17 Due to Constant Relative Volatility Assumption

Fenske-Underwood-Gilliland (Molokanov et 16 Due to Constant Relative Volatility Assumption

al. Relation)

Table 3: Results Summary

Property/Parameter Value

No. of Trays 14

Top Pressure 101.3 kPa

Bottom Pressure 110.2638 kPa

Top Dew Point Temperature 82 deg. C

Bottom Bubble Point Temperature 111 deg. C

Trays: Rectifying Section 6

Trays/Stages: Stripping Section 8 (Including Reboiler)

9|Page
MATLAB function for Smoker’s Equation

% Gives the Number of Trays. Can work for all the Binary Distillation Systems which forms an Ideal Mixture.
% z = Mole Fraction of More Volatile Component in the Feed Stream
% Rel_Vol = Relative Volatility
% q = q Factor
% Rect = Rectifying Section or Top of the Column
% Strip = Stripping Section or base of the Column
% Reflux = Reflux Ratio
% Works for Total Condenser
% Author: Maneet Goyal
function Trays = Smoker(z_Feed,x_Distillate,x_Bottom,Reflux,Rel_Vol_Rect,Rel_Vol_Strip,q)
% Rectification Section
s_R = Reflux/(Reflux + 1); % Slope of Operating line between x_n_star and x_o_star
b_R = x_Distillate/(Reflux + 1);
if q > 1 || q < 0
error('The value of q cannot be more than one or negative.');
end
if q ~= 1
z_Feed = (b_R + (z_Feed/(q-1)))/((q/(q-1))-s_R); % Specifying Condition when q is not equal to 1
end
k_Rect = roots([s_R*(Rel_Vol_Rect-1) (s_R+((Rel_Vol_Rect-1)*b_R)-Rel_Vol_Rect) b_R]);
for i = 1:2
if k_Rect(i) <= 1 && k_Rect(i) >= 0
k_Rect = k_Rect(i); % k is the value of x ordinate at the point where extended operating lines
intersect the Vapor Liquid Equilibrium Curve
break;
end
end
if size(k_Rect) > 1
error('Root out of Bounds');
end
if ~isreal(k_Rect)
error('Root out of Bounds. Changing Reflux Ratio might help.')
end
x_o_star_R = x_Distillate - k_Rect; % x_o_star > x_n_star
x_n_star_R = z_Feed - k_Rect; % x_o_star > x_n_star
c_R = 1 + (Rel_Vol_Rect-1)*k_Rect;
beta_R = s_R*c_R*(Rel_Vol_Rect-1)/(Rel_Vol_Rect-(s_R*(c_R^2)));
Tray_Rect = (log((x_o_star_R*(1-(beta_R*x_n_star_R)))/(x_n_star_R*(1-
(beta_R*x_o_star_R)))))/(log(Rel_Vol_Rect/(s_R*(c_R^2))));
if ~isreal(Tray_Rect)
error('Smoker''s Equation is giving an Imaginary Solution. Increasing the Reflux Ratio might help.');
end
% Stripping Section
s_S = ((Reflux*z_Feed) +x_Distillate - (Reflux+1)*x_Bottom)/((Reflux+1)*(z_Feed-x_Bottom));
b_S = ((z_Feed-x_Distillate)*x_Bottom)/((Reflux+1)*(z_Feed-x_Bottom));
k_Strip = roots([s_S*(Rel_Vol_Strip-1) (s_S+((Rel_Vol_Strip-1)*b_S)-Rel_Vol_Strip) b_S]);
for i = 1:2
if k_Strip(i) <= 1 && k_Strip(i) >= 0
k_Strip = k_Strip(i); % k is the value of x ordinate at the point where extended operating lines
intersect the Vapor Liquid Equilibrium Curve
break;
end
end
if size(k_Strip) > 1
error('Root out of Bounds');
end
if ~isreal(k_Strip)
error('Root out of Bounds. Changing Reflux Ratio might help.')
end

10 | P a g e
x_o_star_S = z_Feed - k_Strip;
x_n_star_S = x_Bottom - k_Strip;
c_S = 1 + (Rel_Vol_Strip-1)*k_Strip;
beta_S = s_S*c_S*(Rel_Vol_Strip-1)/(Rel_Vol_Strip-(s_S*(c_S^2)));
Tray_Strip = (log((x_o_star_S*(1-(beta_S*x_n_star_S)))/(x_n_star_S*(1-
(beta_S*x_o_star_S)))))/(log(Rel_Vol_Strip/(s_S*(c_S^2))));
if ~isreal(Tray_Strip)
error('Smoker''s Equation is giving an Imaginary Solution. Increasing the Reflux Ratio might help.');
end
Trays = round(Tray_Rect) + round(Tray_Strip);
end

4. Calculation of Vapour and Liquid Phase composition at each stage: In this step, we calculated the
composition of liquid and vapour phase at each tray. The value of Reflux was taken as 1.28 and the overall
relative volatility (2.46) was the geometric mean of the relative volatility at top and that at bottom. Clearly,
taking the geometric mean of the values will introduce some error into the system and on performing tray
by tray calculation for composition using the mean value, we may not attain the desired purity at the
bottom. Since, our value of relative volatility has been changed, some change in reflux ratio in response
to the change in relative volatility can be brought about such that we get the desired purity at the bottom
(keeping top purity fixed). By using Goal Seek on Microsoft Excel, we obtained 5 mol% Benzene in the
bottom stream for Roperating = 1.54 which is 1.44 times the Rminimum. Figure 5 gives the changes in flow rate
that resulted from changing the reflux ratio.

Figure 5: Liquid and Vapour Flow rates corresponding to old and updated reflux

As can be seen in Figure 6, the bottom composition is as desired, i.e. 5 mol% Benzene. Moreover, the figure
also shows how vapour and liquid composition changes with respect to column height. It is also to be noted
that the change in reflux has just been brought about to show a reduction of benzene concentration from 95
mol% at top to 5 mol% at bottom. For hydraulic plate design, the flow rates corresponding to old reflux only
should be used. Since our relative volatility will be different at different places, the older reflux value may
actually give us the required benzene concentration at bottom. The following disadvantages can observed
when increased reflux is taken:
a) Higher operational cost
b) Higher Reboiler duty due to increased vapour requirement for providing higher reflux (at constant distillate
withdrawal).
c) Higher condenser duty due to condensation of more vapour.
d) Higher pressure drop across plate due to higher vapour velocity.
11 | P a g e
e) One advantage of using higher reflux is lower number of trays and hence, lower capital cost. But in this
case we have already fixed the number of trays, so increasing the reflux would mean obtaining more than
required purity.

Figure 6: Variation in Liquid and Vapour Composition along the Column Height

However, in our first run, by mistake we took the increased reflux only as the actual operating reflux. This
mistake can nevertheless be turned into an advantage: the product purity that the problem statement specifies
is of 95% but in industries we need purity close to 99%, so with increased reflux our product purity will only
come closer to the actual industrial requirements.
5. Additional Studies (Optional): In this step we studied how the number of trays and product purity changes
with respect to increments in reflux ratio. Figure 7 and 8 show the results generated using ASPEN HYSYS
and SRK model.

Figure 7: Variation in number of trays with respect to variation in reflux ratio

12 | P a g e
 Figure 8: Variation in Top Product Purity with respect to variation in Reflux Ratio

Figure 9: A Rough Representation of our Distillation System

When capital cost requirement for trays are high, one may consider increasing the reflux ratio for reducing the
tray requirement. But we can see in fig. 7 that after a certain stage increasing the reflux will not bring any
virtual change in the number of trays. This is because each distillation column will require certain minimum
number of trays to bring about separation of the components. Even at total reflux, the number of trays are not

13 | P a g e
zero, rather it reaches a finite minimum value. Second, we may also consider increasing the reflux for
increasing the product purity, keeping the number of trays to be constant. But, we can clearly see in fig. 8 that
increasing the reflux ratio from 4.5 to 9 resulted in approximately 1 mol% higher purity only. So we can
conclude that even though we are providing favourable concentration gradient between the two phases by
increasing reflux, there may not be enough contact time or interfacial contact area for the desired mass transfer
to take place.
Appendix A
Here we present, an algorithm for figuring out the operating pressure of the column. The same is presented in
a book by Henley and Seader [10] in the form of a flow sheet.

% Gives the Top and Bottom Pressure of the Distillation Column for a Benzene Toluene Mixture provided the
Bottom and Top Compositions are known and Number of Trays are known. The bottom pressure is taken such that
the Bubble Point Temperature at that pressure and specified compostions is always less than the Critical
Temperature. This Algorithm is reported by henley E.J. and Seader J. D. in Separation Process Principles,
Second Edition, John Wiley (2006), p.p. 265.
function [TopP, BottomP] = EcklesPressure(x_Benzene_Distillate,Trays,x_Benzene_Bottom)
P_b = BubblePressure(x_Benzene_Distillate,49); % Buble Point Pressure of the Distillate at 49 deg. C
if P_b < 1480
fprintf('Use Total Condenser\n');
if P_b < 207
P_b = 207; % Minimum Pressure at the Top has been Specified according to the Eckles Algorithm
end
TopPressure = P_b;
else
fprintf('Use Partial Condenser\n');
P_d = DewPressure(x_Benzene_Distillate,49);
if P_d > 2520
fprintf('Choose a refrigerant which can operate Partial Condenser at 2860 kPa\n');
end
TopPressure = P_d;
end
BottomPressure = TopPressure + ((Trays-1)*0.6895); % Assuming a pressure drop of 0.1 psi or 0.6895 kPa per
plate
BottomTemperature = BubblePoint(x_Benzene_Distillate,BottomPressure);
CriticalTemperature = BenTolCrit(1-x_Benzene_Bottom);
while BottomTemperature > CriticalTemperature - 4 % Setting up a condition such that our column will operate
atleast four deg. Celcium below the Critical Teemperature
if TopPressure > 2
TopPressure = TopPressure - 2; % Reducing the Top Pressure by 2 kPa
else
TopPressure = TopPressure/5 ; % Pressure can not be negative. Hence, we redicng it by 5 times. It is
just an approximation and can be regulated as per your own understanding.
if TopPressure < 10^(-10)
fprintf('Your system has entered even below the Ultra High Vaccuum Conditions. Consider Using
Another Algorithm or Reduce the Number of Trays.\n');
TopP = TopPressure;
BottomP = TopPressure + ((Trays-1)*0.6895);
return;
end
end
BottomPressure = TopPressure + ((Trays-1)*0.6895); % Calculating the New Bottom Pressure
BottomTemperature = BubblePoint(x_Benzene_Distillate,BottomPressure);
end
TopP = TopPressure;
BottomP = BottomPressure;
end

14 | P a g e
 Plate Hydraulic Design

Introduction
This stage obviously comes after one has decided the type of contacting equipment to be used. The first choice
is made is between packed towers and tray towers and then, the type of packings or trays to be used is decided.
In this work, we selected tray tower because Zarco (2014) suggests the use of trays when the liquid to gas
flow rate ratio is not very high. In fig. 10, it can be clearly seen that the L/G ratio in both stripping and
rectifying sections are low and hence, tray prove to be a good choice. Further, trays are not only less sensitive
to fouling but also can be cleaned easily as compared to packings. As regards cost, trays prove to be more
expensive [5] but on carrying out literature survey, we came across certain works [6] [11] [12] which showcase
the use of sieve trays for benzene toluene systems. This increased our confidence in the choice and hence, we
proceeded with tray tower.

Figure 10: Operating Line Equations and Equilibrium Line Equation for our Distillation System

Further, the points highlighted in Table 4 were considered for choosing sieve tray over other types of trays.
Table 4: Choosing Sieve Tray over other Trays

Parameter Findings Conclusion

Cost For Mild Steel, the ratio of cost of construction: Sieve Trays are quite economical.

Bubble Cap : Valve : Sieve = 3.0 : 1.5 : 1

Capacity There is a little difference in capacity of the three types Sieve Trays have the maximum
mentioned above. However, capacity when compared to the
other two.
Sieve > Valve > Bubble Cap

Liquid and Vapor At Low Vapor Flow Rates: Bubble Cap Our Vapor Flow rates are not very
Operating Range low. Hence, Sieve Trays are a
At Moderate Rates: Sieve Tray (More Economical) good choice.

Efficiency Almost similar Murphree Efficiency when operating above their ----
design flow range.

Pressure Drop Generally, Sieve Trays offer the lowest

pressure drop.
Sieve < Valve < Bubble Cap

15 | P a g e
Many procedures are available for carrying out the design of sieve trays. In this work, we use the one presented
in a book by Sinnott [4]. Figure 11 gives a very comprehensive algorithm [13] for carrying out sieve tray
design.

Figure 11: A comprehensive algorithm for Sieve tray design

Graphical Depiction of the Geometric Parameters of Tray

Like most of the engineering design processes, the design of plate is also a combination of theory and practise
wherein, some semi-empirical models are complemented by sound engineering judgement to obtain a
satisfactory design [4]. In designing the sieve tray, different geometric parameters are considered. Since the
number of parameters are large and may be confusing, we have graphically represented most of them for the
benefit of the reader (see figs. 12-16).

Figure 12: Some Geometric Parameters related to Holes

16 | P a g e
 Figure 13: Specifying Weir Length and Weir Height

Figure 14: Marking Inlet Calming Zone and Unperforated Edge Strip

Figure 15: A: Unperforated Edge Area + Calming Zone Area; B: Column Cross Sectional Area; C: Area of Downcomer; D: Active or Bubbling Area

17 | P a g e
Figure 16: Some important geometric parameters: lt, tray spacing; hb, Downcomer backup or height of liquid in downcomer; hap, height of the
bottom edge of the apron above the plate; hw, weir height; how, height of liquid crest over the weir.

Many of the plate dimensions are kept within a certain range in which they are known to give satisfactory
performance. Some of those ranges are mentioned by Sinnott [4] and presented in Table 5.
Table 5: Practical ranges of different tray/column parameters

S. No. Parameter Range Comments

1. Hole Size 2.5-12 mm. 5mm is preferred. Greater entrainment as size increases.

2. Hole Pitch 2.5-4 times the hole diameter Should be always greater than twice the hole
diameter, dh.
3. Plate thickness 5mm for carbon steel; 3mm for stainless Depend on the stresses acting on the plate due
steel to liquid loading, etc.
4. Fractional Entrainment Should be kept below 0.1 Higher values may be detrimental for tray
efficiency
5. Weir Crest At least 10 mm at the lowest liquid rate This ensures even flow of liquid along the
weir
6. Weir Height 40-90 mm for columns operating at or More is weir height, more will be the tray
above atmospheric pressure efficiency but at the cost of higher pressure
drop.
7. Weir Length For segmental Downcomer, should be A good initial value is 0.77 if the Downcomer
between 0.6-0.85 of the column area is taken to be 12% of the column cross-
diameter. sectional area
8. Calming Zone Width For dc < 1.5 m, 75mm and for greater dc, Usually kept same for both inlet and outlet
100mm is recommended. zones
9. Height of the bottom Should be 5-10 mm below the outlet weir
edge of the apron height
above the plate
10. Downcomer residence At least 3s Allows the disengagement of vapour from the
time liquid phase

18 | P a g e
Phase II Procedure
First, we will recall the results generated in Phase 1. They are summarized in Table 6 along with some
additional information.
Table 6: Some important information required to carry out Hydraulic Plate Design

S. No. Parameter Value

1. Number of Equilibrium Stages 14
2. Reflux Ratio 1.28
3. Slope of Operating Line in Rectifying Section 0.561
4. Slope of Operating Line in Stripping Section 1.394
5. Molecular Weight of Benzene 78.11 kg/kmol
6. Molecular Weight of Toluene 92.14 kg/kmol

In the problem statement, we took our feed flow rate to be 100 kmol/h. This corresponds to 8512.5 kg/h or
2.3646 kg/s. Let the maximum flow rate to our column be 10,000 kg/h or 117.4743 kmol/h and the turndown
ratio be 70%. Therefore, the minimum feed flow rate into the column will be 7000 kg/h or 82.2320 kmol/h.
Upon carrying out mass balance on the maximum and minimum feed flow rates the data presented in Table 7
was obtained.
Table 7: Liquid and Vapour Flow rates inside the column at different Feed flow rates

Parameter Minimum Feed Flow Operating Feed Flow rate Maximum Feed Flow
rate rate
Feed Molar flow rate 82.2320 kmol/h 100 kmol/h 117.4743 kmol/h
Feed Mass flow rate 7000 kg/h 8512.5 kg/h 10000 kg/h
Distillate 41.116 kmol/h 50 kmol/h 58.7372 kmol/h
Distillate 3240.4 kg/h 3940.6 kg/h 4629.2 kg/h
Bottoms 41.116 kmol/h 50 kmol/h 58.7372 kmol/h
Bottoms 3759.6 kg/h 4571.9 kg/h 5370.8 kg/h
Liquid Flow above Feed Plate 52.6285 kmol/h 63.9 kmol/h 75.1836 kmol/h
Liquid Flow Below Feed Plate 134.8605 kmol/h 163.9 kmol/h 192.6579 kmol/h
Vapour Flow above Feed Plate 93.7445 kmol/h 113.9 kmol/h 133.9207 kmol/h
Vapour Flow below Feed Plate 93.7445 kmol/h 113.9 kmol/h 133.9207 kmol/h

Now we have most of the information required for starting the hydraulic plate design procedure. Remember
that this design procedure is partially based on hit and trial approach, so will be initially be making some
assumptions and later be correcting the same after performing detailed calculations.
The following procedure is given by Sinnott [4] in his book:
1. Calculate the maximum and minimum vapour and liquid flow-rates, for the turn down ratio required. In
this work, the maximum feed flow rate is 10000 kg/h and the turn down ratio is 0.7.
2. Collect, or estimate, the system physical properties. The same was done by using ChemSep. The properties
were noted for top and bottom trays and the hydraulic design procedure was carried out for both trays.
Dimensions obtained for top and bottom trays are to be implemented for all the trays in rectifying and
stripping sections respectively.
3. Select a trial plate spacing. As we increase the plate spacing the column diameter decreases. This happens
because with increase in spacing the flooding velocity also increases. Normally, for non-foaming liquids,
the design is carried out at 80-85% of the flooding velocity (design velocity) and this value determines the
column diameter. Since the column diameter is inversely proportional to the design velocity (m/s), the
column diameter decreases as tray spacing increases.
4. Estimate, the column diameter, based on flooding considerations. If you column diameter size is larger
than what is acceptable, you can increase the plate spacing to bring it down, but larger tray spacing will

19 | P a g e
 lead to a taller column diameter which again may be problematic. So an optimum value of tray spacing
should be chosen which gives acceptable values for both column diameter and column height.
5. Decide the liquid flow arrangement. This can be decided by considering the column diameter and liquid
flow rate (m3/s). Some of the liquid flow arrangements are: reverse flow, single pass, and double pass.
6. Make a trial plate layout: downcomer area, active area, hole area, hole size, weir height. The typical
initial values of these parameters are listed in Table 8.

Table 8: Initial Values of some tray parameters

S. No. Parameter Initial value

1. Downcomer Area 12% of Column Area
2. Active Area Column Area – (2*Downcomer Area)
3. Hole Area 10% of Active Area
4. Hole Size 5 mm
5. Weir Height 50 mm

7. Check the weeping rate, if unsatisfactory return to step 6. Weeping is simply the ‘dumping of liquid through
holes’ [3] on the tray. It occurs when the vapour flow rate is insufficient to maintain a liquid level on the tray
[4] and it greatly reduces the separation efficiency. At excessive weeping or ‘dumping’ none of liquid reaches
the downcomer [14].
8. Check the plate pressure drop, if too high return to step 6. It can be represented in term of liquid head and
is the summation of height of liquid over tray (weir height + weir crest), dry plate drop and residual head.
There is one more factor called hydraulic gradient which contributes towards plate pressure drop. It is the
difference in liquid level required for the liquid to flow across the plate. In sieve trays, the hydraulic gradient
is not very significant and hence, usually ignored. However, in bubble caps trays or in vacuum operations it
can be significant and half of this value is added to the clear liquid height. Hence, the total plate drop becomes
(weir height + weir crest + 0.5*hydraulic gradient + dry plate drop + residual head). Here, dry plate drop
correspond to the pressure drop that has resulted due to the flow of vapour through the holes or orifice.
9. Check the downcomer backup, if too high return to step 6 or 3. This value refers to the height of the liquid
in the downcomer. Clearly, for a particular tray, it should be safely below the tip of outlet weir of the tray just
above it. If due to liquid height on the tray, plate pressure drop, or frictional losses in the downcomer apron,
the downcomer backup exceeds the level of the tip of outlet weir of the upper tray, the column will flood [4]
[15]. The concept of downcomer backup has been very well delineated by Kister (1992) in the form of an
image. An adaptation of that image is presented as Figure 17.

Figure 17: Components of Downcomer Backup

20 | P a g e
10. Decide plate layout details: calming zones, unperforated areas. Check hole pitch, if unsatisfactory return
to step 6. Two calming zones, one at the tray inlet, other at the outlet are employed. The inlet calming zone
helps in preventing excessive weeping because at the inlet of tray, the vertical component of the velocity
vector of liquid will be high. The inlet calming zone helps in containing this velocity and hence, prevent
weeping. The outlet calming zone, on the hand, prevents the entry of highly aerated liquid to the downcomer
or the lower tray. It does so by acting as a platform for vapour disengagement. Preventing the entry of highly
aerated liquid will, among other things, keep the downcomer backup at a lower height and hence, prevent
flooding.
11. Recalculate percentage flooding based on chosen column diameter. Recalculation is required because we
will be choosing same ‘standard’ column diameter for both rectifying and stripping section. Since the new
diameter will different in most of the cases, the net area and hence, the vapour velocity will also change.
Consequently, there will be a change in the percentage flooding also. Further, since the new standard column
diameter will be larger than the previously calculated diameter, the vapour velocity will only decrease and
hence, the percentage flooding will be lowered.
12. Check entrainment, if too high return to step 4. High entrainment may lead to entrainment flooding. Based
on the liquid flow rate, Kister (1992) has described two types of entrainment flooding: spray and froth. The
former may occur at low liquid flow rates when the most of the liquid on the tray is in the form of liquid drops.
As the vapour velocity is increased a condition is reached where the liquid droplets are carried by the vapour
to the tray above. Over time the liquid accumulates at the tray above instead of flowing down and as a result,
the lower separation efficiency and high plate pressure drop may be encountered. In froth entrainment
flooding, the liquid flow rates are high and liquid disperses over the tray in the form of froth. As the vapour
velocity is increased, the froth height increases and may finally reach the tray above at which point entrainment
increases rapidly and liquid accumulation starts. However, if the tray spacing is large (>18-24 in), froth height
will probably not reach the tray above, but this does not completely eradicate the chances of flooding because
if the vapour velocity is raised beyond a certain point, some of the froth will ‘invert’ into spray. Subsequently,
spray entrainment flooding will be encountered. Another condition of froth entrainment flooding described by
Kister (1992) occurs at liquid rates higher than 6 gpm/in of outlet weir, flow path length to tray spacing ratio
more than 2.5, and a fractional hole area of more than 11%. [15]
13. Optimize design: repeat steps 3 to 12 to find smallest diameter and plate spacing acceptable (lowest cost).
14. Finalize design: draw up the plate specification and sketch the layout.
Results and Discussion
To begin with, we assumed that the overall column efficiency is 60%. Since the number of theoretical stages
is 14, the actual number of trays (after removing the Reboiler stage) will be (14-1)/0.6, i.e. approximately 22
trays. We are operating at the top pressure of 101.3 kPa and the pressure drop per plate is assumed to be 0.6895
kPa (0.1 psi); therefore, the bottom pressure will be 116.469 kPa. After running simulation on ChemSep using
the above specifications, we obtained the physical properties of the liquid and vapour phase at the top and
bottom trays corresponding to maximum feed flow rate. The same data was fed into the Microsoft Excel Sheet
which is presented in Appendix B. Relevant values from the various graphs presented in the worksheet were
interpolated using WebPlot Digitizer for more accuracy. Calibration of the axes was done in a manner which
ensures good accuracy. For instance, while using Fig. 11.31 (from Sinnott (2003)) reproduced in the Excel
worksheet, if the (Ad/Ac)*100 lies between 10 to 15%, the calibration points on X axis were taken as 0.7 and
0.8 and those on Y axis were taken as 10 and 15. This helped us focus on the region of interest and obtain
more reliable values than those obtained by performing calibration of the complete axis.

21 | P a g e
After continuous corrections and simultaneous simulations on ChemSep we obtained the following physical
properties at top and bottom trays (Table 10).
Table 9: Physical Properties of Liquid and Vapour Streams at Top Pressure = 101.3 kPa and bottom pressure = 120.357 kPa

Tray Vapour Liquid Vapour Liquid Vapour Liquid Vapour Liquid Vapour Liquid Surface
Density Density Viscosity Viscosity Molecula Molecula Heat Heat Thermal Thermal tension
r r capacity capacity conductivit conductivit
weight weight y y

kg/m3 kg/m3 N/m2.s N/m2.s kg/kmol kg/kmol J/kmol/ J/kmol/ J/s/m/K J/s/m/K N/m
K K

Top 2.699 809.913 8.98E-06 0.000309 78.8154 79.7934 101511 152963 0.015332 0.122188 0.020855

Bottom 3.36186 778.622 9.14E-06 0.000231 89.5492 90.8849 130557 182213 0.01894 0.109653 0.017839

The overall column efficiency came out to be approximately 72% and the pressure drop per plate was corrected
from 0.6895 kPa to 1.121 kPa. The Murphree Tray Efficiency was calculated using Van Winkle’s correlation
[16] and the plate pressure drop did not include hydraulic gradient because for sieve trays, the magnitude of
the same is not very significant [4]. Further, the Murphree efficiencies at the top and the bottom of the column
were converted into overall column efficiency using Lewis’ Relation [17]. The overall column efficiency
reported above is the geometric mean of the two values obtained from Lewis’ Relation. Similarly, as regards,
the total plate pressure drop, its values were calculated at both top and bottom trays and their arithmetic mean
has been reported above. During the simulation stages also, we set the feed at the middle of the column so that
the number of stages in the rectifying section and the stripping sections are equal and the total pressure drop
at top and that at bottom can be equally weighed while obtaining the average value.
The column diameter at top was 0.977 m and that at bottom was 1.088 m. We took a common (outer) diameter
for the entire column to be 1.108 m. Unfortunately, this size exceeds the maximum size of the pipe available
in accordance with the BS 1600:1991 standards. Hence, the way our column will be made is by folding a sheet
into cylindrical form. We could increase the tray spacing to bring down the diameter but that would have
increased the column height which is currently 14.2 m at tray spacing of 0.6 m and 2 m margin each left at the
top and bottom of the column. Depending on the column diameter and liquid flow rate, single pass flow
arrangement has been proposed. Moreover, as regards, weeping, entrainment, downcomer backup, and
residence time checks, all were positive. The relevant information can be found in Appendix B. Apropos tray
specification, the following values are proposed (Table 10). The entire design procedure was carried at
maximum feed flow rate of 10000 kg/h.
Table 10: Final Tray Specifications

Specification Value Units Specification Value Units

Column Inner Diameter 1.089 m Perforation Area 0.546 m2
Hole Size 5 mm Hole Area 0.071 m2
Hole Pitch (Equilateral Triangular) 13.171 mm (∆) Net Area 0.819 m2
Active Holes 3605 ---- Downcomer Area 0.112 m2
Turn Down 0.7 ---- Column Area 0.931 m2
Plate Spacing 0.6 m Active Area 0.708 m2
Plate Thickness 5 mm Weir Length 0.8269 m
Plate Pressure Drop 1.121 kPa Plate Material Carbon Steel ----

22 | P a g e
References

[1] D. L. Burdick and W. L. Leffler, “Benzene,” in Petrochemicals in Non Technical Language, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
PennWell, 2010, pp. 25-40.

[2] D. L. Burdick and W. L. Leffler, “Toluene and The Xylenes,” in Petrochemicals in Nontechnical Language,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, PennWell, 2010, pp. 41-51.

[3] K. A. Coker, “Distillation,” in Ludwig’s Applied Process Design for Chemical and Petrochemical Plants, 4th
ed., vol. II, Burlington, MA, Gulf Professional Publishing, 2010, pp. 1-268.

[4] R. K. Sinnott, “Separation Columns (Distillation, Absorption and Extraction),” in Coulson and Richardson's
Chemical Engineering: Chemical Engineering Design, 3rd ed., vol. 6, Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann,
2003, pp. 493-633.

[5] Z. Olujic, “Types of Distillation Column Internals,” in Distillation: Equipment and Processes, 1st ed., Academic
Press, 2014, pp. 1-34.

[6] S. Bandyopadhyay, “Extended Smoker's Equation for Calculating Number of Stages in Distillation,” in
Institution of Chemical Engineers Symposium Series, 2006.

[7] K. V. Narayanan, “Properties of Solutions,” in A Textbook of Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics, New

Delhi, Prentice Hall of India Private Limited, 2001, p. 273.

[8] C. R. Wilke and P. Chang, “Correlation of diffusion coefficients in dilute solutions,” AIChE Journal, vol. 1, no.
2, pp. 264-270, 1955.

[9] M. Souders Jr, “Viscosity and chemical constitution,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 60, no. 1,
pp. 154-158, 1938.

[10] E. J. Henley and L. D. Seader, Equilibrium-Stage, Separation Operations in Chemical Engineering, John Wiley
and Sons Inc., 1981.

[11] C. V. Hoogstraten and K. Dunn, “The Design of a Distillation Column,” Cape Town, 1998.

[12] S. Phiyanalinmat, “Design of Benzene-Toluene Distillation by chemical Process Simulation for the minimum
energy Consumption,” in 17th Regional Symposium on chemical Engieering, 2015.

[13] K. T. Chuang and K. Nandakumar, “Tray columns: design,” in Encyclopedia of Separation Science, 2000, pp.
1135-1140.

[14] “Process Design Of Mass Transfer Column: Design Of Distillation And Absorption Column,” National
Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning.

[15] H. Z. Kister, “Tray Design and Operation,” in Distillation Design, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1992, pp. 259-363.

[16] S. A. Macfarland, M. Vanwinkle and P. M. Sigmund, “Predict distillation efficiency,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
vol. 51, no. 7, p. 111, 1972.

[17] W. K. Lewis, “Rectification of binary mixtures,” Ind. Eng. Chem., vol. 28, p. 399, 1936.

23 | P a g e
 Appendix B
Legends: Input Results Optional Input Conditionals

Sieve Tray Design Procedure

Total Number of Stages 14 (Including Reboiler) Top Pressure 101.3 kPa

Assumed Plate Pressure
Actual Column Efficiency 72.56 % Drop 1.121 kPa
Bottom Pressure 120.357 kPa
Actual Number of Trays 18

Initial Values of Physical Properties

Stage Vapour Liquid Vapour Liquid Vapour Liquid Vapour Liquid Vapour Liquid Surface Correction Factor at Top 1.008405
Density Density Viscosity Viscosity Molecular Molecular Heat Heat Thermal Thermal tension Correction Factor at Bottom 0.977389
weight weight capacity capacity conductivity conductivity
kg/m3 kg/m3 N/m2.s N/m2.s kg/kmol kg/kmol J/kmol/K J/kmol/K J/s/m/K J/s/m/K N/m
Slope of Operating Line at Top 0.561
1 1.67311 828.889 8.5612E-06 0.00037121 78.3715 78.8154 95368.4 146951 0.0138238 0.128018 0.0230977 Slope of Operating Line at Bottom 1.439
2 2.699 809.913 8.9829E-06 0.00030899 78.8154 79.7934 101511 152963 0.0153317 0.122188 0.0208547
3 2.73122 807.621 9.0084E-06 0.00030264 79.364 80.9234 103143 155463 0.0156602 0.121015 0.0206179
4 2.76524 805.205 9.0325E-06 0.00029614 79.9909 82.0613 104958 158045 0.015902 0.11983 0.0203725 Liquid Vapor Flow Factor at Top 0.032
5 2.80025 802.929 9.0532E-06 0.00029017 80.6159 83.0643 106739 160392 0.0161347 0.118769 0.0201443 Liquid Vapor Flow Factor at Bottom 0.095
6 2.83503 800.987 0.00000907 0.00028518 81.1623 83.8525 108288 162303 0.0163362 0.117911 0.019951
7 2.86862 799.445 9.0836E-06 0.00028126 81.5892 84.4186 109510 163731 0.0164971 0.117266 0.0197975
13 3.05553 793.766 9.1427E-06 0.0002672 82.9651 85.9975 113680 168194 0.0170846 0.115177 0.0192269
14 3.09331 792.073 0.000009152 0.00026311 83.5322 86.5711 115223 169744 0.0172739 0.114522 0.019065
15 3.13668 789.857 9.1596E-06 0.0002578 84.3601 87.3395 117411 171831 0.0175299 0.113668 0.0188571
16 3.18679 787.155 9.1633E-06 0.0002514 85.4722 88.262 120286 174391 0.0178532 0.112649 0.0186078
17 3.24316 784.17 9.1613E-06 0.00024438 86.8117 89.2371 123692 177188 0.0182227 0.111561 0.0183362
18 3.30294 781.225 0.000009154 0.00023751 88.2313 90.1412 127261 179889 0.0185989 0.110529 0.0180714
19 3.36186 778.622 9.1441E-06 0.00023145 89.5492 90.8849 130557 182213 0.0189397 0.109653 0.0178389
20 3.41631 776.516 0.000009135 0.00022652 90.6328 91.4397 133271 184028 0.0192194 0.108971 0.0176512

Tray Spacing
Tray Spacing
Assumption 0.6 m

Interpolated K1 at Top 0.111

Interpolated K1 at Bottom 0.098 Can use a Graph Digitizer for Accuracy.

Corrected K1 at Top 0.112

Corrected K1 at Bottom 0.096

Flooding Velocity at Top 1.936 m/s

Flooding Velocity at Bottom 1.455 m/s

At what percent of flooding at maximum

85 % "Should be between 80 and 85."
flowrate do you want to design the column?

Top Design Velocity 1.645 m/s

Bottom Design Velocity 1.236 m/s

Vapor Flowrate at Top 133.9207 kmol/h

Vapor Flowrate at Bottom 133.9207 kmol/h

Molecular Weight of Stream at Top 78.8115 kg/kmol

Molecular Weight of Stream at Bottom 91.4385 kg/kmol

Vapor Flowrate at Top 1.086 m3/s Net Cross Sectional Area 0.660 m2 Top Diameter 0.977 m Column CS Area at Top 0.750204 m2
Vapor Flowrate at Bottom 1.012 m3/s Required at Top Bottom Diameter 1.088 m Column CS Area at Bottom 0.929963 m2

Net Cross Sectional Area 0.818 m2

Required at Bottom

Column Diameter Selection (BS 1600:1991)

Nom size OD Schedule vs (Wall thickness in mm) Selected Column Diameter 1108 mm

Sched 10 Wall Thicknes 9.53 mm
in mm Sched 5s Sched 20 Sched 30 Sched 40 Sched 60 Sched 80 Sched 100 Sched 120 Sched 140 Sched 160 Std.Wall Extra Strong.
s= 10s Inner Diameter 1088.94 mm
0.13 10,3 s=1,24 1,73 2,41 1,73 2,41 Nominal Size 42 inches
0.25 13,7 s =1,65 2,24 3,02 2,24 3,02
0.38 17,1 s=1,65 2,31 3,2 2,31 3,2
0.50 21,3 1,65 s =2,11 2,77 3,73 4,78 2,77 3,73
0.75 26,7 1,65 s=2,11 2,87 3,91 5,56 2,87 3,91
1.00 33,4 1,65 s =2,77 3,38 4,55 6,35 3,38 4,55
1.25 42,2 1,65 s =2,77 3,56 4,85 6,35 3,56 4,85
1.50 48,3 1,65 s =2,77 3,68 5,08 7,14 3,68 5,08
2.00 60,3 1,65 s =2,77 3,91 5,54 8,74 3,91 5,54
2.50 73,0 2,11 s =3,05 5,16 7,01 9,53 5,16 7,01
3.00 88,9 2,11 s =3,05 5,49 7,62 11,13 5,49 7,62
3.50 101,6 2,11 s=3,05 5,74 8,08 5,74 8,08
3.50 114,3 2,11 s=3,05 6,02 8,56 11,13 13,49 6,02 8,56
5.00 141,3 2,77 s=3,4 6,55 9,53 12,70 15,88 6,55 9,53
6.00 168,3 2,77 s=3,4 7,11 10,97 14,27 18,26 7,11 10,97
8.00 219,1 2,77 s=3,76 6,35 7,04 8,18 10,31 12,7 15,09 18,26 20,62 23,01 8,18 12,7
10.00 273,0 3,40 s =4,19 6,35 7,8 9,27 12,70 15,09 18,26 21,44 25,40 28,58 9,27 12,7
12.00 323,8 3,96 s =4,57 6,35 8,38 10,31 14,27 17,48 21,44 25,4 28,58 33,32 9,53 12,7
14.00 355,6 3,96 s= 4,78 6,35 7,92 9,53 11,13 15,09 19,05 23,83 27,79 31,75 35,71 9,53 12,7
16.00 406,4 4,19 s = 4,78 6,35 7,92 9,53 12,7 16,66 21,44 26,19 30,96 36,53 40,49 9,53 12,7
18.00 457 4.19 s = 4,78 6,35 7,92 11,13 14,27 19,05 23,83 29,36 34,93 39,67 45,24 9,53 12,7
20.00 508 4,78 s = 5,54 6,35 9,53 12,70 15,09 20,62 26,19 32,54 38,10 44,45 50,01 9,53 12,7
22.00 559 4,78 s =5,54 6,35 9,53 12,70 - 22,23 28,58 34,93 41,28 47,63 53,98 9,53 12,7
24.00 610 5,54 s =6,35 6,35 9,53 14,27 17,48 24,61 30,96 38,89 46,02 52,37 59,54 9,53 12,7
26.00 660 7,92 12,7 9,53 12,7
28.00 711 7,92 12,7 15,88 9,53 12,7
30.00 762 6,35 s = 7,92 7,92 12,70 15,88 9,53 12,7
32.00 813 7,92 12,70 15,88 17,48 9,53 12,7
34.00 864 7,92 12,70 15,88 17,48 9,53 12,7
36.00 914 7,92 12,70 15,88 19,05 9,53 12,7
42.00 1067 9,53 12,7
Sched 10
in mm Sched 5s Sched 20 Sched 30 Sched 40 Sched 60 Sched 80 Sched 100 Sched 120 Sched 140 Sched 160 Std.Wall Extra Strong
s= 10s
Nom size OD Schedule vs (Wall thickness in mm)

Liquid Flow Pattern

Molar Flow of Liquid above Feed Plate 75.1836 kmol/h

Molar Flow of Liquid below Feed Plate 192.6579 kmol/h

Molecular Wt. of Liquid Stream above Feed Plate 78.8115 kg/kmol

Molecular Wt. of Liquid Stream below Feed Plate 91.4385 kg/kmol

Maximum Volumetric Liquid Rate at Top 0.002032 m3/s

Maximum Volumetric Liquid Rate at Bottom 0.006285 m3/s

Liquid Flow Pattern at Top Single Pass

Liquid Flow Pattern at Bottom Single Pass

Areas and Weir Length Calculation Plate Specifications and Weir Height

2 "For columns operating above atmospheric pressure

Column Area 0.9311 m Weir Height 50 mm Should be less than 15% of plate spacing. Less than: 90 mm the weir heights will normally be between 40mm to
What Percent of Hole Diameter 5 mm Should be less than 6.5 mm. Greater Hole Diameter leads to more entrainment. 90mm. 40-50 mm is recommended."
Column Area is the 12 % Plate Thickness 5 mm Typical Values: 5mm for carbon steel; 3mm for stainless steel
Downcomer Area? Typically varies from: 1 6
2
DownComer Area 0.1117 m mm mm
Net Area 0.8194 m2 Weeping Check
Active Area 0.7077 m2
What Percent of Maximum Liquid Rate at Top 1.646 kg/sec
Active Area is Hole 10 % Maximum Liquid Rate at Bottom 4.893 kg/sec
Area?
Weir Length 0.8269 m
2
Hole Area 0.0708 m Turndown Ratio 0.7 Or 70 %

Minimum Liquid Rate at Top 1.152 kg/sec

"Weir Length or Chord Length
Minimum Liquid Rate at Bottom 3.425 kg/sec
should be normally between
0.6 to 0.85 times the column
diameter."
Maximum Depth of the
Maximum Depth of the crest of
Should be between: 13.658 mm crest of liquid over weir at 28.992 mm
liquid over weir at top
0.6648 mm and 0.9418 mm bottom
Minimum Depth of the "To ensure an even flow of liquid along
∗ 100 = 0.2745 ∗ 144.7 Minimum Depth of the crest of
crest of liquid over weir at the weir, the crest should be at least 10
10.768 mm 22.856 mm
liquid over weir at top
bottom mm at the lowest liquid rate."

Summation of Weir Height and Minimum Depth 60.768 mm K2 Factor at Top 30.4
of the Crest of Liquid over the weir at Top

Summation of Weir Height and Minimum Depth 72.856 mm K2 Factor at Bottom 30.6
of the Crest of Liquid over the weir at Bottom

Compare the K2 Values with the Graph

K2 at Top 30.4
K2 Values
K2 at Bottom 30.6

Minimum Design Vapor Velocities

 Minimum Design Vapor Velocity at Top 7.329 m/s Actual Minimum Vapor Velocity at Top 10.745 m/s Flooding Velocity at Top 1.935756 m/s
Minimum Design Vapor Velocity at Bottom 6.676 m/s Actual Minimum Vapor Velocity at Bottom 10.008 m/s Flooding Velocity at Bottom 1.454546 m/s

Weeping at Top 0 0: Good

Weeping at Bottom 0 1: Bad

Plate Pressure Drop

Maximum Vapor Velocity through Holes at Top 15.350 m/s

Maximum Vapor Velocity through Holes at Bottom 14.298 m/s

Percent Perforated Area 13 %

Initial Assumption can
the ratio of hole area to 10
active area, i.e.,
Ratio of Plate Thickness
1
to Hole Diameter

Orifice Coefficient 0.865

Dry Plate Drop at Top 53.519 mm of Liquid

Dry Plate Drop at Bottom 60.162 mm of Liquid

Residual Head at Top 15.434 mm of Liquid

Residual Head at Bottom 16.054 mm of Liquid

Total Plate Pressure Drop at Top 132.611 mm of Liquid

Total Plate Pressure Drop at Bottom 155.208 mm of Liquid

Average Pressure Drop for the 143.909 mm of liquid

3
entire Column Average Liquid Density for the entire 794.268 kg/m Pressure Drop per Plate 1.121 kPa
column (Arithmetic mean of Density
at Top and Density at Bottom)

Downcomer Liquid Backup

Height of Apron above the Plate
(First Assumption 10 mm less 0.04 m Clearance Area under Apron 0.0331 m2
than the weir height)
"5-10 mm less than weir height"

Area associated with

head loss in 0.0331 m2 Head Loss in Downcomer at Top 0.3070 mm Liquid
downcomer Head Loss in Downcomer at Bottom 5.9927 mm Liquid

DownComer Back at Top 196.576 mm Liquid Tray Spacing Check at Top 1 1: Positive
DownComer Back at Bottom 240.192 mm Liquid Tray Spacing Check at Bottom 1 0: Negative

Residence Time Check at Top 10.808 s Residence Time Check at Top 1 1: Positive
Residence Time Check at Bottom 4.270 s Residence Time Check at Bottom 1 0: Negative

"More than 3s"

Entrainment Check

Vapor Velocity at Top through Net Area 1.326 m/s

Vapor Velocity at Bottom through Net Area 1.235 m/s

Flooding Velocity at Top 1.936 m/s

Flooding Velocity at Bottom 1.455 m/s

Percent Flooding at Top 68.483 %

"Will normally be between 70 to 90
Percent Flooding at Bottom 84.892 %
percent of that which could cause
flooding."

Fractional Entrainment at Top 0.05

"Should be less than 0.1."
Fractional Entrainment at Bottom 0.035

Entrainment Check at Top 1 1: Positive

Entrainment Check at Bottom 1 0: Negative

Liquid Vapor Flow Factor at Top 0.032

Liquid Vapor Flow Factor at Bottom 0.095

Trial Layout of Tray

Ratio of Weir Length to Column Diameter 0.759

Angle subtended by Chord 94.6 degree C

Angle subtended at Plate Edge
by Unperforated Strip 85.4 degree C
"Inlet Calming Zone helps in reducing excessive
Unperforated Strip around plate Unperforated Strip around plate
weeping in this area because of high vertical velocity
edge 50 mm edge 50 mm
of the entering liquid in thedownward direction.
Mean Length, Unperforated "The width of each zone is usually made the
Mean Length of Calming Zones Outlet calming zone allows disengagement of vapor
Edge Strip 1.72 m 0.7634 m same; recommended values are: below 1.5
before the liquid enters the downcomer area." 50-
Area of Unperforated edge m diameter, 75 mm; above, 100 mm."
Area of Calming Zone 100mm: Acceptable
strips 0.086 m2 0.0763 m2

http://nptel.ac.in/courses/103103027/pdf/mod7.pdf
Total Area for Perforation 0.546 m2

Ratio of Hole Area to Area for Perforation 0.130 Our initial estimate was 0.1

Hole Area and Pitch

Ratio of Triangular Pitch to Hole Diameter 2.65 "Should be between 2.5-4"

Traingular Pitch Length 13.171 mm "Should not be less than 2 hole diameters, and the
normal range will be 2.5-4 diameters."
Number of Holes 3605
More than: 10 mm

Result Summary

Specification Value Units

Column Inner Diameter 1.089 m

Hole Size 5 mm
Hole size should be less than 6.5 mm.
Hole Pitch 13.171 mm (∆)
Entrainment may be greater for larger holes.
Active Holes 3605
Turn Down 0.7
Plate Spacing 0.6 m
Plate Thickness 5 mm
Plate Pressure Drop 1.121 kPa
2
Perforation Area 0.546 m
Hole Area 0.071 m2
2
Net Area 0.819 m
2
Downcomer Area 0.112 m
2
Column Area 0.931 m
2
Active Area 0.708 m
Weir Length 0.8269 m

Viscosity Determination (Standard Reference Data for the Viscosity of Toluene (NIST))

ln(ή) For Top -0.576128643 ή (For Top) 0.562070134 Viscosity of Solvent at Top 0.311499268 mPa.s
ln(ή) For Bottom -0.811491669 ή (For Bottom) 0.44419498 Viscosity of Solvent at Bottom 0.246172858 mPa.s

Top Temperature 355.8 K

Bottom Temperature 385.606 K
T* (For Top) 1.193359047
T* (For Bottom) 1.293328861
 Diffusivity Determination (Wilke and Chang 1955)
Top Tray Bottom Tray

Association Factor for Toluene 1 Association Factor for Toluene 1

Molecular Weight of Solvent 92 (Toluene) Molecular Weight of Solvent 92 (Toluene)
Top Temperature 355.8 K Bottom Temperature 385.606 K
Molar Volume of Solute 0.096 (Benzene) cu.m./kmol Molar Volume of Solute 0.096 (Benzene) cu.m./kmol
Diffusivity of Low Key 5.24298E-09 sq.m./sec Diffusivity of Low Key 7.19006E-09 sq.m./sec

Plate Efficiency Calculation (Van Winkle's Correlation)

Top Tray Bottom Tray

Liquid Density 809.913 kg per cu.m. Liquid Density 778.622 kg per cu.m.
Vapor Density 2.699 kg per cu.m. Vapor Density 3.36186 kg per cu.m.
Liquid Viscosity 3.09E-04 Ns/sq.m. Liquid Viscosity 2.31E-04 Ns/sq.m.
Vapor Viscosity 8.98E-06 Ns/sq.m. Vapor Viscosity 89.5492 Ns/sq.m.
Diffusivity of Low Key 5.24298E-09 sq.m./sec Diffusivity of Low Key 7.19006E-09 sq.m./sec
Weir Height 50 mm Weir Height 50 mm
Fractional Area 0.076 Fractional Area 0.076
Superficial Vapor Velocity 1.16658415 m/s Superficial Vapor Velocity 1.086622847 m/s
Surface Tension of Liquid 0.0208547 N/m Surface Tension of Liquid 0.0178389 N/m
Surface Tension Number 5.79E+01 Surface Tension Number 7.09E+01
Schmidt Number 72.76590841 Schmidt Number 41.34259313
Reynolds Number 6.70E+03 Reynolds Number 1.04E+04
Murphree Efficiency 7.30E-01 Murphree Efficiency 6.75E-01

m (Top) 1.07921 m (Bottom) 2.06346

mV/L 0.605868 mV/L 2.96849

Overall Column Efficiency

Top 0.6772 %
Bottom 0.7773 %
Overall 0.7256 %

View publication stats