Push Valve Experience

PUSH VALVE EXPERIENCE ON DISTILLATION TRAYS
By
Daniel R. Summers
SULZER CHEMTECH USA, Inc.
Presented at the AIChE Spring Meeting

Distillation Symposium – Session 4
April 12, 2005
Atlanta, Georgia
Copyright © 2005 by Sulzer Chemtech USA, Inc.

Unpublished
Abstract
Sulzer Chemtech has developed and employed push valves on all types of trays for the past
several years. Numerous towers have employed this technology and the feedback from its use is
outstanding. A discussion of this technology, its development, application and operational
feedback from a major chemical producer will be presented.
Background
In the early 1970’s, Union Carbide was applying slotting (an early form of push type valves) to
Styrene distillation columns with sieve trays to enhance tray efficiency and minimize pressure
drop(1,2). This was quite successful and the author, while in the employ of Union Carbide, recalls
some rather high tray efficiencies from these applications, some exceeding 100%. Sulzer
Chemtech is in the business of improving and developing new and better technologies for its
trayed and packed tower equipment. This excellent performance exhibited by Union Carbide’s
“Slotted Sieve Trays” did not go un-noticed. Sulzer Chemtech was looking to improve the
performance of its premier tray deck devices namely, V-Grid trays, and in particular the fixed
opening MVG valve tray. Sulzer Chemtech was looking for higher efficiency and/or lower
pressure drop. Development started in 1998 on the use of different types of tray devices that
could impart momentum to the liquid on a distillation tray. Some of the first applications of the
early “Push Valve” devices by Sulzer were in highly fouling services such as PVC slurry
strippers and Beer Mash Towers in Fuels Grade Ethanol Service(3).
Push valves have the ability to keep the top of the tray decks in fouling service very active and
they help “sweep” solids away that may tend to stagnate on the tray. As part of the MVGT
(now called VGPlus®) development work that was initiated by Sulzer Chemtech in late 1998,
many different tray deck devices were examined that could impart momentum to the liquid under
a truncated downcomer. Some of this work showed that by having a raised tray deck opening
that allowed vapor to issue in one direction (contrary to V-Grid openings which basically issue
vapor onto tray decks in two opposing directions) would provide a “push” to the liquid on the
tray. Several types and style “push” valves were examined for their momentum enhancement
capability. Two were chosen for further study and one was ultimately applied to the trays
installed at the major chemical producer’s site.
As early as 1970(4) FRI was studying the elimination of retrograde flow on sieve trays. In 1971,
D. W. Weiler et al. of Union Carbide(1) wrote a paper on Residence Time Distribution (RTD) on
distillation trays. Here, the concept of trying to maintain plug flow of liquid across a large
diameter tray was introduced. In a 1972 paper by Porter, Lockett and Lim(5), the concept that
there are two distinct liquid flow regions on large diameter sieve trays is introduced. Stagnant
zones were shown to exist near the tower wall in large diameter trays. In 1978, Kirkpatrick(6) et
al. discloses that high angle inlet slotting with louvered type devices are needed to ”overcome
fluid maldistribution” and ensure good sieve tray performance. Weiler(2) in 1981 showed that
additional louvered slotting was needed at the tray outlet to “satisfy gradient and RTD
requirements.” Both these references addressed the need for elimination of the “stagnant zone”
identified by Porter, Lockett and Lim.
The use of “push valves” on MVG V-Grid trays builds onto these ideas, the concept of
improving tray performance with a raised device on the tray deck. The MVG V-Grid tray has
been repeatedly applied with much success to many distillation applications since its invention in
1993(7). For this application, Sulzer Chemtech chose to use a large opening “push” valve to
enhance performance and further reduce fouling potential. The “push” valve chosen for this
particular service was the Mini Jet Tab (MJT), a sketch of this device is shown in Figure 3.
Laboratory work at Sulzer Chemtech showed that the MJT was very effective in providing a
forward thrust of vapor on the tray thus imparting momentum to the downstream liquid. By
strategically placing appropriate numbers of these MJT devices at the tray inlet, outlet and
around the periphery of the V-Grid tray, we could approach plug flow of liquid on the tray.
Because the V-Grid tray has shown improved mixing behavior over a sieve tray and also has a
small forward component to its hydrodynamic behavior, MJT units were not applied in the
middle of the tray to eliminate gradient as suggested by Weiler(2) for sieve trays in 1981. From
the Laboratory work, it was noticed that it does not take very many MJT units to impart a
significant amount of momentum to the liquid. Typical angles applied to the MJT units are 60
degrees outward for the inlet section, 45 degrees for the outlet section and straight-ahead for the
periphery. This is very similar to the references mentioned above. The layout of the bottom
trays installed is shown in Figure 4.
Theory
To get liquid or froth to move on a distillation tray in directions it does not naturally wish to
travel, one must either baffle the tray or allow a small portion of the vapor to blow horizontally
onto the tray deck and transfer its momentum to the liquid. Resistance to liquid flow must be
accounted for in the determination of how much vapor must pass horizontally onto the
distillation tray. Resistances such as roughness of the tray deck, the type and size of valve units,
the bubbles or jets passing vertically through the deck, the tower wall, bolts and nuts and finally
the liquid head itself. A comprehensive study was made by Sulzer Chemtech to determine when
each of these was important, how much horizontal push is needed and finally what direction to
make the push. In addition, CFD studies were employed to examine both the use of baffles as
well as push valves on trays.
Technology
Sulzer Chemtech discovered is that a fair amount of push valves are needed around the outside
periphery of the tray. To ensure that liquid flows across the tray in a “plug flow” manner. A
significant amount of push (or for VGPlus trays the use of inlet Baffle Bars(8)) is needed to
spread the liquid across the tray and keep it from simply flowing down the middle of the tower.
If one looks at the back of a chordal (or side) downcomer, you can envision that the tower wall
“focuses” the liquid flowing from the downcomer towards the tray centerline. This is the exact
opposite of what is needed to enable plug flow of liquid on a tray. Push valves spread the liquid
out onto the tray at the inlet. On VGPlus trays, Baffle Bars are used to spread this liquid out
instead of (or sometimes in support of) push valves. Most VGPlus trays have truncated
downcomers and therefore have little risk of additional downcomer backup with the use of
Baffle Bars.
Once the liquid has been spread out in its initial flow across the tray it becomes aerated and
turns into froth. The froth near the tower wall needs to flow faster than the froth in the center of
the tray. Therefore, push valves are needed in the region near the tower wall. Finally, as the
froth converges towards the outlet weir, especially on single pass trays, extra “push” is needed to
get the frothy mixture to flow over the outlet weir as uniformly as possible. If left alone, the
frothy mixture will try and “pile up” into the corners of the chordal downcomer. Sulzer
Chemtech has had experience with just such a case where the operating tower flooded
prematurely because the bulk of the liquid flow was directed towards the side downcomer
corners(9). Even though the average weir loading was quite reasonable in this instance, the local
weir loading was very high and resulted in excessive backup on the tray, high pressure drop and
premature flooding.
Push valves are a good addition to distillation trays but they not always needed or helpful. Trays
have operated quite successfully for decades without them. For example, flow path lengths of 36
inches (900 mm) or less are too short to be able to experience any mass transfer enhancement.
Constriction Factors (the length of the outlet weir divided by the maximum panel width) that are
greater than 0.85 do not need push valves because there is little or no spreading of liquid needed.
Finally, extremely low weir loadings, less than 0.5 gpm/inch (4.47 m3/m-hr) have so little liquid
that the froth is more easily influenced by the tray deck openings than by the few push valves
that may be employed on the tray.
Push valves have now been employed by Sulzer Chemtech since 2001. We have had excellent
feedback from their incorporation onto numerous V-Grid trays which include the SVG, MVG
and the latest addition to the family, the MMVG (micro V-Grid) valve. Complete heat and
material balances and tray efficiency data have been accumulated in 3 services to date. These
are a Beer Mash Tower(3), several towers in an aromatics unit, and two Acetic Acid Water
Removal Towers. The towers in the aromatics unit are a topic for a paper onto themselves. The
Acetic Acid Water Removal Towers will be discussed here.
Acetic Acid Water Removal Tower Operating Data
As the installation depicts in this paper, round valve trays had operated quite successfully for a
number of years. These trays were replaced with high capacity MVG trays with push valves.
The downcomers were not changed because they were adequately sized for future capacity. As a
result, this revamp only involved a deck change-out. The Water Removal Tower is simply a
rectification tower with no reboiler. The vapor feed has sufficient energy to drive the separation
in this tower. Water is removed from the top of the tower along with significant quantities of
inerts (i.e. nitrogen and oxygen) while Acetic Acid is recovered out the bottom. Operating data
from October 2001 was simulated and, based on matching the reflux rate and top purity, the
round valve trays were found to achieve a tray efficiency of 47%. Figure 1 shows the operating
data from the unit in October 2001. This operating data should be sufficient such that the reader
can judge for themselves the validity of the efficiency value. Tray efficiency was determined
using an NRTL liquid activity model with Hayden O’Connell vapor fugacities in Pro-II. This
efficiency may seem low until the reader realizes that there is 27 wgt% nitrogen and oxygen
(inerts) in the feed. These inert compounds basically get in the way in the vapor phase and slow
down diffusion of water and acetic acid to the vapor/liquid interface. This October data was
taken just before the tower was revamped to MVG trays.
Figure 2 shows operating data from February of this year which was clearly after the
replacement decks were installed. For this operating data the number of theoretical stages
increased 23% resulting in a tray efficiency of 58%. The tray efficiency was determined with
exactly the same model as the original October 2001 data was run. The absolute value of this
tray efficiency may seem low but it is significantly higher than before. In addition, capacity of
the unit increased from 2260 lb/min to 2828 lb/min which is a very significant 25% increase.
Table 1 shows the rating sheets of the current MVG tray design at the February 2005 operating
conditions. Note the long flow path length of 64 inches on these single pass trays.
The tower has been in continuous operation since November of 2001 with MVG trays.
Conclusions
Push valve technology is here to stay. Tray performance can be maximized for those critical
applications that need maximum capacity and tray efficiency.
References
(1) Weiler, D. W., Leavitt, F. W., Bonnet, F. W., “Residence Time Distribution and Plate
Efficiency of Linde Slotted sieve Trays”, AIChE 68th National Meeting March 1971
(2) Weiler, D. W., Catani, S. J., “Performance of Linde Slotted Sieve Trays in the CCB
Styrene Process”, AIChE 74th National Meeting November 1981
(3) Summers, D. R. and Ehmann, D., “Enhanced V-Grid Trays Increase Column
Performance”, AIChE Distillation Honors Session November, 2002
(4) Shah, G. B., Yanagi, T., “Control of Fluid Flow on Fractionating Trays”, FRI Topical
Report No. 50, November 1970
(5) Porter, K. E., Lockett, M. J., Lim, C. T., “The Effect of Liquid Channeling on Distillation
Plate Efficiency”, Transactions of the Institute of Chemical Engineers (Vol. 50) pp. 91-
101, 1972
(6) Kirkpatrick, R. D., Weiler, D. W., US Patent 4,101,610 “Liquid-Gas Contacting Tray”,
Issued July 18, 1977
(7) Nutter, D.E., U.S. Patent 5,360,583 “High Capacity Tray for Gas-Liquid Contact
Apparatus”, Issued Nov. 1, 1994
(8) Cai, T.J., King, D.W., “Test of Sulzer MVGT Tray”, FRI Topical Report No. 149,
August 15, 2003
(9) Mitsubishi Chemical Column 3R-220 Sulzer Job 10.03493 dated August 26, 2001
Figure 1 – October 2001 Operating Data QC = 45.7 MMBTU/hr
135.6 ºC 64 psig
65.2 psig Inerts

900 lb/min
3.7 wgt% O2
607 lb/min Balance N2
44.5 ºC Saturated with H2O
60
Trays
Water Water
Removal 134 lb/min
Tower 1.14 wgt% HOAc
47% Tray Efficiency

Diameter = 84/102”
Vapor Feed
160.2 ºC
2,259 lb/min
Acetic Acid 9.32 wgt% Water
Figure 2 – February 2005 Operating Data QC = 60.1 MMBTU/hr
138.2 ºC 71 psig
72.2 psig Inerts

1116 lb/min
3.7 wgt% O2
774 lb/min Balance N2
52.4 ºC Saturated with H2O
60
Trays
Water Water
Removal 235 lb/min
Tower 1.654 wgt% HOAc
58% Tray Efficiency

Diameter = 84/102”
Vapor Feed
164.4 ºC
2,828 lb/min
Acetic Acid 10.94 wgt% Water
Figure 3 - Mini Jet Tab “Push” Valve
~1”
Figure 4 – Tray Layout
Flow
Table 1
Project:
Service: Water Removal Column
Item: Sulzer Chemtech
Date Run: 7-Apr-2005
Downcomer Type: STANDARD Geometry: TRAYS 60-21

Tray Dimensions:
Deck Type: MVG Tray Spacing, [in]: 18
Tower Diameter,[in]: 84 Valve Lift, [in]: 0.3125
Number of Passes: 1 No. of Valve Units: 926
Tray Thickness, [in]: 0.078 No. of Push Valves: 50
Downcomer Dimensional Input Data: Tray Area Calculated Output:
Side Center Off-Center Open Area, [ft2]: 4.79
Downcomer Top Width, [in]: 10 N/A N/A Open Area, [%]: 14.37
Downcomer Bottom Width, [in]: 10 N/A N/A Tower Area, [ft2]: 38.48
Downcomer Clearance, [in]: 1 N/A N/A Downcomer Area, [ft2]: 2.59
Outlet Weir Height, [in]: 2 N/A N/A Downcomer Area, %: 6.7
Outlet Weir Length per D.C.,[in]: 0 N/A N/A Active Area, [ft2]: 33.31
Inlet Weir Height, [in]: 0 N/A N/A Active Area, %: 86.6
Rec. Pan Depth, [in]: 0 N/A N/A
Pan Width, [in]: 0 N/A N/A
Radius Tip Downcomer: NO NO NO
Downcomer Calculated Output:
Downcomer Top Area, [ft2]: 2.59 0 0
Downcomer Bottom Area, [ft2]: 2.59 0 0
Eff. Weir Length/Downcomer,[in]: 54.41 0 0
Fluid Data Input:

Case Number: 1 2
Fluid Name: TOP TRAY 21
Description:
Vapor:
Flow Multiplier: 1 1
Mult. Vapor Rate, [lb/hr]: 124380 143040
Density, [lb/ft3]: 0.2468 0.2916
QV, [CFS]: 139.99 136.26
Liquid:
Flow Multiplier: 1 1
Mult. Liquid Rate, [lb/hr]: 50640 70440
Density, [lb/ft3]: 55.6 55.39
Surface Tension, [d/cm]: 49.98 44
Viscosity, [cP]: 0.191 0.202
QL, [gpm]: 113.55 158.55
System Factor : 1 1
Calculated Output:
Jet Flood, [%]: 69 74
Downcomer Velocity, [ft/sec]: 0.10 0.14
Downcomer Froth Backup, [%]: 35 41
Weir Loading, [gpm/in]: 2.09 2.91
DryDrop, [in H20]: 1.42 1.58
Delta P, [mmHg]: 4.29 4.79
Design Notes: Operation from 2/2005

Engineer Name: DRSummers
Copyright © 2004. This information is the exclusive property of Sulzer Chemtech and It can not be distributed to any party without written
consent from Sulzer Chemtech. The figures indicated herein are for information purposes only and not binding to the supplier. Any assured Page 1 of 3
quality performance guarantee or specification may only be accepted, if expressly identified as such..
Table 1 Cont’d
Project:

Tray Dimensions:
Downcomer Top Width, [in]: 10 N/A N/A Open Area, [%]: 14.93
Downcomer Bottom Width, [in]: 10 N/A N/A Tower Area, [ft2]: 38.48
Downcomer Clearance, [in]: 1 N/A N/A Downcomer Area, [ft2]: 2.59
Fluid Data Input:

Case Number: 3
Fluid Name: TRAY 8
Description:
Vapor:
Flow Multiplier: 1
Mult. Vapor Rate, [lb/hr]: 198120
Density, [lb/ft3]: 0.38116
QV, [CFS]: 144.38
Liquid:
Flow Multiplier: 1
Mult. Liquid Rate, [lb/hr]: 117000
Surface Tension, [d/cm]: 33.76
Viscosity, [cP]: 0.229
QL, [gpm]: 263.4
System Factor : 1
Calculated Output:
Jet Flood, [%]: 69
Downcomer Velocity, [ft/sec]: 0.23
Downcomer Froth Backup, [%]: 36
Weir Loading, [gpm/in]: 4.84
DryDrop, [in H20]: 2.2
Delta P, [mmHg]: 6.18

Table 1 Cont’d
Project:

Tray Dimensions:
Downcomer Top Width, [in]: 12.25 N/A N/A Open Area, [%]: 14.99
Downcomer Bottom Width, [in]: 12.25 N/A N/A Tower Area, [ft2]: 56.75
Downcomer Clearance, [in]: 1.25 N/A N/A Downcomer Area, [ft2]: 3.86
Fluid Data Input:

Case Number: 4
Fluid Name: BOTTOM
Description:
Vapor:
Flow Multiplier: 1
Mult. Vapor Rate, [lb/hr]: 256140
QV, [CFS]: 142.99
Liquid:
Flow Multiplier: 1
Mult. Liquid Rate, [lb/hr]: 182160
Surface Tension, [d/cm]: 22.66
Viscosity, [cP]: 0.252
QL, [gpm]: 412.03
System Factor : 1
Calculated Output:
Jet Flood, [%]: 60
Downcomer Velocity, [ft/sec]: 0.24
Downcomer Froth Backup, [%]: 40
Weir Loading, [gpm/in]: 6.21
DryDrop, [in H20]: 1.29
Delta P, [mmHg]: 5.08


Push Valve Experience

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Push Valve Experience

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

PUSH VALVE EXPERIENCE ON DISTILLATION TRAYS

Presented at the AIChE Spring Meeting

Copyright © 2005 by Sulzer Chemtech USA, Inc.

Acetic Acid Water Removal Tower Operating Data

65.2 psig Inerts

47% Tray Efficiency

72.2 psig Inerts

58% Tray Efficiency

Downcomer Type: STANDARD Geometry: TRAYS 60-21

Fluid Data Input:

Design Notes: Operation from 2/2005

Downcomer Type: STANDARD Geometry: TRAYS 8-10

Fluid Data Input:

Design Notes: Operation from 2/2005

Downcomer Type: STANDARD Geometry: TRAYS 1-3

Fluid Data Input:

Design Notes: Operation from 2/2005

Potrebbero piacerti anche