Process STD 105 PDF

PROCESS STD 105A
FOSTER WHEELER VESSELS PAGE Contents-1

TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
PROCESS PLANTS DIVISION DATE JULY 2002
SECTION TITLE PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Objectives of this Standard 1

1.2 Features and Characteristics of Fractionating Trays 1
1.2.1 Sieve or Perforated Trays 1
1.2.2 Valve Trays 2
1.2.3 Bubble Cap Trays 2
1.2.4 Specialty Traps 3
1.3 Process Engineering Work Related to Fractionating Traps 3
2.0 DEFINITION AND DISCUSSIONS 4
2.1 General Tray Terminology 4

2.1.1 Anti-Jump and Splash Baffles 4
2.1.2 Bubbling or Active Area 4
2.1.3 Calming Area 5
2.1.4 Capacity Factor 5
2.1.5 Downcomer Area 5
2.1.6 Downcomer Backup 5
2.1.7 Downcomer Clearance 5
2.1.8 Downcomer Clearance Area or Area Under Downcomer 6
2.1.9 Downcomer Seal Area 6
2.1.10 Downcomer Residence Time 7
2.1.11 Downcomer Width 7
2.1.12 Flow Path Length 7
2.1.13 Free Area 7
2.1.14 Hole or Perforated Area and Hole Diameter 7
2.1.15 Number of Tray Passes 8
2.1.16 Tower Area 8
2.1.17 Tray Materials of Construction 8
2.1.18 Tray Spacing 9
2.1.19 Unit Reference Number 9
2.1.20 V-Load 10
2.1.21 Weir Height 10
2.1.22 Weir Length 10
2.2 General Operation Features 11
2.2.1 Downcomer Clearance Velocity 11
2.2.2 Downcomer Residence Time, Downcomer Backup and 11
Downcomer Width
FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY LIMITED 2002

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
SECTION TITLE PAGE
2.2.3 Dumping, Weeping and Entrainment 12

2.2.4 Flooding and Percent Flood – Flood Factor 12
2.2.5 Foaming Characteristics – System Factor 14
2.2.6 Minimum and Maximum Vapor Velocity Criteria 15
2.2.7 Pressure Drop 16
2.2.8 Swaged Tower Sections 17
3.0 SIEVE TRAY CALCULATION METHODS 18
3.1 Hand Calculation Methods 18

3.2 Computer Calculation Methods 18
3.3 Recommendations 19
4.0 VALVE TRAY CALCULATION METHODS 20

5.0 BUBBLE CAP TRAY CALCULATION METHODS 22

6.0 PROCESS TRAY DATA 24
6.1 Tray Data Requisition Form (Form Number 135-110A) 24

6.2 Guidelines for Providing Tray Data for Tray Data Requisition 24
Form
7.0 CHECKING VENDOR’S PROPOSALS 28

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
APPENDIX
NO. TITLE PAGE
I Bubble Cap Tray Calculation Methods 29
II Sieve Tray Calculation Methods 30
III Tray Data Information 31
IV Method for Estimating Percent Flood of Valve Trays 35
FIGURES
NO. TITLE PAGE
I Sieve and Valve Tray Details 40
II Typical One Pass Sieve or Valve Tray Layout 40
III Tray Design and Tray Layout Definitions 41
IV Tray Flow Path Layouts 42
V Outlet Weir Details 43
VI Bubble Cap Details 44
TABLES
NO. TITLE PAGE
1.1 Tray Spacing Table and Maximum Number of Tray Passes 45
1.2 Minimum Downcomer Residence Time and 46

Maximum Downcomer Backup
References 47

PROCESS STD 105A
FOSTER WHEELER VESSELS PAGE 1
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
1.0 INTRODUCTION
A widely used method of separating and purifying materials in the processing

industries is fractional distillation. This operation is generally performed in
fractionation towers, which contain internal devices to promote intimate contact
between countercurrent vapor and liquid streams. The most common of such
devices is the fractionating tray.
Many forms of the fractionating trays have been devised over the years, but only
three have achieved widespread commercial acceptance. These are the sieve or
perforated tray, the valve tray, and the bubble cap tray.
1.1 Objectives of this Standard
The purpose of this standard is to provide a source for the material most
commonly used by the process engineer when specifying fractionating
trays. It is intended as a summary of the various calculation methods and
computer models that are currently available, and contains rules and
guidelines that can be used for quickly checking a particular tray design.
It should be noted that the rules and guidelines contained in Section 2.0
are intended as “rules of thumb” and any discrepancies between results
obtained from the use of this section and the results obtained from other
sources, such as a tray manufacturer, should be thoroughly investigated
before any action is taken.
1.2 Features and Characteristics of Fractionating Trays
1.2.1 Sieve or Perforated Trays
In this type of tray, the vapor-liquid contact is obtained through the

perforations on the tray deck. Under stable operation, the liquid
traveling across the tray contacts the vapor passing through the
perforations in the tray deck. This type of tray design is
economical since there are no moving parts and the tray decks
can be fabricated (punched) in one operation.
The efficiency of a well designed sieve tray is as good as any

other type of tray in commercial practice. The flexibility is
generally satisfactory for most services, but may be limited in
some applications requiring high efficiency over a wide range of
turndown. A typical sieve tray is shown in Figure 1.

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
1.2.2 Valve Trays
In this type of tray, the individual holes or orifices in the tray deck
are covered with a cap that opens and closes with variation in
vapor flow rate. As the vapor load increases, the cap will open to
permit more vapor to pass through the orifice. As the vapor load
decreases, the cap will tend to close. Since the peripheral area
between the cap and the tray deck changes for different process
loadings, the amount of liquid leaking downward through the
orifices at turndown, or weeping, is minimized.
For this reason, valve trays are widely used throughout the
industry, since they will tend to handle a wider range of capacity
variation (turndown) than do sieve trays. Valve trays can
generally be designed for a pressure drop equivalent to sieve
trays.
Valve trays are manufactured by three main fabricators: Glitsch,

Koch, and Nutter. Glitsch’s trademark for their valve trays is
“Ballast Trays”. The various types of Ballast trays, with a
description of each, are shown in the Glitsch Ballast Tray Design
Manual Bulletin 4900. Koch’s name for their proprietary valve tray
is the “Flexitray”. The Flexitray and Ballast Trays are quite similar
in design; both have circular orifices of approximately 1 1/2 inches
in diameter. A third type of valve tray is the “Float Valve Tray”,
manufactured by Nutter. These trays are similar to the Ballast
Trays and Flexitrays, except that the openings in the tray deck and
the caps are rectangular instead of circular.
A typical valve unit is shown in Figure II.
1.2.3 Bubble Cap Trays
In this type of tray, the cap (bubble cap) is situated directly above
a fixed riser extending up from the tray deck. The vapor flows up
through the riser, changes direction, and flows down and out
through the slot at or near the base of the bubble cap. The slots
are submerged within the liquid on the tray, which is where the
vapor-liquid contact occurs. This type of cap offers essentially
infinite turndown, and can operate with peak efficiency at very low
loads.
Bubble cap trays are therefore used mostly where the vapor/liquid
(V/L) ratio is large, and where liquid distribution on the tray deck is
a problem due to low liquid rates.

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
Two types of bubble caps, the FRI Bubble Cap and the
conventional bubble cap, are shown in Figure VI.
Until the late 1950's, this was the most widely used type of
fractionating tray. Since that time, it has been replaced, almost
completely, by other types of trays such as the valve tray, which
offer higher capacities and higher efficiencies at a lower cost, with
some sacrifice in tray flexibility.
1.2.4 Specialty Trays
Through the years, other types of fractionating trays have been

developed by various manufacturers for specific processing
applications. The Linde MD (Multiple Downcomer) Tray designed
by Union Carbide Corp., for example, can be used in revamps to
debottleneck an existing tower when the liquid loading is
controlling the upper operating limit. These trays resemble sieve
trays except that there are multiple box type downcomer units, and
the successive trays are rotated 90 degrees. While being effective
in hydraulic performance, some sacrifice in tray efficiency is to be
expected when Linde MD trays are used to replace other
conventional types of trays. The Linde MD trays, however, can
usually be installed with relatively small tray spacing.
1.3 Process Engineering Work Related to Fractionating Trays
In general, FW process engineers are not required to develop detailed

designs of fractionating trays. For valve trays such designs are provided
by tray vendors who also will give performance guarantees. For sieve
trays and bubble cap trays, both of which are less frequently used than
valve trays, it may be necessary for the process engineer to develop a
detailed design using in-house computer programs and hand calculation
methods.
In all cases the process engineer is required to issue a tray loading data
sheet and a process vessel sketch for all fractionating towers. These
sketches are invariably required, by other specialty groups, well before
final data is available from tray vendors. It is required that the number of
trays, their diameters, spacing, and the number of passes specified is not
expected to significantly change so that revision to the basic design is
minimized.
One of the purposes of this standard is to provide the necessary

background and calculation methods for this work.

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
2.0 DEFINITIONS AND DISCUSSIONS
2.1 General Tray Terminology
This section contains an alphabetical listing of the terms most frequently

used when designing a fractionating tray. It is intended to be used as a
glossary. It also contains important design criteria that can be useful when
designing a new fractionating tray or checking an existing tray for new
loadings. Figures II and IV should be used in conjunction with Section 2.1.
2.1.1 Anti-Jump and Splash Baffles
Operation at high vapor rates requires that anti-jump baffles be

added at the center downcomer of two pass trays, and off-center
downcomers of multipass trays. The anti-jump baffle runs parallel
to the outlet weir and is located over the center of the downcomer.
This vertical baffle is usually approximately 15" high.
The purpose of the anti-jump baffle is to direct the liquid into the
downcomer at very high rates. By observation, vapor expansion
at the outlet weir pumps the liquid over the weir. At sufficiently
high vapor rate, the trajectory carries the liquid completely over
the downcomer and onto the opposite side of the tray. The tray
then floods prematurely due to increased liquid hold-up caused by
the cycling of the liquid across one side of the tray and back to the
other. Anti-jump baffles deflect the liquid into the downcomer, as
does the tower shell when the flow is towards the side.
Splash baffles are normally recommended for low liquid flowrates

in order to maintain an even distribution of liquid on the tray and to
prevent the liquid from being blown off the tray. Splash baffles
may be picket fence type, or may be solid metal extending shell to
shell. The solid baffle is parallel to, and located just before, the
overflow weir.
2.1.2 Bubbling or Active Area
Bubbling area is the area enclosed by the tower walls, the outlet
weir and inlet edge of the tray. The bubbling area is also referred
to as the active area, as this is the area in which the vapor-liquid
contact occurs. The bubbling area is equal to the tower area
minus the sum of the downcomer area plus the downcomer seal
area.

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
2.1.3 Calming Area

The calming area is included within the bubbling area on a tray.
The purpose of the calming area is to allow the vapor to
disengage from the tray liquid before it enters the downcomer.
The calming area is usually a two or three inch wide strip of
unperforated active area parallel to the outlet weir, extending the
entire length of the outlet weir.
2.1.4 Capacity Factor

The capacity factor is used in the method outlined in the Glitsch
Ballast Tray Design Manual Bulletin 4900 to establish the
minimum active area on a tray. The vapor capacity factor is an
indication of the vapor rate through a tray at the point of incipient
flooding by massive entrainment.
2.1.5 Downcomer Area

The downcomer area is the area necessary to allow the liquid to
flow from one tray to the one below. Normally, the area at the top
of the downcomer is equal to the area at the bottom of the
downcomer, that is, the downcomer is straight (vertical)
Sloped or stepped downcomers are used to increase the tray
active area without increasing the tower diameter when the tower
diameter is vapor controlled. Weir rate considerations may require
that the top downcomer area be larger than the downcomer area
required by downcomer residence time requirements. Therefore,
the bottom downcomer area can be less than the top downcomer
area, provided the minimum downcomer residence time
requirements are satisfied. Since the downcomer seal area is
equal to the bottom downcomer area, the active area is increased
by the difference between the top and bottom downcomer areas.
2.1.6 Downcomer Back Up

The pressure drop through the tray or constrictions in the
downcomer may cause the aerated liquid to partially fill or back up
the downcomer. If the level of aerated liquid in the downcomer
rises to the level of the outlet weir on the above tray, the liquid flow
discharging into the downcomer will back up and cause flooding.
2.1.7 Downcomer Clearance
The downcomer clearance is the vertical distance from the tray

deck of the tray below to the bottom of the downcomer of the tray

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
above. For most designs, it is set at 1.5” to 2", but should never
exceed the height of the outlet weir. The downcomer clearance is
generally ¼” to ½” less than the outlet weir height in order to
provide a liquid seal on the tray outlet. In designs where the
downcomer back up exceeds the allowable percentage of the tray
spacing, a curved downcomer outlet can be used to reduce the
head loss under the downcomer, thereby reducing the downcomer
back up.
2.1.8 Downcomer Clearance Area or Area Under Downcomer
The downcomer clearance area is defined as the downcomer

clearance multiplied by the wall to wall distance of the downcomer.
For straight downcomers, the wall to wall distance of the
downcomer is equal to the outlet weir of the tray above. The
sloped downcomers, the wall to wall distance of the downcomer
would be somewhat less than the outlet weir length.
2.1.9 Downcomer Seal Area
The downcomer seal area is the area below the bottom of the
downcomer and is used to seal the downcomer and distribute the
liquid to the tray. In some designs, the downcomer seal area is
recessed below the tray deck to reduce downcomer back up and
provide a positive liquid seal for all operating conditions.

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
2.1.10 Downcomer Residence Time
The minimum required residence time in the downcomer in order

that the vapor be allowed to disengage from the liquid. This value
is dependent on the froth characteristics of the downcomer liquid,
and if not met will cause the passage of a two-phase mixture
through the downcomer.
2.1.11 Downcomer Width
The width in inches of either the side, center, or off center

downcomer, measured at the top of the downcomer, with relation
to the tower centerline.
2.1.12 Flow Path Length
The flow path length is defined as the distance from the inlet edge
of the tray to the outlet weir or outlet edge of the bubbling area
(see Figure I). The minimum flow path length is approximately 17
inches if internal manways are required. FRI Studies indicate no
change in tray performance when the flow path length is varied
from 15 inches to 70 inches. Normally the flow path length should
not exceed 100-120 inches.
2.1.13 Free Area
The free area is defined as the area on the tray that is available for
vapor flow. The free area is equal to the tower area minus the
maximum area at the top of the downcomer.
2.1.14 Hole or Perforated Area
For most services where pressure drop is not a controlling design

consideration, a hole area of 8 to 10 percent of the bubbling area
will be satisfactory. This range of hole areas will also provide the
maximum flexibility. For services where downcomer back-up or
pressure drop is limiting a hole area of up to 15 percent of the
bubbling area can be used. Hole areas less than 8 percent will
entrain excessively. Hole areas greater than 15 percent will weep
excessively. A hole diameter of 0.5 inches is typically the best
selection for most services. Larger holes will have a higher
pressure drop and cause a higher entrainment rate. Smaller holes
may plug or foul, however, they should be considered for vacuum
services since the pressure drop and entrainment rate will be less.

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
For valve trays, Glitsch specifies a 1-17/32 inch diameter orifice

for their Ballast Units. There are usually a maximum of 12 to 14
Ballast Units per square foot of bubbling area. The number of
Ballast Units on a tray can vary depending on turndown and
pressure drop requirements.
2.1.15 Number of Tray Passes
The number of passes on a tray refers to the number of liquid flow

paths. For a design where the liquid rates are high, the diameter
of the tower may have to be increased substantially in order to
obtain the length of weir or downcomer area needed to satisfy
liquid flow requirements. In these cases where the tower diameter
is controlled by the liquid rate, the number of tray passes should
be increased, until the smallest diameter is found where both
vapor and liquid flow criteria have been satisfied.
Most tray designs incorporate the one or two-flow trays. Four flow
trays are used in designs where the liquid rates are extremely
high, and the vapor rates are relatively low. Three flow trays are
not used in Foster Wheeler designs, due to difficulties in
controlling liquid flow equally to each pass. A diagram indicating
the flow paths for one through four flow trays is shown in Figure
IV. The maximum number of tray passes for various diameters is
shown in Table I. The maximum number of tray passes that can
physically fit into a given diameter is largely a function of tray
manway and minimum flow path length requirements.
2.1.16 Tower Area
The tower area is the total cross-sectional area within the tower
shell. The tower area is equal to the sum of the downcomer area,
bubbling area, and downcomer seal area, or the sum of the free
area plus the downcomer area.
2.1.17 Tray Materials of Construction
For sieve trays, the decks and downcomers can be specified as

either carbon steel or stainless steel. However, some plugging of
holes may result if carbon steel decks are used with a hole
diameter much less than ½”.
For valve trays, the decks and downcomers can be specified as

either carbon steel or stainless steel. Ballast units are almost
always specified as stainless (12 chrome) to avoid the problem of

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
the valves corroding shut on the tray decks.
2.1.18 Tray Spacing
The tray spacing, or vertical distance between tray decks, will

affect the capacity and entrainment of fractionating trays. Tray
spacing does not affect the lower operating limit. An increase in
tray spacing will increase the operating range of a tray, up to a
limiting value. The tray spacing is often varied in different sections
of the column. Table 1.1 lists the minimum tray spacing for
various tower diameters.
The minimum tray spacing is set by the desire to have a crawl (3)
space across each tray. (This would not normally apply to
“welded-in” or “cartridge” trays.) This space should be about 14
inches high. The presence of major and minor beams, of bent-
down plate, and of tray hardware (caps or valve assemblies),
establishes the minimum spacing. Table 1.1. shows the minimum
spacing increasing in 6-inch increments. In borderline cases, 3-
inch increments should be considered.
In any case, these dimensions are a guide, subject to thoughtful

review in specific cases, and subject to tray vendor information.
2.1.19 Unit Reference Number (U.R.N.) (7)
The Unit Reference Number appears in the Glitsch Ballast Tray

Computer Program printout. The Unit Reference Number is
defined as the percent of Ballast Units that are partially open. The
following guidelines can be used for design to predict performance
at turndown:
Number of Tray Passes Minimum U.R.N.
1 40
2 60
4 80-90
The Unit Reference Number is actually an indication of the
minimum vapor rate for a particular tray design. The U.R.N.
should be approximately equal to 100 at design rates. When the
U.R.N. approaches 200, entrainment flooding could begin to be a
problem and should be checked. It should be noted that these
guidelines apply to a pressurized system, and do not strictly apply
to a vacuum system where pressure drop is much more critical.

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
2.1.20 V-Load
This term appears in the Glitsch Tray Program Printout, and in the
Glitsch Tray Design Manual, Bulletin 4900. It is used by Glitsch to
establish a minimum active area and is a function of vapor
volumetric flow and vapor and liquid densities.
2.1.21 Weir Height
A weir height of 2" is used in most services. Exceptions are those

services having a low pressure drop specification. A weir height
as low as ½” has been used in vacuum columns but a ¾”
minimum weir height is normally recommended. A weir height up
to 6" can be used where a high liquid residence time is necessary,
for example, where a chemical reaction is involved. If the weir
height is greater than 15% of the tray spacing, the effective tray
spacing for purposes of calculating percent of flood should be
reduced by the excess of the weir height over 15% of the tray
spacing. Pressure drop will increase with increasing weir height.
Weeping and entrainment will increase slightly with increasing
weir height.
V-notch or rectangular notched weirs (see Figure V) are normally
recommended under the following conditions: (4)
0.6 GPM (Hot) Total GPM (Hot) from Tray

!
Inch of Outlet Weir 9.0 x (Tower Diameter, Ft)
A notched weir or splash baffle insures good distribution of liquid

on the tray deck at low liquid rates. In the cases where v-notches
or rectangular notches are specified, the weir height shall be
measured from the bottom of the notch to the tray deck.
2.1.22 Weir Length

The weir length establishes the rate of travel of the liquid across
the tray. The rate of liquid flow over the weir is referred to as the
weir rate. The weir rate is generally used to calculate the tray
pressure drop, and in the case of sieve trays, the weir rate is used
to establish other important design criteria, such as minimum hole
area.
A swept-back weir (see Figure V) is used to decrease the weir rate
for the purposes of improving tray hydraulics and lowering the tray
pressure drop without increasing either the tower diameter or

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
downcomer area. A swept-back weir does not change either the

active area or effective downcomer area, or the capacity of the
trays, except in small diameter towers.
2.2 General Operation Features
Below are valve tray criteria which can be used to quickly check the tray
design as offered by the various valve tray vendors. These criteria are
intended only to be used to quickly evaluate tray designs or spot check
inadequacies, with the final check, as required, based on the more
rigorous procedures.
2.2.1 Downcomer Clearance Velocity
Downcomer clearance velocities should be less than 1.0 ft/sec,

calculated by the following equation
'Q $
DC v = 0.00223 % "
& Ax #
where DCV = downcomer clearance velocity, ft/sec
Q = total liquid rate into downcomer, gpm at

operating temperature
Ax = downcomer clearance area, ft2
The downcomer clearance area, Ax, is the cross-sectional area

available to the liquid as it exits the downcomer (see Section
2.1.7).
For multi-pass trays, the downcomer clearance velocity should be

checked individually.
2.2.2 Downcomer Residence Time, Downcomer Back-Up and

Downcomer Width
As the liquid flows over the weir and into the downcomer, it exists
as a froth. Time must be allowed for the vapor portion of the froth
to disengage before the liquid enters the downflow clearance area
and flows to the next tray. Also, any foam that is created by the
liquid turbulence in the downcomer must be allowed to collapse
and dissipate. As a guideline for checking vendor designs, Foster
Wheeler has established 5 seconds as the minimum downcomer
residence time, with not more than 50% of the downcomer to be
backed up. Glitsch, however, prefers to use the downcomer

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
design velocity criteria shown in the Glitsch Ballast Tray Design

Manual Bulletin 4900 to size downcomers.
Using the method developed by Foster Wheeler, the downcomer

residence time is calculated by the following equation:
'V $
R = 449%% D ""
&Q #
where R = residence time, seconds
VD = downcomer volume, ft3
Q = total liquid rate into downcomer, GPM at

operating temperature
If the downcomer residence time calculated for a particular design

is less than 5 seconds, the volume of the downcomer must be
increased until the minimum downcomer residence time
requirement is satisfied.
The Minimum Downcomer Width is determined by the following

relationship
O wo > 1.0 hi t
O wi > 1.7 hi t
Where T = Tray spacing inches
Owo = Allowable width of outside downcomer,

inches
Owi = Allowable width of inside downcomer.

(multiple pass trays), inches
hi = height of liquid above the outlet weir, inches
2.2.3 Dumping, Weeping, and Entrainment
This topic will be issued for review later.
2.2.4 Flooding and Percent Flood - Flood Factor
The term “Flooding” is used quite often when referring to the upper

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
operating limit of fractionating trays. A fractionating tower can

flood due to excessive liquid or vapor rates, or when the ultimate
capacity of the system is reached. A brief description of each type
of flooding is included below:
A. System Limitation. Each system has a limiting or ultimate

capacity at a constant diameter which cannot be exceeded
by changing the tray design or by increasing the tray
spacing. This phenomenon is associated with the interaction
between the vapor and liquid spray in the intertray space and
is not related to the hardware used on the tray. This occurs
when there is substantial net upward flow of liquid relative to
the total liquid flow, and is a function of the terminal velocity
of the liquid drops populating the intertray space.
B. Downcomer Back-Up. During normal operation, the liquid in

the downcomer should only rise to a level of approximately
50% of the tray spacing. When the downcomer fills with
aerated liquid or foam to a higher % of the tray spacing, not
all the liquid can be accommodated by the downcomer, and
the tray may become flooded by the liquid accumulating in
the bubbling area.
C. Jetting or Massive Entrainment. With an adequate

downcomer design, flooding of fractionating trays may be
caused by massive entrainment, or jetting of liquid spray
from tray to tray. The amount of vapor required to flood a
tray due to the massive entrainment mechanism will vary
substantially with tray design, tray spacing and system
properties.
D. Blowing. Opposite to flooding - Liquid is blown into fine

spray leaving the tray essentially dry. Blowing occurs at very
high V/L ratios. A weir loading of at least 5 GPM/ft should be
maintained to avoid blowing.
The term FF, or Flood Factor, is used in the Glitsch Ballast Tray
Design Manual Bulletin 4900 for purposes of estimating the
minimum active area and minimum downcomer area. This term is
the “design percent of flood” expressed as a fraction. A value of
not more than 0.77 is normally used for vacuum towers and a
value of not more than 0.82 is used for other services. These
values are intended to limit entrainment to approximately 10%
entrainment. Higher flood factors may result in excessive
entrainment and/or a column sized too small for effective
PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
operation.
The “actual percent of flood” should be determined once the final

tray design has been completed. The “actual percent of flood”
should be in the range of 75 to 85 percent, at maximum design
rates. These values may vary, however, depending on the
particular application. In a revamp, for example, a higher percent
of flood than would typically be used for normal designs may be
allowed in order to permit the use of existing trays or an existing
fractionating tower. In all cases, the actual percent of flood should
be established in conjunction with or approved by the Chief
Process Engineer/Manager or the Process Supervisor.
The percent of flood for sieve and bubble cap trays can be
determined by the appropriate hand or computer calculation
methods outlined in Sections 3.0 and 5.0, respectively. The
percent of flood for valve trays should be determined from the
appropriate tray manufacturer’s design manuals, several of which
are outlined in Section 4.0. A generalized flooding calculation
procedure, included in Appendix IV, can be used to estimate the
percent flood of valve trays if the appropriate tray manufacturer’s
tray design manual is unavailable. A sample hand calculation is
also included in Appendix IV.
2.2.5 Foaming Characteristics - System Factor
System factors are used in the Glitsch Ballast Tray Design Manual
Bulletin 4900 to represent the degree of foaming for a particular
system. The system factor is actually a safety factor applied to
downcomer velocities to prevent premature flooding by
downcomer backup. It is also used in conjunction with the
Capacity Factor (Section 2.1.4) for sizing columns and calculating
the percent flood of a given tower diameter. A table listing the
system factors that should be used for various systems is shown
in the Glitsch Ballast Tray Design Manual Bulletin 4900. Other
tray vendors use other values.

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
2.2.6 Minimum and Maximum Vapor Velocity Criteria
Establishing the hole area for sieve trays, slot area for valve trays,
or slot area for bubble cap trays is generally the responsibility of
the tray vendor. The amount of perforated area on a tray deck is
a function of turndown and pressure drop requirements. Also, the
size and arrangement of the perforations can influence the rate of
entrainment and flooding. The tray vendor has conducted
extensive research in these areas, and will generally guarantee
tray flexibility.
In the past FW has, on occasion, designed sieve trays and bubble

cap trays using in house hand calculation methods and/or
computer programs. This, however, has not been the case in
recent years. It should be noted, however, that some clients insist
upon using their own tray design computer programs for all
applications rather than vendor designs.
This section contains guidelines for quickly checking a vendor’s

design for new loading, or to determine if an existing tray in a
revamp, for example, is acceptable with new loadings.
a. Sieve Trays - At present there is no quick guideline for

determining the minimum and maximum hole velocity for
sieve trays. There are equations in the FRI Tray Design
Handbook relating tray geometry and loading to the
minimum and maximum hole velocity, but they require some
knowledge of tray design methods and are cumbersome to
use. As an initial estimate, the valve tray guidelines can be
applied to sieve trays.
b. Valve Trays - The maximum slot velocity in feet per second

can be determined from the following equation:
15.0 (Ft)
V maximum =
(Vapor Density) ( Sec )
The minimum slot velocity in feet per second can be
determined from the following equation:
6.5 (Ft)
V minimum =
Vapor density = lbs/cu. ft.
The minimum slot velocity calculation is based on minimum

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
vapor flow and the area of the opening around the valve
periphery (fully opened). As a rule, the slot area for Koch
and Glitsch valves is equal to approximately 0.012 sq. ft. per
valve; but this should be checked with the vendor particularly
for Nutter Trays.
Where different weighted valves are specified for a single

deck, the minimum velocity should be tested for the
minimum vapor flow using the slot area for the lighter valves
plus the area of the fixed opening (valves having a dimple to
keep it off the deck) of the heavier valves.
c. Bubble Cap Trays - The maximum slot velocity in feet per

second can be determined by the following equation: (8)
12.1 (Ft)
V maximum =
The minimum slot velocity in feet per second can be
determined by the following equation: (8)
5.0 (Ft)
V minimum =
NOTE 1. Although the Davies article (8) recommends 3.4,
a value of 5.0 is used by Foster Wheeler. Vapor
density = lbs./cu. ft.
2.2.7 Pressure Drop
The following table is to be used as a guide for specifying the tray
pressure drop. The allowable pressure drop can be increased or
decreased depending upon flexibility requirements or system
pressure drop limitations.
(P/Tray, PSI, in (P/Tray, mm Hg, in (3)

Tray Type
Pressure Service Vacuum Service
Sieve (4) 0.1 to 0.20 1 to 2
Bubble Cap (5) 0.15 to 0.20 2.5 to 3.5
Valve 0.10 to 0.20 3.5 to 4.5
(2.5 for V-4 trays)
(3.0 to 3.5 for V-1 trays)
(3.5 to 4.5 for A-1 trays)

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
2.2.8 Swaged Tower Sections
When a tower has several feeds and/or several pump around

sections, the vapor and liquid loadings may be substantially
different in each section. The tower diameter should therefore be
adjusted to compensate for these changes in process loadings, if
no other internal adjustment such as tray spacing and type, will
allow the diameter to remain constant.
Rules for deciding which sections of the tower to swage vary

depending on diameter, materials of construction, and tower
height. A guideline obtained from the FWEC Vessel Engineering
Group is that it becomes economic to decrease the diameter, if the
decrease in diameter is greater than one foot. Also, the section
with the decreased diameter should be at least 20 feet in length.

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
3.0 SIEVE TRAY CALCULATION METHODS
This section serves as a summary of a few of the methods now available to the
process engineer to design and rate sieve trays. The user manuals for all of the
computer programs are available in the Process Design Library unless otherwise
noted. The sieve tray vendor shall provide the final design.
3.1 Hand Calculation Methods
The design methods most often used to rate sieve trays by hand
calculations are:
A. FRI, “The Fractionation Tray Design Handbook”, No. 3, Volume I,

Section 5.0. This is available in the Process Design Library.
B. “Process Design of Diffusional Equipment - Recommended

Procedures”, FWEC, Volume I, 1 December, 1960. This is available
from the Process Design Services group and from various Chief
Engineers and Managers.
C. “Sieve Tray Calculation Methods”, included in Appendix II. This is

included for reference only.
3.2 Computer Calculation Methods
The following computer programs are now available:
A. P1096 FRI Sieve Tray Rating
With given specific sieve tray design, vapor and liquid loading
conditions and physical properties, the program evaluates the usual
design parameters for one and two pass trays only, utilizing
procedures given in the FRI Design Handbook. The program will
accept either English or Metric (SI) units. This is the program
distributed to FRI members. This program can be run with cards
(batch) and is also available on TSO. P1096 can also be accessed
via PDQ.
B. P1115 FRI Multipass Sieve Tray Rating Program
This program, issued and licensed by FRI, evaluates sieve tray

designs of one-pass to four-passes of liquid. The program evaluates
conditions for each flow path of a multipass design, based on vapor
and liquid distribution determined from tray and downcomer hydraulic
considerations. This program can only be run batch.

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
C. Glitsch Sieve Tray Rating Program
This program, issued by Glitsch, can be used to design one-pass to

four-pass trays, or to rate existing one-pass to four-pass tray designs
for a given set of process conditions. This is the same program
which is used by Glitsch for their design work.
At present, this block mode program can be accessed only on the

Lear-Siegler ADM-31 CRT Terminal, available from the Process
Design Services group. At this time, the input manual and program
access procedure is available only through the Process Design
Services group, since use of this program at FWEC is relatively new.
3.3 Recommendations
The procedure shown in the FRI Fractionation Tray Design Handbook

(Section 3.1A) is the recommended hand calculation method. The FRI
Handbooks contain the latest technology available to design and rate sieve
trays.
The P1096 FRI Sieve Tray Program (Section 3.2A) or the Glitsch Sieve
Tray Rating Program (Section 3.2C) can both be used to design and rate
one or two pass trays. Quick results can be obtained from either program,
via the TSO or the CRT. For critical designs, the FRI program should be
used.
The Glitsch Sieve Tray Rating Program and the P1115 FRI multipass
Sieve Tray Rating Program (Section 3.2B) can both design & rate three or
four pass trays. If quick results are required, the Glitsch program should be
used, as the results appear directly on the CRT. As with the one and two
pass tray designs, critical three and four pass trays should be designed
using the FRI Program. The final selection should be made in conjunction
with or approved by the Chief Process Engineer/Manager or the Process
Supervisor. Avoid three-pass trays.
It should be noted that the Glitsch calculation methods can only be used to
determine the basic hydraulic parameters used in tray design, such as
percent flood, downcomer backup, and pressure drop. If additional
detailed design information is required, such as weep points, dump points,
entrainment values or tray efficiencies, the FRI calculation method must be
used.

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
4.0 VALVE TRAY CALCULATION METHODS
process engineer to use for design and rate valve trays. The valve tray vendor
shall provide the final design.
The design methods most often used to rate valve trays by hand
calculations are:
A. The “Ballast Tray Design Manual”, Bulletin 4900, published by

Glitsch. Be sure to use the latest printing available for the most up-
to-date criteria. This is probably the most widely used tray design
manual within the Process Design and Development Department.
Copies of this manual can be obtained from the Process Design
Services Group.
B. The “Flexitray Design Manual” published by Koch Engineering

Company. This manual illustrates the design and rating procedures
for the Koch Flexi-Tray.
C. The “Float Valve Tray Design Manual” published by Nutter

Engineering Company. This manual illustrates the design and rating
procedure for the Nutter Float Valve Tray.
All of these design manuals are in the Technical File, Index No. 442.112.
The following computer programs are now available.
A. Glitsch Valve Tray Rating Program
This program issued by Glitsch to FWEC can be used to design one-

pass to four-pass trays, or to rate existing one-pass to four-pass tray
designs for a given set of process conditions. This is the same
program which is used by Glitsch for their design work.
At present this block mode program can be accessed only on the

Design Services group. At this time, the input manual and program
Services group, since use of this program at FWEC is relatively new.

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
Note that the “Glitsch Tower Sizing Program, P1118”, is superseded

by this program and should no longer be used.
B. P1067 Tower Sizing
This program sizes fractionating towers using the approximate

method outlined in the Glitsch Ballast Tray Design Manual, Bulletin
4900. The program calculates approximate tower diameters for a
range of tray spacings and tray layouts for 1,2, and 4 pass trays.
This program can only be run batch. Results may vary from the
above rigorous program.
4.3 Recommendations
The hand calculation method that should be used depends upon the type
of valve unit under investigation. Normally, the Glitsch Ballast Tray Design
Manual (Section 4.1A) is used for most new Foster Wheeler designs. The
design manuals for the other proprietary trays mentioned in Sections 4.1B
and 4.1C should be used if those particular types of trays are being
checked for new loadings as in a revamp. See Section 1.2.4 for additional
information on additional proprietary trays.
The Glitsch Valve Tray Rating Program (Section 4.2A) is the

recommended computer calculation method. P1067 (Section 4.2B) can be
used to quickly spot-check a design, but should not be used for the final
design calculations. The valve tray vendor shall provide the final design.

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
5.0 BUBBLE CAP TRAY CALCULATION METHODS
process engineer to design and rate bubble cap trays. The bubble-cap tray vendor
shall provide the final design. The user manuals for all of the computer programs
are available in the Process Design Library unless otherwise noted. The procedure
required to access these programs, either on batch or TSO, including PDQ, can be
found in the Process Design Department Computer Users Manual.
The design methods most often used to rate bubble cap trays by hand
calculations are:
A. FRI, The “Fractionation Tray Design Handbook”, No. 3, Volume I,

Section 3.0. This is available in the Process Design Library.
B. “Bubble Cap Tray Calculation Methods”, included in Appendix I. This

is included for reference only.
The following computer programs are now available:
A. P1080 FRI Bubble Cap Tray Rating
This is the FRI rating program to rate bubble cap trays of one or two
pass design, with no cascading of trays. Output is in either English
or metric (SI) units. This program can only be run batch.
B. Glitsch Bubble Cap Tray Rating Program
This program, issued by Glitsch to FWEC, can be used to design

one-pass to four-pass trays, or to rate existing one-pass to four-pass
tray designs for a given set of process conditions. This is the same
program which is used by Glitsch for their design work.
At present, this block mode program can be accessed only on the

Design Services group. At this time, the user manual and program
Services group.

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
This program is identical to the Glitsch Valve Tray Rating Program

(see Section 4.2A), except that the “Bubble Cap Tray” option is
utilized.
5.3 Recommendations
The procedure shown in the Fractionation Tray Design Handbook (Section

5.1A) is the recommended hand calculation method. The FRI Handbooks
contain the latest technology available to design and rate bubble cap trays.
The Glitsch Bubble Cap Tray Rating Program (Section 5.2B) or the P1080
FRI Bubble Cap Tray Rating Program (Section 5.2A) can be used as
computer methods to design bubble cap trays. If quick results are
required, the Glitsch Bubble Cap program should be used, as the results
appear directly on the CRT. If the design is critical, the FRI Bubble Cap
program should be used, as the FRI method appears to be more rigorous
than the Glitsch method. The final selection should be made in
conjunction with or approved by the Chief Process Engineer/Manager or
the Process Supervisor.
It should be noted that the Glitsch calculation methods can only be used to
determine the basic hydraulic parameters used in tray design, such as
percent flood, downcomer backup, and pressure drop. If additional
detailed design information is required, such as weep points, dump points,
entrainment values or tray efficiencies, the FRI calculation methods must
be used.

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
6.0 PROCESS TRAY DATA
6.1 Tray Data Requisition Form (Form Number 135-110A)
This section includes instructions for use of Form No. 135-110A, Tray Data
Requisition Form, which accompanies the process vessel sketch for
towers. This data sheet contains 51 numbered lines of data that are
required to allow the tray vendor to satisfactorily design a fractionating
tray. These data sheets are issued by Process Engineering to the Vessel
Engineering group, whose function is to complete the data sheet and
subsequently coordinate purchase of the trays. In addition, the data
sheets should be sent directly to the tray manufacturer by the Process
Design and Development Department to confirm the results obtained by
using the in-house computer methods.
6.2 Guidelines for Providing Tray Data for Tray Data Requisition Form
This section includes guidelines for completing the Tray Data Requisition
Form. A copy of a completed Tray Data Requisition Form has been
included in Appendix III for reference. A line by line description of the
information required to complete the form has been included here.
Tray data is either furnished by the client or generated by the process

engineer using a process simulation computer program, Foster Wheeler’s
version of which is the P1086 Process Simulator. A sample of the type of
data generated by the FW P1086 program has been included in Appendix
III for reference. Should the tray data be generated by another program,
and the vapor and liquid physical properties are not available, they should
be obtained from other sources such as the FW Design Data Books, the
API Technical Data Books, or the NGPSA Engineering Data Book. If the
required data is unavailable in these sources, consult with the Technical
Data Supervisor.
When sections of a tower are given, specify the maximum and minimum
loading points of the section. Should the P1086 computer program be
employed to simulate the tray loads, these points are readily identified in
the tray loading table under the heading VLoad.
In specifying the top tray, and for trays involving transition from
fractionation to pump around service, data for both the vapor to/liquid from
and vapor from/liquid to those particular section should be given. This also
applies to selected towers such as strippers, in which case the maximum
traffic in the top of the tower lies somewhere between the rates calculated
as entering the top stage, and the rate calculated as leaving the tower.

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
The heat duty for pump around trays should be supplied as an additional
item.
The maximum vapor and liquid rates may not occur at the same point.
Rather than specifying both sections, pick the maximum vapor loading and
specify that section with the corresponding liquid load. As a footnote,
inform the vendor to assure that the downcomers are guaranteed to
handle the maximum liquid rate, unless the maximum liquid rate is very
different from the rate corresponding to the Max VLoad point, such as pump
around design rates. If so, complete loadings for both should be supplied.
Title Box - Fill in the client name, contract number, site and date. Also
include the name and item number of the tower you are supplying data for
where “Tray Data For” is noted. The requisition number and the vessel
drawing number are left blank. They will be provided later by the Vessel
Engineering group. The boxes marked C1 through C6 refer to the dates of
future process revisions of the data sheet.
Lines 1 and 2 - Indicate the operating case that you are providing tray data
for. These may include different tower feeds, or different tower operations.
Where a tower has many different operating cases, only those cases that
will control tray design should be included. These cases should be
selected in conjunction with or approved by the Chief Process
Engineer/Manager.
Line 3 - Indicate the tray numbers of the section that you are providing
data for. This can be the entire tower, in the case of a stripper, or any
particular section of a tower. Typical sections are those between different
feed locations or between pump around sections, or where there is any
other abrupt change in loadings, such as a liquid or vapor drawoff tray.
Trays are usually numbered consecutively from bottom to top, and should
be so indicated as in “1 (bottom) to 7”
Line 4 - Indicate which tray number or loading point you are providing data
for. This loading point should agree with the tray numbers shown in Line
3.
Line 5 - Indicate the type and number of trays in the section noted in Line
3.
Line 6 - Indicate the tower diameter of the section noted in Line 3.
Line 7 - Indicate the tray spacing of the section noted in Line 3.
Line 8 - Indicate the number of tray passes of the section noted in Line 3.

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
Line 9 - Indicate the maximum allowable pressure drop for the entire
section noted in Line 3.
The value specified in Line 9 should only be for the fractionating trays, the
pressure drop for other internals such as mist eliminators or packed
sections should not be included here.
Lines 10 and 11 - These lines can be used to supply any additional

information that would be helpful to the tray vendor.
NOTE: The data required for Lines 12 through 32 correspond to the

loading point indicated in Line 4.
Line 12 - The direction of the vapor flow is indicated here. Normally, trays
are designed for the vapor load entering the tray, therefore the word
“(from)” should be crossed out.
Lines 13 through 19 - The vapor flowrate and properties are indicated in

Lines 13 through 19. These values can be obtained from Table II-E in the
P1086 printout. A sample printout has been included in Appendix III.
Line 20 - The direction of the liquid flow is indicated here. Normally, trays
are designed for the liquid load leaving the tray, therefore the word “(to)”
should be crossed out.
Lines 21 through 27 - The liquid flowrate and properties are indicated in

Lines 21 through 27. This liquid flowrate should correspond to the same
loading point for which the vapor flow is specified in line 13. Do not specify
the maximum vapor rate along with the maximum liquid rate within the
section if they are not for the same loading point
Note that there are two possible units of liquid viscosity that can be used in
Line 24. Be sure to cross out the inappropriate unit.
Line 28 - This line can be used to supply any additional information that
would be helpful to the tray vendor.
Line 29 - The minimum downcomer area is normally left blank.
Line 30 - Select the proper System Factor, for example, the ones given in
Tray Design Manual Bulletin 4900 (see Section 2.2.5). The selection
should be based on past designs for the same type tower, and should be
approved by the Chief Process Engineer/Manager.
Lines 31 and 32 - The maximum and minimum operating range is

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
indicated in lines 31 and 32, respectively. These values normally are

selected in conjunction with the client; typical values are 100% for the
maximum operating range and 50% for the minimum operating range.
Final selection of the minimum and maximum operating ranges should be
approved by the Chief Process Engineer/Manager.
Lines 35 through 46 - Mechanical Design and Tray Requisition

Information. These lines are normally left blank.
Lines 47 through 51 - These lines are used to provide any additional

referenced notes that may be required. State whether a water-rich liquid
phase “will be”, or “might be” present on the tray during normal operation.
This will help in choice of materials of construction for the tray.
Bottom Line on Data Sheet - The originating Process Engineer’s name or

initial should appear where indicated. P.O. No. and Supplier are left blank.

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
7.0 CHECKING VENDOR’S PROPOSALS
It is the responsibility of the Process Engineer to insure that a proposal submitted

by a tray vendor for supplying fractionating trays is technically correct. Some tray
vendors will supply a computer printout of the tray rating program used to design
the trays. When checking a vendor’s design, the following points should be
examined.
1) Check that the input used by the vendor to design the trays is correct. This
input can include any or all of the following:
a) Vapor and liquid flowrates and physical properties
b) Tower diameter and tray type
c) Tray spacing
d) Number of tray passes
e) System Factor
f) Turndown requirements
g) Tray metallurgy
These data are normally specified on the Foster Wheeler Tray Data Requisition
Form 135-110A.
2) Other hydraulic parameters such as the Downcomer Clearance, Weir Height

and Flow Path Length are normally not specified by Foster Wheeler on the
Tray Data Requisition Form, but should be checked to insure that the criteria
outlined in the corresponding sections are met. For Glitsch designs, the Unit
Reference Number should also be checked.
3) All of the hydraulic parameters outlined in Section 2.2 referring to tray design
should be checked.
4) Ensure that a statement appears in the proposal that the tray vendor will
guarantee hydraulic performance for the operating ranges specified in Lines
31 and 32 on the Tray Data Requisition Form.

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
APPENDIX I
BUBBLE CAP TRAY CALCULATION METHODS
This appendix cites an old calculation method developed within Foster Wheeler to design
Bubble Cap Trays. This method has been included for historical interest, as the more
recent design methods and computer models listed in Section 5.0 are available and should
be used instead.
For the old bubble cap tray calculation method, see the old Process Standards, Volume I,
Section 200 (Towers), pages 3 through 30.

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
APPENDIX II
SIEVE TRAY CALCULATION METHODS
This appendix cites an old calculation method developed within Foster Wheeler to design
sieve trays. This method has been included for historical interest, as the more recent
design methods and computer models listed in Section 3.0 are available and should be
used instead.
For the old sieve tray calculation method, see the old Process Standards, Volume I, Section
200 (Towers), pages 31 through 40.

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
APPENDIX III
TRAY DATA INFORMATION
This appendix contains a sample of a completed Tray Data Requisition Form 135-110A.
Also contained in this appendix are P1086 sample computer printouts of the Tray Loading
Table, Table II-E and Stage Liquid Properties, Table II-B.

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
APPENDIX III (Cont’d)

TRAY LOADING TABLE
TABLE II-E
II-E. TRAY LOADING TABLE
VAPOR ENTERING STAGE LIQUID LEAVING STAGE
STAGE M LB/HR MOL WT T,DEG F P, PSIA COMP Z FT3/S LB/FT3 DEN**.5 VL,FT3./S M LB/HR HOT SG T,DEG F HOT GPM MOL WT
1 81.783 43.01 105.14 211.00 0.7942 12.044 1.886 0.2597 3.13 52.014 0.4782 99.39 217.22 43.01
2 82.795 43.25 107.16 211.22 0.7938 12.153 1.892 0.2614 3.18 53.027 0.4739 105.14 223.44 43.38
3 82.813 43.51 109.53 211.43 0.7936 12.116 1.899 0.2618 3.17 53.044 0.4740 107.16. 223.50 43.80
4 82.796 43.83 112.39 211.65 0.7934 12.070 1.905 0.2622 3.16 53.028 0.4745 109.53 223.20 44.31
5 82.775 44.22 115.78 211.86 0.7932 12.017 1.913 0.2625 3.16 53.006 0.4753 112.39 222.73 44.93
6 82.773 44.66 119.57 212.08 0.7929 11.962 1.922 0.2629 3.14 53.004 0.4763 115.78 222.23 45.63
7 82.810 45.12 123.55 212.29 0.7926 11.909 1.932 0.2632 3.13 53.041 0.4775 119.57 221.84 46.40
8 82.889 45.58 127.45 212.51 0.7923 11.862 1.941 0.2636 3.13 53.121 0.4786 123.55 221.64 47.16
9 82.995 46.00 131.04 212.72 0.7919 11.823 1.950 0.2639 3.12 53.227 0.4797 127.45 221.61 47.86
10 83.102 46.36 134.19 212.94 0.7916 11.792 1.958 0.2642 3.12 53.333 0.4806 131.04 221.64 48.46
11 83.184 46.65 136.88 213.15 0.7914 11.767 1.964 0.2644 3.11 53.416 0.4814 134.19 221.62 48.96
12 83.227 46.88 139.16 213.37 0.7912 11.746 1.968 0.2645 3.11 53.458 0.4821 136.88 221.47 49.36
13 83.223 47.06 141.12 213.58 0.7911 11.726 1.971 0.2646 3.10 53.454 0.4827 139.16 221.16 49.66
14 83.172 47.20 142.86 213.80 0.7910 11.706 1.974 0.2645 3.10 53.403 0.4833 141.12 220.66 49.91
15 83.077 47.31 144.51 214.00 0.7910 11.685 1.975 0.2644 3.09 53.308 0.4840 142.86 219.96 50.11
16 88.501 47.50 145.79 214.30 0.7904 12.397 1.983 0.2648 3.28 132.530 0.4847 144.51 546.03 50.31
17 89.009 47.73 147.36 214.60 0.7896 12.412 1.992 0.2656 3.30 133.037 0.4842 145.79 548.74 50.46
18 89.589 48.02 149.35 214.90 0.7888 12.428 2.002 0.2665 3.31 133.617 0.4837 147.36 551.72 50.67
19 90.301 48.40 151.53 215.20 0.7879 12.448 2.015 0.2676 3.33 134.330 0.4832 149.35 555.23 50.94
20 91.213 48.90 155.22 215.50 0.7867 12.476 2.031 0.2688 3.35 135.242 0.4827 151.93 559.55 51.29
21 92.398 49.55 159.32 216.1 0.7853 12.517 2.051 0.2704 3.38 136.426 0.4822 155.22 565.02 51.75
22 93.924 50.34 164.17 216.10 0.7836 12.577 2.074 0.2722 3.42 137.952 0.4817 159.32 571.98 52.31
23 95.821 51.26 169.58 216.40 0.7816 12.661 2.102 0.2744 3.47 139.850 0.4810 164.17 580.62 52.96
24 98.036 52.25 175.21 216.70 0.7795 12.768 2.133 0.2768 3.53 142.065 0.4802 169.58 590.81 53.66
25 100.424 53.25 180.65 217.00 0.7773 12.890 2.164 0.2792 3.60 144.453 0.4793 175.21 601.93 54.36
26 102.760 54.17 185.59 217.30 0.7753 13.013 2.194 0.2816 3.66 146.789 0.4782 180.65 613.00 55.01
27 104.833 54.97 189.82 217.60 0.7735 13.121 2.219 0.2837 3.72 148.862 0.4773 185.59 622.88 55.57
28 106.510 55.61 193.34 217.90 0.7720 13.203 2.241 0.2854 3.77 150.539 0.4766 189.82 630.80 56.03
29 107.753 56.12 196.25 218.20 0.7709 13.259 2.257 0.2867 3.80 151.782 0.4761 193.34 636.68 56.39
30 108.588 56.50 198.78 218.50 0.7701 13.290 2.270 0.2876 3.82 152.618 0.4758 196.25 640.60 56.66
31 109.060 56.80 201.30 219.00 0.7693 13.284 2.280 0.2884 3.83 153.089 0.4757 198.78 642.66 56.88
32 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.029 0.4759 201.30 184.78 57.08

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
APPENDIX III (Cont’d)

STAGE LIQUID PROPERTIES
TABLE II-B
II-B. STAGE LIQUID PROPERTIES
CRIT TEMP, DEG F CRIT PRESS, PSIA

DRY HOT SR. TENS SP HEAT SP HEAT
STAGE MOL WT API UOP K LB/BBL Z CRIT VISC CP DYNE/CM IDEAL RATIO
PSEUDO TRUE PSEUDO TRUE
1 43.013 142.48 14.388 167.620 201.46 202.21 646.62 651.36 0.2753 0.088 0.0 0.3913 1.1338
2 43.384 141.86 14.377 166.122 203.54 204.69 642.99 650.25 0.2755 0.089 4.975 0.3962 1.1306
3 43.801 141.03 14.358 166.135 205.84 207.57 639.43 650.29 0.2757 0.090 4.961 0.3986 1.1284
4 44.310 139.88 14.327 166.302 208.69 211.13 635.58 650.79 0.2759 0.092 4.955 0.4009 1.1259
5 44.925 138.39 14.283 166.590 212.19 215.43 631.29 651.24 0.2761 0.095 4.954 0.4034 1.1231
6 45.634 136.62 14.229 166.961 216.32 220.36 626.61 651.16 0.2763 0.097 4.955 0.4060 1.1201
7 46.396 134.68 14.169 167.368 220.88 225.62 621.78 650.26 0.2766 0.100 4.955 0.4087 1.1170
8 47.155 132.71 14.106 167.767 225.55 230.84 617.14 648.55 0.2768 0.103 4.953 0.4114 1.1141
9 47.858 130.86 14.046 168.128 230.03 235.71 613.04 646.33 0.2769 0.105. 4.949 0.4138 1.1115
10 48.465 129.21 13.992 168.443 234.10 240.01 609.68 644.02 02770 0.108 4.944 0.4159 1.1093
11 48.962 127.79 13.944 168.717 237.64 243.69 607.13 641.97 0.2771 0.110 4.941 0.4175 1.1076
12 49.356 126.57 13.903 168.962 240.67 246.80 605.31 640.40 0.2771 0.111 4.941 0.4188 1.1063
13 49.663 125.54 13.867 169.191 243.27 249.45 604.10 639.36 0.2770 0.113 4.945 0.4198 1.1053
14 49.906 124.63 13.835 169.415 245.55 251.80 603.35 638.82 0.2769 0.114 4.953 0.4204 1.1045
15 50.110 123.81 13.806 169.645 247.65 253.99 602.87 638.74 0.2768 0.116 4.965 0.4209 1.1039
16 50.305 123.00 13.778 169.900 249.72 256.20 602.50 639.10 0.2767 0.117 4.983 0.4213 1.1034
17 50.463 122.80 13.774 169.708 250.68 257.03 601.06 636.80 0.2768 0.118 4.952 0.4226 1.1027
18 50.668 122.50 13.768 169.527 251.93 258.14 599.35 634.16 0.2769 0.119 4.921 0.4241 1.1018
19 50.939 122.04 13.756 169.356 253.59 259.64 597.28 630.98 0.2769 0.120 4.885 0.4258 1.1008
20 51.295 121.39 13.738 169.189 255.80 261.63 594.75 627.06 0.2771 0.122 4.844 0.4278 1.0995
21 51.751 120.51 13.712 169.019 258.65 264.19 591.71 622.20 0.2772 0.124 4.795 0.4302 1.0979
22 52.310 119.39 13.677 168.830 262.16 267.32 588.16 616.27 0.2773 0.126 4.736 0.4329 1.0961
23 52.958 118.07 13.636 168.603 266.26 270.92 584.22 609.31 0.2775 0.128 4.665 0.4360 1.0941
24 53.658 116.63 13.589 168.322 270.73 274.76 580.12 601.61 0.2777 0.130 4.583 0.4393 1.0920
25 54.359 115.17 13.542 167.988 275.24 278.57 576.14 593.68 0.2778 0.133 4.494 0.4425 1.0900
26 55.010 113.81 13.497 167.623 279.50 282.11 572.57 586.16 0.2779 0.135 4.404 0.4455 1.0882
27 55.574 112.61 13.456 167.292 283.27 285.20 569.61 579.57 0.2780 0.136 4.324 0.4482 1.0866
28 56.034 111.58 13.421 167.054 286.47 287.81 567.36 574.22 0.2780 0.138 4.261 0.4503 1.0854
29 56.392 110.72 13.391 166.876 289.15 290.01 565.79 570.19 0.2780 0.139 4.212 0.4519 1.0845
30 56.664 109.96 13.364 166.770 291.44 291.95 564.85 567.41 0.2780 0.140 4.178 0.4531 1.0838
31 56.878 109.25 13.338 166.748 293.58 293.84 564.43 565.75 0.2779 0.141 4.157 0.4539 1.0833
32 57.076 108.48 13.311 166.798 295.88 296.03 564.37 565.11 0.2777 0.142 4.146 0.4545 1.0829

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
APPENDIX IV
METHOD FOR ESTIMATING PERCENT FLOOD OF VALVE TRAYS
This appendix contains a sample hand calculation using the method presented by Glitsch
for estimating the flood point of valve trays. A sample computer output sheet of the Glitsch
Valve Tray Rating Program (Section 4.2A) for the same tray design used for the sample
hand calculation has also been included for comparative purposes.

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
APPENDIX IV (Cont’d)
METHOD FOR ESTIMATING PERCENT FLOOD OF VALVE TRAYS
Sample Output of Glitsch Valve Tray Rating Program (Section 4.2A).
Sample Run for C3/C4 Splitter Tray Loads with Glitsch Design
Tray Number 40 (Top) 21 1 (BTM) 20 (Feed)
Vapor Lbs/Hr 82795 83077 109060 88501
Vapor Cu Ft/Sec 12.2 11.7 13.3 12.4
Vapor Density 1.8920 1.9750 2.2800 1.9830
Vload 3.179 3.092 3.834 3.285
Liquid Lbs/Hr 53027 53308 153089 132530
Gallons per Min 223.7 220.2 643.3 546.6
Liquid Density 29.56 30.19 29.67 30.23
Tray Spacing 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00
Vload/AA Entrainment
Vload/AA Operating 0.1686 0.1639 0.2033 0.1742
Capacity Factor (Caf) 0.3648 0.3637 0.3597 0.3636
Percent Flood Eq. 13 51.46 50.26 71.83 60.77
DC Loading 0/0 of Allow 28.35 27.63 81.95 68.56
DCBU-Inches Clear Liquid 6.17 6.11 8.88 8.04
D C Baffle Factor 2.07 2.12 1.39 1.63
DC Baffles Advisable NO NO NO YES
GPM/MFW 1.73 1.70 4.97 4.23
GPM/Weir Length (side(s)) 2.17 2.14 6.25 5.31
Unit Reference 76 75 92 80
VH2 DV/DL 1.33 1.26 1.91 1.42
Dry Tray Drop 1.66 1.62 1.78 1.65
Height Over Weir (Ave.) 0.60 0.60 1.22 1.10
Pressure Drop, Inch Liq. 3.07 3.02 3.80 3.55
Pressure Drop, MM HG 2.72 2.74 3.38 3.22

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
APPENDIX IV (Cont’d)
Diameter 72.800 Approx. No. of Units 209

Side DC Width 10.650 Pitch 2.50 by 3.00 PFV
Center DC Width 9.500 Hole Area 2.66
Off Center DC Width Ballast Units 16 GA V-1 S.S.
Area DC Side 5.244 DC Clearance 1.50
Area DC Center 4.803 Tray Floor 10 GA S.S.
Area DC Off Center System Factor 0.85
Active Area 18.859 Weir Length Side(s) 102.91
Flow Path Length 21.000 Weir Height 2.00
Packing Not Required Number of Flow Paths 2
Specified by Customer
Pressure Drop MM HG/Tray Downcomer Area Sq. Ft.
Weir Height Inches Downcomer Clearance Inches
Max Operating Rate Percent Min Operating Rate Percent
Results
The value of the percent flood obtained by the hand calculation method is in reasonable
agreement with the value obtained by using the Glitsch Valve Tray Rating Program.
Hand Calculation
Glitsch Valve Tray Rating Program
Method
Percent Flood 80 72
The discrepancy between the two methods is attributed to the simplified equation used in
the hand calculation method for establishing flow path length.
Tower Diameter * 9
FPL =
Number of Passes
The rigorous program optimizes the flow path length in order to either provide equal active
area, or equal downcomer widths, depending on customer preference. This frequently
generates a FPL different from that calculated by hand. In any event, the hand calculation
method gives a good estimate of the tower diameter.

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
TABLE 1.2
MINIMUM DOWNCOMER RESIDENCE TIME
AND MAXIMUM DOWNCOMER BACKUP(4)
Residence Maximum Downcomer

Frothiness Example Service
Time (Sec.) Backup (%)
Very low Butane, Propane 4 60
Low Gasoline, heptane 5 55
Moderate Crude oil towers, Abs. oil 6 50
strippers
High Mineral oil absorbers, Vacuum 7 40
towers
Very high Amines, Glycols & unknown 10-12 30-35
system

PROCESS STD 105A
TOWERS-TRAYS REV 10
REFERENCES
1) Glitsch Ballast Tray Design Manual, Glitsch, Inc., Dallas, Texas, Bulletin 4900,
Third Edition, 11th printing, December 1981.
2) Fractionation Tray Design Handbook, Fractionation Research Inc., Volume I,

Sections 3.0 and 5.0.
3) FWEC Process Department, Vacuum Distillation Unit Design Manual, 1 January

1983.
4) Process Design of Diffusional Equipment, Recommended Procedures, Foster

Wheeler Corporation, New York, Volume I, 1 December 1960.
5) Process Design of Bubble Cap Trays for Distillation of HC Mixtures, Middleton and
Kutler of Foster Wheeler Corporation, New York, April 1954, Technical File
442.111.
6) Tower Tray Dimensions, Memo from Franklyn Isaacson, 25 September 1972,

Technical File 442.111.
7) Contact Form, Adam Lee of Glitsch, 27 October 1982, Technical File 442.111.
8) Bubble Trays, Design and Layout, Part II, J. Davies, Petroleum Refiner, September
1950.

Process STD 105 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

Process STD 105 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROCESS STD 105A

FOSTER WHEELER VESSELS PAGE Contents-1

SECTION TITLE PAGE

1.1 Objectives of this Standard 1

2.0 DEFINITION AND DISCUSSIONS 4

2.1 General Tray Terminology 4

FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY LIMITED 2002

SECTION TITLE PAGE

2.2.3 Dumping, Weeping and Entrainment 12

3.0 SIEVE TRAY CALCULATION METHODS 18

3.1 Hand Calculation Methods 18

4.0 VALVE TRAY CALCULATION METHODS 20

4.1 Hand Calculation Methods 20

5.0 BUBBLE CAP TRAY CALCULATION METHODS 22

5.1 Hand Calculation Methods 22

6.0 PROCESS TRAY DATA 24

6.1 Tray Data Requisition Form (Form Number 135-110A) 24

7.0 CHECKING VENDOR’S PROPOSALS 28

FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY LIMITED 2002

NO. TITLE PAGE

I Bubble Cap Tray Calculation Methods 29

II Sieve Tray Calculation Methods 30

III Tray Data Information 31

IV Method for Estimating Percent Flood of Valve Trays 35

NO. TITLE PAGE

I Sieve and Valve Tray Details 40

II Typical One Pass Sieve or Valve Tray Layout 40

III Tray Design and Tray Layout Definitions 41

IV Tray Flow Path Layouts 42

V Outlet Weir Details 43

VI Bubble Cap Details 44

NO. TITLE PAGE

1.1 Tray Spacing Table and Maximum Number of Tray Passes 45

1.2 Minimum Downcomer Residence Time and 46

FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY LIMITED 2002

A widely used method of separating and purifying materials in the processing

1.1 Objectives of this Standard

1.2 Features and Characteristics of Fractionating Trays

1.2.1 Sieve or Perforated Trays

In this type of tray, the vapor-liquid contact is obtained through the

The efficiency of a well designed sieve tray is as good as any

FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY LIMITED 2002

1.2.2 Valve Trays

Valve trays are manufactured by three main fabricators: Glitsch,

A typical valve unit is shown in Figure II.

1.2.3 Bubble Cap Trays

FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY LIMITED 2002

1.2.4 Specialty Trays

Through the years, other types of fractionating trays have been

1.3 Process Engineering Work Related to Fractionating Trays

In general, FW process engineers are not required to develop detailed

One of the purposes of this standard is to provide the necessary

FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY LIMITED 2002

2.0 DEFINITIONS AND DISCUSSIONS

2.1 General Tray Terminology

This section contains an alphabetical listing of the terms most frequently

2.1.1 Anti-Jump and Splash Baffles

Operation at high vapor rates requires that anti-jump baffles be

Splash baffles are normally recommended for low liquid flowrates

2.1.2 Bubbling or Active Area

FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY LIMITED 2002

2.1.3 Calming Area

2.1.4 Capacity Factor