INDIAN CHEMICAL ENGINEER Copyright © 2007 Indian Institute of Chemical Engineers

Vol. 49 No. 4 October-December 2007, pp. 514-525

Debottlenecking a Distillation Column for

Capacity Augmentation

Siddhartha Mukherjee*
Lurgi India Co. Pvt. Ltd., A-30 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi - 110 044, India

Abstract: This paper discusses various ways of revamping a distillation column and its implications. First, the
tray geometry and hydraulic parameters in a distillation column are discussed. The tray active area, downcomer
area, weir height, crest height, dry and wet tray pressure drops are illustratively described. Next, the definitions
of various other terms associated with tray hydraulics are defined. These parameters include downcomer back
up, downcomer flood, jet flood, weir height, downcomer clearance, downcomer chord height etc. Three typical
debottlenecking cases are discussed. In Case 1, the column is debottlenecked by just increasing the number of
valves. In the other two cases, first the number and type of valves had to be changed. Interestingly, in Case 2
while the downcomer chord height had to be increased, in Case 3 the chord height had to be decreased to meet
all the hydrodynamic criterion. More complicated cases are touched upon, where both liquid and vapour loads
are high and more expensive methods have to be adopted.

Keywords: Tray column, Debottlenecking, Pressure drop, Downcomer area, Jet flood, Downcomer flood, Chord
height.

Introduction
Since the end of the year 2006, the chemical process industry has been witnessing a boom period. Several new
process industries are coming up in various parts of India and all over the world. At the same time, many existing
industries are undergoing debottlenecking for capacity augmentation.
Debottlenecking a process plant begins with a process study, which involves studying the plant in its
entirety and identifying the bottlenecks that come in the way of increasing the capacity. For instance, it could
be a restricted pipe size that could come in the way of a required increased flow, or a heat exchanger where
the surface area falls short of the required future heat load requirements. It could also be a column, where
increased vapour liquid-traffic leads to an unacceptable pressure drop, or a control valve that, even at full open
condition, allows only a portion of the intended flow.
Before we go into detail of the intricacies of column debottlenecking, it is useful to discuss some of the
fundamental aspects of tray geometry and hydraulics.

Understanding Tray Geometry

Let us discuss the most common tray flow pattern viz. cross current flow – applied in more than 90% of columns
in the industry – in which the vapour flows through the trays vertically upwards, while the liquid flows across
the trays downwards in a crossflow pattern (Fig. 1).
Liquid flows across the active area of a tray deck towards and over the outlet weir and drains through the
downcomer to the tray below through the downcomer clearance (Fig. 1). The vapour bubbles up through the

*Author for Correspondence. E-mail: siddhartha.mukherjee@lurgi.com

Paper received: 01/10/2007; Revised paper accepted: 10/11/2007
 Debottlenecking a Distillation Column for Capacity Augmentation 515

Liquid DC

Vapour

W Tray active
area
DB
UD WH

FL

Fig. 1. Tray geometry details.

valve caps or sieve holes on the tray deck. It is here that mass transfer takes place through intimate contact
between vapour and liquid.
The liquid level on a tray depends on the following two factors:
(i) Weir height
(ii) Crest height

The weir height is self-explanatory and crest height is similar to a liquid flowing over a dam [1]. The pressure
drop of vapour flowing through a tray is the sum of the following:
l Hydraulic tray pressure drop
l Dry tray pressure drop

The hydraulic tray pressure drop is created by the head of liquid on the tray. It is the sum of the weir and
crest heights. The dry tray pressure drop is the pressure drop of the vapour by virtue of flowing through the
holes of the sieves or valves.

Basics of Tray Hydraulics

Let us again go to the cross current flow pattern, where the vapour flows A
through the trays vertically upwards while the liquid flows across the trays 2.495 kg/cm2g
downwards. The vapour flowing up the trays undergoes a pressure drop, typically Tray #5
in the range of 0.005 kg/cm2. In order to counter this pressure drop, a column
B
of liquid backs up in the downcomer. This concept calls for a bit of explanation.
2.500 kg/cm2g
As shown in Fig. 2, the vapour flowing upwards through the 5th tray Tray #6
DB
undergoes a pressure drop of 0.005 kg/cm2. Liquid in the downcomer has backed
up by virtue of this pressure drop. The pressure at points A (i.e. above tray #5)
and B (i.e. below tray #5) is 2.495 and 2.500 kg/cm2g, respectively. It is clear that
the flow of liquid from tray #5 to #6 occurs due to the head in the downcomer.
The pressure difference between points A and B (i.e. pressure drop across tray
Fig. 2. Tray hydraulics.
#5) can be expressed through the following equations:
Pressure at B = Pressure at A + pDB – pD – pUD
∆P (tray #5) = Pressure at B – Pressure at A
= pDB – pD – pUD

INDIAN CHEMICAL ENGINEER Vol. 49 No. 4 October-December 2007

516 MUKHERJEE

or pDB = ∆P (tray #5) + pD + pUD

Liebermann and Liebermann [1] report that, typically, 50% of the static pressure due to downcomer backup
is used to overcome the tray pressure drop. The rest overcomes the two other pressure drops mentioned above.

Important Definitions and Practices

Before we delve into the details of tray debottlenecking, it is important to know certain definitions related to
tray hydraulics [1, 2] (Fig. 1).

Downcomer Backup
It is the height of liquid that backs up into the downcomer as a result of the tray pressure drop, pressure drop
in the downcomer and pressure drop across the downcomer clearance.

Downcomer Flood
As liquid flow through the downcomer is increased, the aerated liquid backs up in the downcomer. As the liquid
flow is further increased, a limit is reached when the friction losses in the downcomer and under the downcomer
clearance become excessive and the frothy mixture cannot be transported to the tray below. This can cause
accumulation in the downcomer and into the tray above, which is called downcomer flood.

Jet Flood
At low liquid rates and high vapour rates, trays operate in the spray regime. As vapour velocities are increased
further, the spray will hit the underside of the tray above instead of flowing to the tray below. Under such a
condition, the space between trays is full of spray. This phenomenon is called jet flood because of the jetting
action of liquid spray from the tray below to the one above. Jet flood should not exceed 85% for a proper tray
design. However, most designers restrict it to just 80% while some are even more conservative and limit the
jet flood to 75%.

Weir Height
The weir height sets the liquid level in the tray. Higher the weir height, higher is the tray pressure drop and
downcomer backup. Weir heights of 40-80 mm are commonly used.

Downcomer Clearance
It is the distance between the bottom of the downcomer and the tray. It provides a liquid seal that prevents
vapours from bypassing the tray active area and short circuiting through the downcomer. Smaller is the
downcomer clearance, larger is the downcomer backup. To avoid excessive downcomer backups, it is recommended
not to have velocities under the downcomer above 0.45 m/s.

Downcomer Chord Height

The downcomer chord height is the chordal length between the downcomer panel and the column shell. It is
an important parameter and determines the downcomer area.

Debottlenecking a Column
Having discussed certain fundamental aspects, we can understand the ways in which a column can be de-
bottlenecked. Before we begin, it is important to understand the parameters on which the hydrodynamics of
a column is evaluated.
While the process performance, in terms of the separation and product quality, is guaranteed by the process
designer, or process ‘licensor’, the hydrodynamic performance of the column is guaranteed by the tray
INDIAN CHEMICAL ENGINEER Vol. 49 No. 4 October-December 2007
 Debottlenecking a Distillation Column for Capacity Augmentation 517

manufacturer/vendor. While there are a number of parameters that contribute towards tray hydrodynamics, there
are three basic parameters that need to be satisfied to guarantee proper tray performance. The first is the total
pressure drop across the column. It should not be more than the pressure drop specified by the process licensor.
A proper choice of the tray active area, number of valves, downcomer area, downcomer clearance and weir height
will ensure the desired pressure drop. In addition, the jet flood and downcomer flood should also be within
certain limits. We will now discuss three specific cases.

Case 1
We consider a final distillation column in an aromatics complex, C-101 (Table 1) and take the tray section 30-
60 for our study. Let us refer Case 1a for the existing vapour liquid traffic as well as tray geometry. The column
diameter is 1950 mm with a tray spacing of 450 mm. The existing trays are fitted with 234 floating valves. The
allowable pressure drop in this tray section is 0.2 kg/cm2.
The capacity of this column is increased by 20%. In other words, the vapour-liquid traffic would also
increase by 20%. The column diameter cannot be increased, because this would mean procuring a new column.
So what is the solution? Let us refer Case 1b, where an increased vapour-liquid traffic has been tried with the
same column diameter as well as tray geometry. It can be seen that while the other parameters viz. jet flood and
downcomer flood are within reasonable limits, the downcomer backup is slightly on the higher side. The pressure
drop at 110% load also exceeds the limit of 0.20 kg/cm2.
Now if we try with increased number of valves in the tray, say 292 instead of the existing 234 valves (Case
1c), we find all parameters to be within limit and total pressure drop as 0.19 kg/cm2.
This was a comparatively simple case.

Case 2
We consider another case of a cyclopentane column in a refinery, C-201 (Table 2) and take the tray section
1-20 for our study. Let us refer Case 2a for the existing vapour liquid traffic as well as tray geometry. The column
diameter is 1800 mm with a tray spacing of 600 mm. The trays are fitted with 310 floating valves. The allowable
pressure drop in this tray section is 0.15 kg/cm2.
The capacity of this column is increased by 20%. In other words, the vapour-liquid traffic would also
increase by 20% (Case 2b). Here, the increased vapour-liquid traffic has been tried with the same column
diameter as well as tray geometry. It can be seen that the jet flood, downcomer flood and tray pressure drop
(at 120% load), all exceed the specified/recommended limits.
To solve the case, we first try with increased number of valves in the tray, say 720 fixed mini valves (fixed
valves give a comparatively lower pressure that conventional floating valves). The total open area has now
increased from 11.33 to 15.34% (Case 2c). We find that the pressure drop and jet flood are within limits. But
the downcomer flood at 120% load is still 98%, which means that downcomer area is inadequate to handle the
increased liquid load and is, therefore, choking.
Hence, we try to increase the downcomer area by increasing the downcomer chord height from 220 to 250
mm (Case 2d). Thus, we find that all parameters are within limit.
It is worth discussing a bit about the hardware part. When only the number of valves is to be changed
in a tray, in such cases only the active panels need to be changed (Fig. 3). The inlet panels do not need to
be changed since there are no valves in these panels below the downcomers. Nor do the downcomer panels
need any change. However, when chord heights are to be changed, the weir lengths also get changed. As a
result, downcomer panels also need to be changed. The downcomer panels are bolted to strips of metal called
bolting bars, which are welded to the column shell. It involves too much work to cut the existing bolting bars
and weld new bolting bars to become compatible with the new downcomer panels. To overcome this problem,
adaptors (also, sometimes called Z-bars) are used to bridge the gap between the existing bolting bars and the
new downcomers (Fig. 3).

INDIAN CHEMICAL ENGINEER Vol. 49 No. 4 October-December 2007

 Table 1. Tray geometry and hydraulics (revamp Case 1)
518
01 Item C-101
02 Designation Final distillation column
03 Case number 1a 1b 1c
04 Case Original traffic Revamp traffic Revamp traffic
05 Tray geometry Original geometry Original geometry Higher valve count
MUKHERJEE

06
07 Column section number 1 1 1
08 Tray section 30-60 30-60 30-60
09 Type of tray Floating valves Floating valves Floating valves

10 Percentage load % 50 100 110 50 100 110 50 100 110

11 Vapour to tray kg/h 18636 37273 41000 22364 44728 49200 22364 44728 49200
12 Density kg/m 3 10.64 10.64 10.64 10.64 10.64 10.64 10.64 10.64 10.64

INDIAN CHEMICAL ENGINEER

13 Vapour viscosity Pa-s 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05
14 Liquid from tray kg/h 18227 36454 40100 21872 43745 48120 21872 43745 48120
15 Density kg/m 3 586.3 586.3 586.3 586.3 586.3 586.3 586.3 586.3 586.3
16 Surface tension N/m 10.44 10.44 10.44 10.44 10.44 10.44 10.44 10.44 10.44
17 Liquid viscosity Pa-s 1.13E-04 1.13E-04 1.13E-04 1.13E-04 1.13E-04 1.13E-04 1.13E-04 1.13E-04 1.13E-04
18
19 Column diameter mm 1950 1950 1950
20 Tray spacing mm 450 450 450
21 Tray passes 1 1 1
22 Column area m2 2.99 2.99 2.99
23 Active area m2 2.39 2.39 2.39
24 Flow path length mm 1340 1340 1340
25 Downcomer chord mm 305/305 305/305 305/305
height: top/bottom
26 Weir length mm 1417 1417 1417
27 Number of valves 234 234 292
28 Open area % 7.83 7.83 9.79
29 Downcomer clearance mm 30 30 30
30 Exit weir height mm 45 45 45

Contd.

Vol. 49 No. 4 October-December 2007

 31
32 Weir load m 3 /h.m 21.9 43.9 48.3 26.3 52.7 57.9 26.3 52.7 57.9
33 Downcomer backup liquid mm 124.7 173.7 190.4 132.9 208.6 232.8 133.9 189.4 208.5
34 Downcomer flood % 25 50 55 30 60 66 30 60 66
35 Jet flood percentage % 32 61 67 38 73 80 38 73 80
36 Dry tray pressure drop mm liq. 34.3 49.8 60 34.9 71.2 85.8 34.2 46.0 55.4
(per tray)
37 Total tray pressure drop mm liq. 75.8 97.9 108.5 78.8 120.0 135.1 78.9 98.0 108.1
(per tray)
38 Total tray pressure drop kg/cm 2 0.133 0.172 0.191 0.139 0.211 0.238 0.139 0.172 0.190
(all trays)
39 Allowable tray pressure kg/cm 2 0.200 0.200 0.200
drop (all trays)

INDIAN CHEMICAL ENGINEER

Debottlenecking a Distillation Column for Capacity Augmentation
519

Vol. 49 No. 4 October-December 2007

 Table 2. Tray geometry and hydraulics (revamp Case 2)
520
01 Item C-201
02 Designation Cyclopentane column
03 Case number 2a 2b 2c 2d
04 Case Original case Revamp case Revamp case Revamp case
05 Tray geometry Original geometry Original geometry Valve type changed Valve type changed
06 Downcomer area changed
MUKHERJEE

07 Column section 1 1 1 1
number
08 Tray section 1-20 1-20 1-20 1-20
09 Type of tray Floating valves Floating valves Fixed valves Fixed valves

10 Percentage load % 50 100 120 50 100 120 50 100 120 50 100 120
11 Vapour to tray kg/h 21452 42904 51485 25742 51485 61782 25742 51485 61782 25742 51485 61782
12 8.71

INDIAN CHEMICAL ENGINEER

Density kg/m 3 8.71 8.71 8.71 8.71 8.71 8.71 8.71 8.71 8.71 8.71 8.71
13 Vapour viscosity Pa-s 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05
14 Liquid from tray kg/h 18194 36389 43667 21833 43667 52400 21833 43667 52400 21833 43667 52400
15 Density kg/m 3 571 571 571 571 571 571 571 571 571 571 571 571
16 Surface tension N/m 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5
17 Liquid viscosity Pa-s 1.48E-04 1.48E-04 1.48E-04 1.48E-04 1.48E-04 1.48E-04 1.48E-04 1.48E-04 1.48E-04 1.48E-04 1.48E-04 1.48E-04
18
19 Column diameter mm 1800 1800 1800 1800
20 Tray spacing mm 600 600 600 600
21 Tray passes 1 1 1 1
22 Column area m2 2.54 2.54 2.54 2.54
23 Active area m2 2.19 2.19 2.19 2.12
24 Flow path length mm 1360 1360 1360 1300
25 Downcomer chord mm 220/220 220/220 220/220 250/250
height: top/bottom
26 Weir length mm 1179 1179 1179 1245
27 Number of valves 310 310 720 720
28 Open area % 11.33 11.33 15.34 15.87
29 Downcomer mm 40 40 40 40
clearance
30 Exit weir height mm 50 50 50 50

Contd.

Vol. 49 No. 4 October-December 2007

 31
32 Weir load m3 /h.m 27.0 54.0 64.9 32.4 64.9 77.8 32.4 64.9 77.8 30.7 61.4 73.7
33 Downcomer mm 135.9 179.7 213.7 144.0 213.7 265.7 119.7 192.1 234.4 116.8 186.1 225.3
backup liquid
34 Downcomer flood % 34 68 82 41 82 98 41 82 98 34 68 81
35 Jet flood percentage % 32 63 75 38 75 90 34 68 81 35 69 83
36 Dry tray pressure mm liq. 35.1 47.1 67.3 35.7 67.3 96.2 11.2 44.9 64.7 11.2 44.9 64.7
drop (per tray)
37 Total tray pressure mm liq. 82.4 101.7 123.5 85.5 123.5 156.6 61.3 101.7 125.4 60.3 100.4 123.3
drop (per tray)
38 Total tray pressure kg/cm 2 0.094 0.116 0.141 0.098 0.141 0.179 0.070 0.116 0.143 0.069 0.115 0.141
drop (all tray)
39 Allowable tray kg/cm 2 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
pressure drop (all
trays)

INDIAN CHEMICAL ENGINEER

Tray active panels Tray inlet panels Bolting bar

Z-bar

Tray inlet panel Tray active panels Downcomer panels

Downcomer
panels
Debottlenecking a Distillation Column for Capacity Augmentation

Existing trays with original Downcomer chord heights

downcomer chord heights reduced using Z-bars
Fig. 3. Adjusting downcomer chord heights.
521

Vol. 49 No. 4 October-December 2007

522 MUKHERJEE

Case 3
We next consider the third case of a rectification column in a refinery, C-301 (Table 3) and take the tray section
1-30 for our study. Let us refer Case 3a for the existing vapour liquid traffic as well as tray geometry. The column
diameter is 1850 mm with a tray spacing of 450 mm. The trays are fitted with 270 floating valves. The allowable
pressure drop in this tray section is 0.20 kg/cm2.
The capacity of this column is increased by 20%. In other words, the vapour-liquid traffic would also
increase by 20% (Case 3b). Here, the increased vapour-liquid traffic has been tried with the same column
diameter as well as tray geometry. It can be seen that both the jet flood and tray pressure drop (at 110% load)
exceed the specified/recommended limits.
To solve the problem, we first try having increased number of valves in the tray, say 608 fixed mini valves.
The total open area now increases from 10.04 to 13.19% (Case 3c). We find that the pressure drop is within
limit. But the jet flood at 110% load is still high, which means that the active area is inadequate to handle the
high vapour load and is, thus, giving a high jet flood.
We, therefore, try to increase the active area by decreasing the downcomer chord height from 290 to 230
mm (Case 3d). Thus, we find that all parameters are within limit.

Summary of the Three Cases

Case 1 was relatively simple. Only a change in the number of valves solved the problem. Cases 2 and 3 were
solved in two different ways. In both cases, open area was increased to solve the problem of high pressure
drop.
This was, however, only one part of the problem. In Case 2, there was an added problem of downcomer
flood, i.e. liquid load was too high for the downcomer to take. Therefore, the downcomer area was increased
by increasing the downcomer chord height. In Case 3, an added problem was that of jet flood as the vapour
load was too high for the existing active area. Hence, active area was increased by decreasing the downcomer
chord height.

Other Revamp Scenarios

Interestingly, Cases 2 and 3 represent two contrasting scenarios. Therefore, the problems had to be solved by
adopting opposite approaches. In one case, the liquid load was too high and in the other, the vapour flow was
limiting. However, the problem could be solved relatively easily. There may be cases where the revamp loads
are such that both liquid and vapour flows are limiting in the existing column. In such cases, the option is to
go for sloping downcomers.
Figure 4(a) represents a column section with straight downcomers, while Fig. 4(b) represents one with
sloping downcomers. In the case of sloping downcomers, the upper portion of downcomer area has been
increased. This is where the froth actually separates from the liquid and prevents downcomer choking. However,
once the froth separates, the downcomer can be reduced in area. Therefore, the bottom portion of the
downcomer has been reduced substantially, resulting in additional area for mass transfer. In this way, sloping
downcomers give rise to both a higher downcomer area as well as a high tray active area.

Summary
Tray columns function in a complicated fashion. There are several parameters that determine the tray hydraulics
viz. jet flood, downcomer flood, under downcomer velocity, weir height, crest height, downcomer area, tray
spacing etc. A change in one parameter may significantly affect a number of other parameters. Therefore,
debottlenecking a column is a difficult task and calls for understanding and experience. The following are certain
steps that can sum up the entire process:

INDIAN CHEMICAL ENGINEER Vol. 49 No. 4 October-December 2007

 Table 3. Tray geometry and hydraulics (revamp Case 3)

01 Item C-301
02 Designation Rectification column
03 Case number 3a 3b 3c 3d
04 Case Original case Revamp case Revamp case Revamp case
05 Tray geometry Original geometry Original geometry Valve type changed Valve type changed
06 Downcomer area changed
07 Column section 1 1 1 1
number
08 Tray section 1-30 1-30 1-30 1-30
09 Type of tray Floating valves Floating valves Fixed valves Fixed valves

10 Percentage load % 50 100 110 50 100 110 50 100 110 50 100 110
11 Vapour to tray kg/h 22363 44727 49200 26836 53672 59040 26836 53672 59040 26836 53672 59040
3

INDIAN CHEMICAL ENGINEER

12 Density kg/m 11.30 11.30 11.30 11.30 11.30 11.30 11.30 11.30 11.30 11.30 11.30 11.30
13 Vapor viscosity Pa-s 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05 2E-05
14 Liquid from tray kg/h 15622 31244 34369 18747 37493 41243 18747 37493 41243 18747 37493 41243
15 Density kg/m 3 610 610 610 610 610 610 610 610 610 610 610 610
16 Surface tension N/m 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6
17 Liquid viscosity Pa-s 1.13E-04 1.13E-04 1.13E-04 1.13E-04 1.13E-04 1.13E-04 1.13E-04 1.13E-04 1.13E-04 1.13E-04 1.13E-04 1.13E-04
18
19 Column diameter mm 1850 1850 1850 1850
20 Tray spacing mm 450 450 450 450
21 Tray passes 1 1 1 1
22 Column area m2 2.69 2.69 2.69 2.69
23 Active area m2 2.15 2.15 2.15 2.3
24 Flow path length mm 1270 1270 1270 1390
25 Downcomer chord mm 290/290 290/290 290/290 230/230
height: top/bottom
26 Weir length mm 1345 1345 1345 1221
27 Number of valves 270 270 608 608
28 Open area % 10.04 10.04 13.19 12.30
29 Downcomer mm 30 30 30 30
clearance
30 Exit weir height mm 45 45 45 45

Contd.
Debottlenecking a Distillation Column for Capacity Augmentation
523

Vol. 49 No. 4 October-December 2007

 31
32 Weir load m3 /h.m 19.0 38.1 41.9 22.8 45.7 50.3 22.8 45.7 50.3 25.2 50.3 55.4
524
33 Downcomer mm 117.1 160.5 175.3 124.3 191.4 212.4 102.9 171.4 188.5 107.7 181.6 200.5
backup liquid
34 Downcomer flood % 22 45 49 27 54 59 27 54 59 38 75 83
35 Jet flood percent % 38 71 78 45 85 94 39 79 87 37 75 82
36 Dry tray pressure mm liq. 33 48.7 58.7 33.6 69.6 83.9 12.4 49.5 59.8 12.4 49.5 59.8
MUKHERJEE

drop (per tray)

37 Total tray pressure mm liq. 72.2 94.1 104.3 75.0 115.3 129.8 53.9 95.4 106 55.5 97.4 108.2
drop (per tray)
38 Total tray pressure kg/cm 2 0.132 0.172 0.191 0.137 0.211 0.238 0.099 0.175 0.194 0.102 0.178 0.198
drop (all trays)
39 Allowable tray kg/cm 2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.20
pressure drop (all
trays)

INDIAN CHEMICAL ENGINEER

Vol. 49 No. 4 October-December 2007
 Debottlenecking a Distillation Column for Capacity Augmentation 525

Increase

(a) (b)

Active area
Active area
Slanting
Straight downcomer
downcomer

Decrease

Fig. 4. Handling both high liquid and vapour loads – use of slanting downcomers.

l Once the revised vapour liquid traffic for debottlenecking has been identified, try with the easiest method,
i.e. increase the number of valves in the tray and check if the pressure drop and other criteria are satisfied.
l If the above does not work, change from floating to fixed valves.
l If the above does not work, it may be because either the vapour or liquid traffic is too high, or both. A
look at the tray calculation output will reveal this. If the liquid traffic is limiting, try with increased
downcomer area. This may satisfy the liquid traffic demand.
l If, however, the vapour traffic is limiting, increase the active area and have the valves further increased.
l However, there could be cases where both the vapour and liquid traffic are too high for the existing
geometry. In such a case, the next option is to go for slanting downcomers where one can increase both
the tray active area as well as the downcomer area.

However, it must be understood that these are guidelines rather than rules.

Nomenclature
DB Downcomer backup
DC Downcomer chord height
FL Flow path length
pDB Static pressure due to downcomer backup DB
pD Pressure drop in the downcomer
pUD Pressure drop across the downcomer clearance UD
UD Downcomer clearance
WH Weir height
WL Weir length

References
1. Liebermann, N.P. and Liebermann, E.T., A Working Guide to Process Equipment, McGraw-Hill, New York (1997).
2. Kister, H.Z., Distillation Operation, McGraw-Hill, New York (1989).

INDIAN CHEMICAL ENGINEER Vol. 49 No. 4 October-December 2007