Plant Design

LECTURE NINE
054410 PLANT DESIGN
054410 Plant Design

LECTURE 9:
SEPARATION TOWER DESIGN
Daniel R. Lewin
Department of Chemical Engineering
Technion, Haifa, Israel
Refs: Seider, Seader and Lewin (2004), Chapters 14 and 16
Seader and Henley Separation Process Principles (1998), Chaps. 6 and 7
Kister, Distillation Design (1992), Chaps. 6 and 7
9-1
PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin
Separation Tower Design
Lecture Objectives
After this lecture, you should be:
n Familiar with the constraints affecting the
performance of trayed distillation column.
o Able to estimate the efficiency of a trayed
distillation column
p Able to compute the optimal diameter of a trayed
distillation column.
q Able to define all of the dimensions of a distillation
column, including the minimum wall thickness.
For a review of distillation, see:
a) Multimedia section on HYSYS-Separations
b) http://lorien.ncl.ac.uk/ming/distil/distil0.htm
9-2
Daniel R. Lewin, Technion
LECTURE NINE
054410 PLANT DESIGN
Distillation Column Design Overview

Steps involved:
n Selection of operating pressure, to allow the usage of
cooling water for condenser, if possible.
o Short-cut method used to estimate RR, number of
ideal stages, NT,I = NR,I + NS,I , and location of feed tray.
p Rigorous solution of material and energy balances to
meet the number of specifications = DOFs.
q Estimate tray efficiency, E0, and number of actual
trays: NR,A = NR,I E0 and NS,A = NS,I E0
r Estimate tower height, diameter, and wall thickness.
It is assumed that you are familiar with steps n, o and
p. This lecture focuses on steps q and r.
9-3
Focus of this lecture

The focus of this lecture
is on the additional details
required to permit the
mechanical design of
multicomponent
separation
towers.
9-4
LECTURE NINE
054410 PLANT DESIGN
n A Look Inside a Distillation Column

Liquid
Outlet weir
a
a
a
Active tray area
Downcomer
Vapor
9-5
n Bubble-caps, Valves or Sieves
Bubble-cap tray
Bubble-caps
Valves
Sieves
Relative cost
2.0
1.2
1.0
Pressure drop
Highest
Intermediate
Lowest
Efficiency
Highest
Highest
Lowest
Vapor capacity
Lowest
Highest
Highest
Typical turndown ratio

9-6
Sieve tray
Valve tray
LECTURE NINE
054410 PLANT DESIGN
Bubble-cap tray
9-7
Valve tray
9-8
LECTURE NINE
054410 PLANT DESIGN
Sieve tray
9-9
n Tray Performance Constraints

Adverse vapor/liquid flow conditions can
cause:
Foaming
Entrainment
Flooding
Weeping/dumping
Downcomer
flooding
9 - 10
LECTURE NINE
054410 PLANT DESIGN

Foaming
Foaming refers to the expansion of liquid due to
passage of vapor or gas, caused by high vapor flow
rates.
Although it provides high
interfacial liquid-vapor contact,
excessive foaming often leads to
liquid buildup on trays. In some
cases, foaming may be so bad
that the foam mixes with liquid
on the tray above.
Whatever the cause, separation
efficiency is always reduced.
9 - 11

Entrainment
Caused by excessively high vapor flow rates.
Entrainment refers to the liquid carried by vapor to
the tray above.
It is detrimental
because tray
efficiency is reduced:
lower volatile material
is carried to a plate
holding liquid of
higher volatility.
Excessive entrainment
can lead to flooding.
9 - 12
LECTURE NINE
054410 PLANT DESIGN

Flooding
Flooding is brought about by excessive vapor flow,
causing liquid to be entrained in the vapor up the
column.
The increased pressure from excessive vapor also
backs up the liquid in the downcomer, causing an
increase in liquid holdup on the plate above.
Depending on the degree of flooding, the maximum
capacity of the column may be severely reduced.
Flooding is detected by sharp increases in column
differential pressure and significant decrease in
separation efficiency.
9 - 13

Weeping/Dumping
Caused by excessively low vapor flow.
The pressure exerted by the vapor is insufficient to
hold up the liquid on the tray. Therefore, liquid starts
to leak through perforations.
Excessive weeping will lead to dumping - the liquid on
all trays will crash (dump) through to the base of the
column (via a domino effect) and the column will have
to be re-started.
Weeping is indicated by a sharp pressure drop in the
column and reduced separation efficiency.
9 - 14
LECTURE NINE
054410 PLANT DESIGN

Downcomer Flooding
Caused by excessively high liquid flow and/or a
mismatch between the liquid flow rate and the
downcomer area.
This can be avoided by ensuring that the downcomer
back-up (level) is below 50% of the tray spacing. This
can be checked by performing tray sizing using a
process simulator.
If necessary, design multipass trays (see later).
9 - 15
o Tray Efficiency Estimation

The actual number of trays required for a particular
separation duty is determined by the efficiency of
the plate.
Any factors that cause a decrease in tray efficiency
will also change the performance of the column.
Tray efficiencies are affected by fouling, wear and
tear and corrosion, and the rates at which these
occur depends on the properties of the liquids being
processed. Thus appropriate materials should be
specified for tray construction.
9 - 16
LECTURE NINE
054410 PLANT DESIGN
o Empirical Efficiency Estimation
OConnell correlation: EO = 0.492 ( L )
0.245
10%
L = viscosity
= relative volatility at average column conditions

of key component
9 - 17
Example 1: Tray Efficiency Calculation

Estimate the tray efficiency for the simulated column shown in
the table below.
LH = 1.945
9 - 18
LECTURE NINE
054410 PLANT DESIGN
Example 1: Tray Efficiency Calculation

Solution.
The average column temperature is (70 + 309)/2 = 190 oF.
The closest match to this temperature is at stage 8, at which
the viscosity is 0.133 cP (note that the viscosity does not
change all that much over the entire column).
Hence, EO = 0.492 ( L )
0.245
= 0.492 ( 0.133 1.945 )
0.245
= 0.69
Given that the estimate is subject to 10% error, a reasonable
estimate would be 0.62. Thus, the total number of trays will be:
29 7 18 = 11 trays in the rectifying section

18/0.62 = 29 trays
29 11 18 = 18 trays in the stripping section
9 - 19
p Tray Section Capacity

Defining column diameter.
Most of the factors that affect column operation
are due to vapor flow conditions: either excessive or
too low.
Vapor flow velocity is dependent on column diameter.
Weeping determines the minimum vapor flow
required while flooding determines the maximum
vapor flow allowed, hence column capacity.
If the column diameter is not sized properly, the
column will not perform well. Not only will operational
problems occur, the desired separation duties may
not be achieved.
9 - 20
10
LECTURE NINE
054410 PLANT DESIGN
p Estimating Flooding Velocity

The flooding velocity is computed based on a force balance on
a suspended liquid droplet. This is the critical velocity at which
liquid droplets become suspended, a result of a perfect
balance between gravitational, buoyant and drag forces
(Sounders and Brown, 1934):
drag
( )
d 3
L 6p g

gravity
( )
( )
d 2
d 3
u2
G 6p g CD 4p f G = 0
2

buoyancy
buoyancy
drag
Solving for flooding velocity:

12
L G
uf = C
9 - 21
gravity
4d p g
where C =
3CD
uf

In practice, C is treated as an empirical parameter determined
using experimental data.
C = C SB FST FF FHA
where CSB is an empirical function of the ratio:
FLG = ( L G ) G L
and FST = ( 20 )
0.2
, = liquid surface tension [dyne/cm]
1, for non-foaming systems

(e.g., most distillation applications)
FF =
0.5-0.75, for foaming systems
(e.g., absorption with heavy oils.
1, for Ah Aa 0.1
FHA =
5 ( Ah Aa ) + 0.5, for 0.06 Ah Aa < 0.1
9 - 22
11
LECTURE NINE
054410 PLANT DESIGN

12
L G
uf = C SB ( 20 ) FF FHA
0.2
9 - 23
p Tray Section Capacity

Tower inside cross-sectional area, AT, is computed at a
fraction f (typically 0.75-0.85) of the vapor flooding
velocity, uf :
G = (fuf ) (AT Ad ) G
(14.10)
Substituting AT = (DT ) 4 into Eq.(14.10) and solving

2
for DT :
4G
DT =
(fuf ) (1 Ad AT ) G
0.1 ,
(F 0.1) ,
Ad
= 0.1 + LG
AT
9
0.2 ,
9 - 24
12
1/2
(14.11)
FLG 0.1
0.1 FLG 1.0 FLG = ( L G ) G L
FLG 1.0
LECTURE NINE
054410 PLANT DESIGN
p Selection of Multipass Trays
9 - 25
Example 2: Tray Diameter Calculation

Compute the diameter of a valved-distillation column with the
following data - Liquid phase: = 7.1 dyne/cm, L = 215,000 lb/hr,
L =32.4 lb/ft3, Vapor phase: G = 244,000 lb/hr, G =1.095 lb/ft3.
Solution.
FLG = (215,000/244,000)(1.095/32.4)0.5 = 0.162
9-23 , for 24 tray spacing, CSB = 0.09 m/s
From Slide
slide 9-23
FF = 1 (no foaming), FHA = 1 (valves), so:
32.24 1.095
= 0.39 m/s = 4,610 ft/hr
1.095
0.1 ) 9 = 0.107. Assuming operation at 80% flooding:
Uf = 0.09 ( 7.1 20 )
Ad AT = 0.1 + (FLG
0.2
(1 )(1 )
1/2
4 (244, 000 )
DT =
= 9.3 ft
0.8 ( 4, 610 ) (1 0.107 ) 1.095
Note: (a) In general, diameters in rectifier and stripper may differ.
(b) If DT < 2 ft, use a packed column.
9 - 26
13
LECTURE NINE
054410 PLANT DESIGN

For this large diameter column, we should consider installing a
multipass tray. Recall from data: L = 215,000 lb/hr and L =32.4 lb/ft3
= 4.33 lb/gal
Volumetric flow rate = (215,000/60 ) / 4.33 = 828 gpm
9.3
828
9 - 27

Compute the tray diameter for the simulated column shown in
9-18 . Assume valve trays and light
the table on Slide
slide 9-18
hydrocarbon service. FF = 1 (no foaming), FHA = 1 (valves)
Solution.
The first thing we need to do is to identify the critical tray in
both the rectifier and stripping sections, defined as the trays
in which the loads for each section are maximized.
Rectifier Section - based on Stage 3
Stripper Section - based on stage 19
9 - 28
14
LECTURE NINE
054410 PLANT DESIGN

Rectifier Section (based on Stage 3).
FLG = (85,360/121,184)(2.478/27.944)0.5 = 0.2098
Uf = 0.21 (3.3 20 )
0.2
(1 )(1 )
27.979 2.478
= 0.47 m/s = 5,551 ft/hr
2.478
Ad AT = 0.1 + (FLG 0.1 ) 9 = 0.112. Assuming operation at 80% flooding:

1/2
4 (121,184 )
DT,R =
= 3.97 ft
0.8 ( 5, 551 ) (1 0.112 ) 2.478
Stripper Section (based on stage 19).
FLG = (185,434/129,112)(3.614/27.191)0.5 = 0.5236
Uf = 0.16 (2.84 20 )
0.2
27.191 3.614
= 0.277 m/s = 3,272 ft/hr
3.614
1/2
4 (129,112 )
=
= 5.40 ft
0.8 (3,272 ) (1 0.117 ) 3.614
(1 )(1 )
Ad AT = 0.147. Hence, DT,S
Since the difference more than 20%, note that the rectifier diameter is
4 ft
and the
stripper
is 5.5 ft (to nearest ).
9 - 29
PLANT
DESIGN - diameter
Daniel R. Lewin
p Estimating Column Pressure Drop

Typically, tray pressure drop for flow of vapor in a tower
is between 0.05-0.15 psi/tray.
For a sieve tray, the head
loss is due to the friction
for vapor flow through the
tray perforations, the
holduo of the liquid, and the
loss due to surface tension:
ht = hd + hA + h
ht = total pressure drop [in]
hd = dry tray pressure drop [in]
hA = equivalent head on tray [in]
h = pressure drop due to s.t. [in]

9 - 30
15
LECTURE NINE
054410 PLANT DESIGN

Dry sieve tray pressure drop is computed using a
modified orifice equation:
uo2 G
2
C o L
hd = 0.186
u0 = hole velocity [ft/s]
C 0 depends on percent hole area and the ratio of tray thickness

to hole diameter. Range: 0.65-0.85. Typical value: 0.73.
9 - 31

Equivalent height of clear liquid holdup on tray:
23
q
hA = e hw + C L
Lw e
hw = weir height [in]
e = effective relative froth density (ht. of clear liquid/froth height)

= exp ( 4.257KS0.91 )
12
L G
= superficial vapor velocity [ft/s] based on active bubbling area, Aa
= AT Ad
= weir length [in] (for Ad AT = 0.1, taken as 73% of DT )
= liquid flow rate across tray [gal/min]
= 0.362 + 0.317 exp ( 3.5hW )
KS = capacity parameter [ft/s] = ua

ua
Aa
LW
qL
C
9 - 32
16
LECTURE NINE
054410 PLANT DESIGN

As the gas emerges from the tray perforations, the
bubbles must overcome surface tension. The pressure
drop due to the surface tension is given by the
difference between the pressure inside the bubble and
that due to the liquid:
6
h =
g LDB (max )
Generally, the maximum bubble diameter, DB(max), may be

taken as the tray hole diameter.
9 - 33
Example 4: Estimating Tray P

Estimate the tray vapor pressure drop for a 1m diameter
absorber equipped with sieve trays. Given: hw = 2, DH = 3/16
Liquid phase: = 70 dyne/cm, L = 2,883 kg/hr, L = 986 kg/m3
Vapor phase: G = 7,920 kg/hr, G = 1.92 kg/m3.
Solution.
At the bottom of the tower, vapor velocity based on the total
cross-sectional area of the tower is:
7, 920 3, 600
2
(1.92) (1 )
= 1.46 m/s
For a 10% hole area, based on total cross-section of the tower:

1.46
u0 =
= 14.6 m/s = 47.9 ft/s
0.1
47.92 1.92
Hence, hd = 0.186
= 1.56"
2
0.73 986
9 - 34
17
LECTURE NINE
054410 PLANT DESIGN

Solution (contd).
Taking weir length as 73% of DT gives LW = 0.73 m = 28.7
2, 883 60
= 12.9 gpm
986 0.003785
Liquid flow rate in gpm, qL =
Ad/AT = 0.1, Aa/AT = 0.9, so ua = 1.46/0.9 = 1.62 m/s = 5.32 ft/s.

KS = ua ( G
( L G ) )
12
e = exp ( 4.257KS
0.91
= 0.235 ft/s
) = 0.32
C = 0.362 + 0.317 exp ( 3.5hW ) = 0.362

23
Hence, hA = e hw + C (qL ( Lw e ) ) = 0.67 "
9 - 35

Solution (contd).
Assuming DB(max) = DH = 3/16 = 0.00476 m
= 70 dynes/cm = 0.07 N/m = 0.07 kg/s2 and g = 9.8 m/s2
Hence, h =
g LDB (max )
= 0.000913 m = 0.36"
Thus, total head loss/tray, ht = hd + hA + h
= 1.56 + 0.67 + 0.36
= 2.59"
Recalling that L = 986 kg/m3 = 0.0356 lb/in3
Thus, the tray vapor pressure drop = htL = 0.092 psi

9 - 36
18
LECTURE NINE
054410 PLANT DESIGN
q Complete Column Sizing

Disengagement
4 ft
Rectifying Section
2Nr ft
Dr ft
Stripping Section
2Ns ft
Ds ft
Skirt
10 ft
9 - 37
Sump
Maximum height of column = 175, Maximum L/D ratio = 30

q ASME Pressure Vessel Code

In the absence of wind and earthquake conditions and
excluding vacuum operation:
12Pd DI
Tp =
(16.60)
2 S E 1.2 Pd
Tp = wall thickness [in] to withstand internal pressure
Pd = internal design pressure [psig]
DI = inside shell diameter [ft]
S = maximum allowable stress at design temp. [psig]
E = weld integrity (E = 0.85 for wall thicknesses < 1.25".
A value of 1 is used for thicknesses more than 1.25")
Conditions
S (psig)
CS SA-285, grade C
13,750
-20-750 oF with H2
1%Cr, 0.5%Mo Steel, SA-387B
15,000
to 800 oF with H2
14,750
oF
13,100
to 900
9 - 38
19
Recommended material
-20-650 oF no H2
with H2
LECTURE NINE
054410 PLANT DESIGN

For vertical vessels, the vessel walls need to withstand wind
load, computed using:
0.22 (Do + 18 ) L2
Tw =
2
SDo
where Do is outside shell diameter (inches), L is vessel height

(tangent to tangent length, in inches), and the factor of 18
allows for the column cage ladders, which adds additional
effective diameter to the column.
When there is wind load, the girth seam must withstand the
combined load of the wind and the internal pressure, the latter
computed using:
12Pg DI
Tg =
2SE + 0.4Pg
An estimate for the required wall thickness at the bottom of
the tower is then: Tb = Tw + Tg
9 - 39

To estimate the vessel thickness (assumed constant), use the
average of the top and bottom thicknesses, plus the corrosion
allowance, Tc, usually 0.125". Thus the values of wall thickness
are computed as follows:
HORIZONTAL VESSELS.
Ts =Tp +Tc
VERTICAL VESSELS.
Ts = 0.5 (Tb +Tp ) +Tc
9 - 40
20
LECTURE NINE
054410 PLANT DESIGN

At low pressures, wall thickness computed using the above
equations may be too small to give sufficient rigidity to vessels.
The minimum wall thickness below should be used.
DI [ft]
Up to 4
4-6
6-8
8-10
10-12
Minimum value for tp [in]

1/4
5/16
3/8
7/16
1/2
Finally, the values computed need to be rounded up to the

nearest standard plate thickness, as given by the table below:
Ts up to [in]
1
2
3
>3
9 - 41
Rounding increment [in]

1/32
1/16
1/8
1/4
Example 5: Wall Thickness Calculation

Compute the wall thickness for a distillation column with height
175 ft and inside diameter 10 ft. The operating pressure is 110
psia and 150 oF at the bottom of the tower and 100 psia and
120 oF at the top. Material of construction is CS.
Solution. Design basis: Pd = 1.2max P = 1.30(110-14.7) = 123 psig
Td = max T + 50 oF = 200 oF.
Using Eq. (16.60) assuming CS shell:
120 123
Tp =
= 0.635"
2 13,750 0.85 1.2 123
The vessel thickness at the bottom of the tower is:
0.22 (10 12 + 18 ) 1752
123 10 12
Tb =
+
= 1.21"
2
13, 750 10
2 13, 750 1.0 + 0.4 123
Thus: Ts = 0.5 Tb +Tp +Tc = 0.5 (1.21 + 0.635 ) + 0.125 = 1.049"
Rounding up, this gives Ts = 1.0625 (1 1/16)

9 - 42
21
LECTURE NINE
054410 PLANT DESIGN
Summary
After reviewing the materials of this lecture, you
should be:
n Familiar with the constraints affecting the
performance of trayed distillation column.
o Able to estimate the efficiency of a trayed
distillation column.
p Able to compute the optimal diameter of a
trayed distillation column.
q Able to define all of the dimensions of a
distillation column, including the minimum wall
thickness.
9 - 43
22

Plant Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plant Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LECTURE NINE

054410 PLANT DESIGN

054410 Plant Design

PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin

Separation Tower Design

PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin

Separation Tower Design

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054410 PLANT DESIGN

Distillation Column Design Overview

PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin

Separation Tower Design

Focus of this lecture

PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin

Separation Tower Design

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054410 PLANT DESIGN

n A Look Inside a Distillation Column

PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin

Separation Tower Design

n Bubble-caps, Valves or Sieves

Typical turndown ratio

PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin

Separation Tower Design

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054410 PLANT DESIGN

n Bubble-caps, Valves or Sieves

PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin

Separation Tower Design

n Bubble-caps, Valves or Sieves

PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin

Separation Tower Design

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054410 PLANT DESIGN

n Bubble-caps, Valves or Sieves

PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin

Separation Tower Design

n Tray Performance Constraints

PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin

Separation Tower Design

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054410 PLANT DESIGN

n Tray Performance Constraints

PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin

Separation Tower Design

n Tray Performance Constraints

PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin

Separation Tower Design

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054410 PLANT DESIGN

n Tray Performance Constraints

PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin

Separation Tower Design

n Tray Performance Constraints

PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin

Separation Tower Design

Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

054410 PLANT DESIGN

n Tray Performance Constraints

PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin

Separation Tower Design

o Tray Efficiency Estimation

PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin

Separation Tower Design