Dist Design Code PDF

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
1 Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

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.
Focus of this lecture…
The focus of this lecture

is on the additional details
required to permit the
mechanical design of
multicomponent
separation
towers.

n A Look Inside a Distillation Column

Liquid
Outlet weir
a a
a a
Active tray area
Downcomer
Vapor
n Bubble-caps, Valves or Sieves…
Bubble-cap tray Valve tray Sieve 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 5 4 2

Bubble-cap tray
Valve tray

Sieve tray
n Tray Performance Constraints

Adverse vapor/liquid flow conditions can
cause:
Foaming
Entrainment
Flooding
Weeping/dumping
Downcomer
flooding
9 - 10 PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin Separation Tower 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.

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.


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.

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.


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).
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.

o Empirical Efficiency Estimation
O’Connell correlation: EO = 0.492 ( µL α )

−0.245
± 10%
µ L = viscosity ⎫⎪
α = relative volatility ⎬ at average column conditions
of key component ⎪⎭
Example 1: Tray Efficiency Calculation

Estimate the tray efficiency for the simulated column shown in
the table below.
α LH = 1.945

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 ( µL α )
−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
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.

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
ρL 6p g

( )
πd 3
( )
πd 3
( )
− ρG 6p g − CD 4p f ρG = 0

2
πd 2 u2 buoyancy
gravity buoyancy drag
Solving for flooding velocity: gravity

12
⎛ ρL − ρG ⎞ ⎛ 4d p g ⎞
uf = C ⎜ ⎟ where C = ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ρG ⎠ ⎝ 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 ) ρG ρL
and FST = ( σ 20 )
0.2
, σ = 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


12
⎛ ρL − ρG ⎞
uf = C SB ( σ 20 ) FF FHA ⎜
0.2
⎟
⎝ ρG ⎠
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 ) ρG (14.10)
Substituting AT = π (DT ) 4 into Eq.(14.10) and solving
2
1/2
for DT : ⎡ 4G ⎤
DT = ⎢ ⎥ (14.11)
⎢⎣ (fuf ) π (1 − Ad AT ) ρG ⎥⎦
⎧0.1 , FLG ≤ 0.1 ⎫

⎪ ⎪
Ad ⎪ (F − 0.1) ,
= ⎨0.1 + LG
⎪
0.1 ≤ FLG ≤ 1.0 ⎬ FLG = ( L G ) ρG ρL
AT ⎪ 9 ⎪
⎪⎩0.2 , FLG ≥ 1.0 ⎪⎭

p Selection of Multipass Trays
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,
ρL =32.4 lb/ft3, Vapor phase: G = 244,000 lb/hr, ρG =1.095 lb/ft3.
Solution.
FLG = (215,000/244,000)(1.095/32.4)0.5 = 0.162
From Slide 9-23 , for 24” tray spacing, CSB = 0.09 m/s
slide 9-23
FF = 1 (no foaming), FHA = 1 (valves), so:
32.24 − 1.095
Uf = 0.09 ( 7.1 20 )
0.2
(1 )(1 ) = 0.39 m/s = 4,610 ft/hr
1.095
Ad AT = 0.1 + (FLG − 0.1 ) 9 = 0.107. Assuming operation at 80% flooding:
1/2
⎡ 4 (244, 000 ) ⎤
DT = ⎢ ⎥ = 9.3 ft
⎣ 0.8 ( 4, 610 ) π (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.


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

Compute the tray diameter for the simulated column shown in
the table on Slide
slide 9-18
9-18 . Assume valve trays and light
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


Rectifier Section (based on Stage 3).
FLG = (85,360/121,184)(2.478/27.944)0.5 = 0.2098
27.979 − 2.478
Uf = 0.21 (3.3 20 )
0.2
(1 )(1 ) = 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 ) π (1 − 0.112 ) 2.478 ⎦
Stripper Section (based on stage 19).
FLG = (185,434/129,112)(3.614/27.191)0.5 = 0.5236
27.191 − 3.614
Uf = 0.16 (2.84 20 )
0.2
(1 )(1 ) = 0.277 m/s = 3,272 ft/hr
3.614
1/2
⎡ 4 (129,112 ) ⎤
Ad AT = 0.147. Hence, DT,S =⎢ ⎥ = 5.40 ft
⎣ 0.8 (3,272 ) π (1 − 0.117 ) 3.614 ⎦
Since the difference more than 20%, note that the rectifier diameter is
4 ft and the
9 - 29 stripper
PLANT DESIGN - diameter is 5.5 ft (to nearest ½’).
Daniel R. Lewin Separation Tower Design
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 + hσ
ht = total pressure drop [in]
hd = dry tray pressure drop [in]
hA = equivalent head on tray [in]
hσ = pressure drop due to s.t. [in]


Dry sieve tray pressure drop is computed using a
modified orifice equation:
⎛ uo2 ⎞ ⎛ ρG ⎞
hd = 0.186 ⎜ 2 ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎝ C o ⎠ ⎝ ρL ⎠
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.

Equivalent height of clear liquid holdup on tray:
23
⎡ ⎛ q ⎞ ⎤
hA = φe ⎢hw + C ⎜ L ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ Lw φe ⎠ ⎥⎦
hw = weir height [in]
φe = effective relative froth density (ht. of clear liquid/froth height)
= exp ( −4.257KS0.91 )
12
⎛
ρG ⎞
KS = capacity parameter [ft/s] = ua ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ρL − ρG ⎠
ua = superficial vapor velocity [ft/s] based on active bubbling area, Aa
Aa = AT − Ad
LW = weir length [in] (for Ad AT = 0.1, taken as 73% of DT )
qL = liquid flow rate across tray [gal/min]
C = 0.362 + 0.317 exp ( −3.5hW )


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:
6σ
hσ =
g ρLDB (max )
Generally, the maximum bubble diameter, DB(max), may be

taken as the tray hole diameter.
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: σ = 70 dyne/cm, L = 2,883 kg/hr, ρL = 986 kg/m3
Vapor phase: G = 7,920 kg/hr, ρG = 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
= 1.46 m/s
(1.92) π (1 ) 4
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 ⎜ 2 ⎟⎜ ⎟ = 1.56"
⎝ 0.73 ⎠ ⎝ 986 ⎠


Solution (cont’d).
Taking weir length as 73% of DT gives LW = 0.73 m = 28.7”
2, 883 60
Liquid flow rate in gpm, qL = = 12.9 gpm
986 × 0.003785
Ad/AT = 0.1, Aa/AT = 0.9, so ua = 1.46/0.9 = 1.62 m/s = 5.32 ft/s.
⇒ KS = ua ( ρG ( ρL − ρG ) )
12
= 0.235 ft/s
⇒ φe = exp ( −4.257KS 0.91
) = 0.32
C = 0.362 + 0.317 exp ( −3.5hW ) = 0.362
Hence, hA = φe ⎡hw + C (qL ( Lw φe ) ) ⎤ = 0.67 "

23
⎣ ⎦

Solution (cont’d).
Assuming DB(max) = DH = 3/16” = 0.00476 m
σ = 70 dynes/cm = 0.07 N/m = 0.07 kg/s2 and g = 9.8 m/s2
6σ
Hence, hσ = = 0.000913 m = 0.36"
g ρLDB (max )
Thus, total head loss/tray, ht = hd + hA + hσ

= 1.56 + 0.67 + 0.36
= 2.59"
Recalling that ρL = 986 kg/m3 = 0.0356 lb/in3
Thus, the tray vapor pressure drop = htρL = 0.092 psi

q Complete Column Sizing

Disengagement
4 ft
Rectifying Section
2×Nr ft
Dr ft
Stripping Section
Ds ft
2×Ns ft
Sump
≥ 10 ft Skirt
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 Recommended material S (psig)
-20-650 oF no H2 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 1%Cr, 0.5%Mo Steel, SA-387B 14,750
to 900 oF with H2 1%Cr, 0.5%Mo Steel, SA-387B 13,100


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

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


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] Minimum value for tp [in]
Up to 4 1/4
4-6 5/16
6-8 3/8
8-10 7/16
10-12 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] Rounding increment [in]
1 1/32
2 1/16
3 1/8
>3 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 = 1.2×max 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"
13, 750 × 10 2
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”)

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.

Dist Design Code PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Dist Design Code PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LECTURE NINE 054410 PLANT DESIGN

054410 Plant Design

9-1 PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin Separation Tower Design

1 Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

Distillation Column Design Overview

Focus of this lecture…

The focus of this lecture

9-4 PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin Separation Tower Design

2 Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

n A Look Inside a Distillation Column

9-5 PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin Separation Tower Design

n Bubble-caps, Valves or Sieves…

Bubble-cap tray Valve tray Sieve tray

9-6 PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin Separation Tower Design

3 Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

n Bubble-caps, Valves or Sieves…

9-7 PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin Separation Tower Design

n Bubble-caps, Valves or Sieves…

9-8 PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin Separation Tower Design

4 Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

n Bubble-caps, Valves or Sieves…

9-9 PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin Separation Tower Design

n Tray Performance Constraints

9 - 10 PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin Separation Tower Design

5 Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

n Tray Performance Constraints

9 - 11 PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin Separation Tower Design

n Tray Performance Constraints

9 - 12 PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin Separation Tower Design

6 Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

n Tray Performance Constraints

9 - 13 PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin Separation Tower Design

n Tray Performance Constraints

9 - 14 PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin Separation Tower Design

7 Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

n Tray Performance Constraints

9 - 15 PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin Separation Tower Design

o Tray Efficiency Estimation

9 - 16 PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin Separation Tower Design

8 Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

o Empirical Efficiency Estimation

O’Connell correlation: EO = 0.492 ( µL α )

9 - 17 PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin Separation Tower Design

Example 1: Tray Efficiency Calculation

9 - 18 PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin Separation Tower Design

9 Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

Example 1: Tray Efficiency Calculation

= 0.492 ( 0.133 × 1.945 )

⎧29 × 7 18 = 11 trays in the rectifying section

9 - 19 PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin Separation Tower Design

p Tray Section Capacity

9 - 20 PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin Separation Tower Design

10 Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

p Estimating Flooding Velocity

gravity buoyancy drag

Solving for flooding velocity: gravity

9 - 21 PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin Separation Tower Design

p Estimating Flooding Velocity

9 - 22 PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin Separation Tower Design

11 Daniel R. Lewin, Technion

p Estimating Flooding Velocity

9 - 23 PLANT DESIGN - Daniel R. Lewin Separation Tower Design

p Tray Section Capacity