This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Section III-B Page 1 of 83

SIEVE TRAYS

DESIGN PRACTICES

December, 2003

CONTENTS

Section Page

SCOPE............................................................................................................................................................ 4 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................................ 4 DESIGN PRACTICES............................................................................................................................. 4 GLOBAL PRACTICES ............................................................................................................................ 4 OTHER REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 4 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................................. 5 DEFINITIONS / EQUATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 5 APPLICATION ................................................................................................................................................ 5 BASIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................................. 6 TOWER DIAMETER ............................................................................................................................... 6 TRAY SPACING ..................................................................................................................................... 6 NUMBER OF LIQUID PASSES .............................................................................................................. 7 Transitions ........................................................................................................................................... 7 TRAY AND DOWNCOMER LAYOUT..................................................................................................... 7 Hole Area............................................................................................................................................. 7 Hole Size ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Blanking ............................................................................................................................................... 8 Downcomer Width And Area................................................................................................................ 8 Outlet Weirs And Downcomer Clearances........................................................................................... 8 Tray Balancing ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Multipass Trays.................................................................................................................................... 9 Multipass Tray Balancing..................................................................................................................... 9 Column Access .................................................................................................................................... 9 Startup Considerations ...................................................................................................................... 10 PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................... 10 Tray Turndown And Weeping ............................................................................................................ 10 Tray Efficiency And Heat Transfer ..................................................................................................... 11 Low Liquid Rate Tray Design............................................................................................................. 11 High Liquid Rate Tray Design ............................................................................................................ 11 Foaming............................................................................................................................................. 11 Vapor Recycling................................................................................................................................. 12 Fouling ............................................................................................................................................... 12 Corrosion ........................................................................................................................................... 13 TOWER CHECKLIST ........................................................................................................................... 13 CAPACITY/ PERFORMANCE RESTRICTION MECHANISMS ................................................................... 13 OVERALL CAPACITY .......................................................................................................................... 13 Overall Flood ..................................................................................................................................... 13 Probability Of Non-Flooding Operation .............................................................................................. 13 VAPOR HANDLING LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................... 14 Jet Flooding ....................................................................................................................................... 14

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA

ExxonMobil Proprietary

Section III-B Page 2 of 83

FRACTIONATING TOWERS

SIEVE TRAYS

DESIGN PRACTICES

December, 2003

Ultimate Capacity ...............................................................................................................................15 Spray Regime And Entrainment .........................................................................................................17 LIQUID HANDLING LIMITATIONS........................................................................................................20 Downcomer Flood ..............................................................................................................................20 SECONDARY DESIGN PARAMETERS ...............................................................................................23 SIEVE TRAY DESIGN PROCEDURE ...........................................................................................................26 EMOTIP DESIGN ALGORITHM............................................................................................................26 AVAILABLE PROGRAMS .....................................................................................................................32 TABLES Table 1 Sieve Tray Design Principles ...........................................................................................................33 Table 2 System Factors ................................................................................................................................35 Table 3 Equations For Determining Liquid And Vapor Splits ........................................................................38 Table 4 Default Design Algorithm Values......................................................................................................40 FIGURES Figure 1 Weeping And Dumping Regions .....................................................................................................44 Figure 2 EMoTip Tray Performance Diagrams.............................................................................................45 Figure 3 E-Method Entrainment Kφ Factor ....................................................................................................48 Figure 4 E-Method Entrainment Kl Factor.....................................................................................................49 Figure 5 E-Method Entrainment Kσ Factor....................................................................................................51 Figure 6 E-Method Entrainment Kε Factor ....................................................................................................52 Figure 7 Kσµ Factor For E-Method Entrainment Correlation .........................................................................54 Figure 8 Three-Pass Tray Geometry.............................................................................................................55 Figure 9 Four-Pass Tray Geometry...............................................................................................................56 Figure 10 EMoTip Sieve And Valve Tray Design Algorithm ..........................................................................57 Figure 11 Dry Tray Pressure Drop Design Consideration Function ..............................................................58 Figure 12 Liquid Load Design Consideration Function .................................................................................59 Figure 13 Froth/Spray Transition Design Consideration Function.................................................................60 Figure 14 Downcomer Choke Design Consideration Function......................................................................61 Figure 15 Entrainment Design Consideration Function.................................................................................61 Figure 16 Flow Path Length Design Consideration Function ........................................................................62 Figure 17 Weeping Less Than 20% @ Turndown ........................................................................................63 Figure 18 Weeping Rate Design Consideration Function .............................................................................64 Figure 19 Sealing Factor @ Design Rates Design Consideration Function..................................................64 Figure 20 Sealing Factor @ Turndown Rates Design Consideration Function ..............................................65 Figure 21 Vapor Carryunder Design Consideration Function........................................................................65

Revision Memo Revision marks are not included in this revision because this is essentially a complete rewrite. 12/03 The highlights of this revision are:

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA

**ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS
**

Section III-B Page 3 of 83

SIEVE TRAYS

DESIGN PRACTICES

December, 2003

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

The Jet Flood, Ultimate Capacity, Probability of non-flood, Weeping, and TABLE 2 "Design Criteria" have been replaced with EMoTIP correlations and/or values. Overall Flood has been added. Downcomer Flood has been added. Foaming Factor and Fouling Factor have been added. Froth to Spray Transition correlation design limits have been modified. Downcomer Seal correlations have been modified. M-Method Entrainment correlation has been added. Universal Ultimate Capacity correlation has been added. Tray balancing explanation has been modified. New design limits have been added. Deleted all Figures in the Appendix that represented old correlations. Deleted SIEVE TRAY CALCULATION FORMS at the end of the Section. Added clear liquid height term used in deck frothing, as well as clear liquid height term used in the total tray pressure drop and downcomer backup calculations. Added a discussion of the EMoTIP design algorithm. Updated discussion of general design considerations. Added figure showing tray performance diagram calculated with EMoTIP for three pressure levels. Added figures showing the design consideration weighting function for the various design variables. Added the EMoTIP weep point and weep rate correlation. Changed the "Detailed Design Procedure" section to a "Capacity/Performance Restriction Mechanism" section to reflect the EMoTIP approach. Restructured the "Basic Design Considerations" section to better reflect the EMoTIP approach. Mention of old programs have been replaced with EMoTIP. Updated TABLE 3 EQUATIONS FOR DETRMINING LIQUID AND VAPOR SPLITS

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA

ExxonMobil Proprietary

Section III-B Page 4 of 83

FRACTIONATING TOWERS

SIEVE TRAYS

DESIGN PRACTICES

December, 2003

SCOPE

This section covers the techniques for specifying the process design features of sieve trays for new designs or revamps. It is assumed that the designer has already read Section III-A, Device Selection and Basic Concepts, and determined that sieve trays are the best choice for the design. The ExxonMobil Tower Internals Program (EMoTIP) utilizes the equations and criteria presented in this section for new tray designs and for rating existing trays. A discussion of the ExxonMobil Tower Internals Program (EMoTIP) design algorithm is included in this section. Detailed mechanical design as well as beam and hole layout are normally handled by the tray fabricator and therefore are not discussed in this section. A list of FRACTIONATION SPECIALISTS to contact for help is provided at the beginning of Section lII. For the design of tray-related tower internals, such as nozzles, drawoff boxes and reboiler connections, refer to Section lII-H, Tower Internals. For the design of heat transfer trays, see Section III-F. To calculate tray efficiency, see Section lIl-l. Areas and lengths of chords are given in Section III-K.

**REFERENCES DESIGN PRACTICES
**

Section III, Fractionating Towers

GLOBAL PRACTICES

GP 05-02-01, Internals for Towers, Drums and Fixed Bed Reactors

OTHER REFERENCES

1. 2. 3. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Becker, P. W. and Peruyero, J. M. A., Minimizing Entrainment in Sieve Tray Towers, ER&E Report No. EE.64E.77, June, 1977. Colwell, C. J., Low Liquid Rate Entrainment on Sieve Trays, ER&E Memorandum No. 83CET 45, January 11, 1983. Kaplan, R. H., New Correlation Predicts Froth to Spray Transition on Sieve Trays, ER&E Report No. EE.128E.82, December, 1982. Stober, B. K., NDG Extractive Distillation Tower (T-1420) Performance Tests and Tower Internal Revamp, ER&E Memorandum No. 88 CET 123, April 4, 1988. Wood, S. M. and Stober, B.K., Evaluation of Sieve Tray Capacity Correlations, EMRE Report No. EE.76E.2003, April, 2003. Stober, B. K., Tower Internals Design Memorandum No. 1: Recommended Ultimate Capacity Correlation for Use with Packing or Trays, EDSFile: T-FRA-PACK/TRAY, January 26, 1990. Stober, B. K., Tower Internals Design Memorandum No. 2: Use of New Flooding Correlations for All Tray Designs, EDS File: T-TWINT-CAP, * January 23, 1991. Chern, J. E. and Stober, B. K., Tower Internals Design Memorandum No. 3: Development of Mobil Overall Flood, EDS File: T-TWINT-CAP,* September 21, 1992. Buchanan, J. S., Tower Internals Design Memorandum No. 5: Improved Correlation for Sieve Tray Turndown, EDS File: TTWINT-FLUID FLOW,* December 5, 1995. Buchanan, J. S. and Grave, E. J., Tower Internals Design Memorandum No. 11: Effects of High Liquid Viscosities on Packing and Tray Capacities, DAN: 98M-0623,* June 23, 1998. Buchanan, J. S. and Nguyen, H-T. D., Tower Internals Design Memorandum No. 12: Revised MoTIP Jet Flood Correlation, DAN: 98M-0650, * July 1, 1998. FRI Topical Reports: 88 Pressure Drop of Sieve Trays, December 1982; 101 Model for Downcomer Flooding of Sieve Trays, September 1986; 119 Models for Liquid Head, pressure Drop and Weeping of Sieve Trays, October 1995. Stober, B. K., EMoTIP Sieve Tray Hydraulics Equations, EMR&E Memorandum No. 2003 APTD 7, March 17, 2003. Guarda, C. F., Design Practices Section III-B Sieve Trays 1999, EMR&E Memorandum No. 2003 APTD 14, March 14, 2003. * Tower Internal Design Memorandum No. 1-15 have been archived in electronic form under 2003 APTD 121.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA

downcomer flooding. It can be accessed through the ExxonMobil eMemory application. Inc. If your case does not fall within these limits. problems may exist. They are presented in a form to calculate one pass of a tray only. EMoTIP should be used for all calculations and for design purposes. See NOMENCLATURE at the end of this section for symbol definitions. (FRI) data and data from simulator and commercial tests. the SIEVE TRAY CALCULATION FORMS have been deleted from this revision. Inc. Therefore. APPLICATION Sieve trays can be used in almost all services. Because of the complexity of the new models described in this section. Those engineers who would like full details of the hydraulic models should retrieve Reference 16 which contains all the equations necessary to hydraulically rate a standard single pass sieve tray. see Section III-A. only the customary unit versions of the equations are presented in the text. if any. the effects of the various design parameters on the hydraulics of a sieve tray. it has been archived as Reference 17. Flexibility is generally around 2/1. spray regime transition. Also. in some cases full details of the hydraulic models are not presented in this section. for that see Table 1 and the other information contained in this section.. jet flooding. These are not recommended design values. Device Selection and Basic Concepts. ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. For greater than 3/1 flexibility. overall flood. various vendors. entrainment. This table contains the current limits over which the correlations contained in this design practice are considered to be accurate. 2003 BACKGROUND The equations presented in this section for calculating sieve tray capacity and hydraulics are either ExxonMobil developed models or Fractionation Research. where possible.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 5 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. flexibility. Equations that do appear in this version have been renumbered. Their capacity and efficiency are at least as high as that of other standard trays used commercially. DEFINITIONS / EQUATIONS For a discussion of such concepts as weeping. but ranges up to a maximum of about 3/1. By and large. VA . contact your FRACTIONATION SPECIALIST to see what. they are no longer appropriate for hand calculation. valve trays are a better choice. The equations presented here have been validated in customary units only and are not recommended for hand calculations. efficiency. developed models that have been modified by ExxonMobil to improve the fit to the available Fractionation Research. etc. The main purpose for presenting any equations in this Design Practice is to give the design engineer an understanding of the functional forms and.. [19 to 25 mm]) are used. dumping. The ExxonMobil Tower Internals Program (EMoTIP) incorporates all the calculations discussed in this section and is the recommended ExxonMobil tool for designing and rating sieve trays. choking. Sieve trays may be used in moderately fouling services. These equations represent the overall data more accurately than the correlations prepared by FRI. provided that large holes (3/4 to 1 in. These equations supercede those used in the Sieve Tray Design Program 1133 and the Multipass Sieve Tray Design Program 1143. or those available in the literature. The following table lists the lower and upper operating limits based on the database used to develop the correlations and operating experience. For those engineers who need to refer to the previous version of this Design Practice Section to access the SIEVE TRAY CALCULATION FORMS or to check the 1133 or 1143 program results.

Here. in columns containing 100 . ft (mm) Physical properties surface tension. The optimum combination of tower diameter. However. (457 mm) is adequate for maintenance. tray spacing can be as low as 12 to 18 in. in. in. The tower diameter must provide enough cross-sectional area to avoid downcomer flood.05) 0. Spacings up to 36 in. (mm) Hole diameter.05 (.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 6 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. (305 to 457 mm) to prevent excessive column height.005 (. in. Downcomer flood and jet flood requirements may require the use of tray spacings larger than the minimum.200 trays. VA . it is essential that the designer have a basic understanding of the key parameters that influence tray design.240) 75 (75) 20 (20) 5 (80) 80 (1300) 36 (910) 15% 3. For columns smaller than 4 ft (1219 mm). before using EMoTIP. the designer is free to use any tray spacing desired as long as it is within the acceptable range of 18 to 36 in. tray spacing. dyne/cm (mN/m) liquid viscosity.0 (300) 1 (1) 0. This section also includes certain "rules of thumb" that can aid the designer in achieving an optimum tray design. (75 mm) intervals for convenience. in. A tray spacing of 24 in. (610 mm) is the most common for columns 4 ft (1219 mm) and larger in diameter. A FRACTIONATION SPECIALIST should be consulted on tower designs outside these limits. This section provides a discussion of these key parameters and presents most of the equations used by the EMoTIP to calculate them. °F (°C) Diameter. (mm) Downcomer inlet area as % of As Number of passes Outlet weir height. A tray spacing of at least 24 in (610 mm) is also preferred for systems with a high foaming tendency. This practice is not suggested for small towers. (457 mm) should be avoided because it makes access for maintenance difficult. lb/ft3 (kg/m3) Tray spacing. (457 to 900 mm). 25% straight 4 4 (100) 1 (25) 180 (4600 mm) BASIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The ExxonMobil Tower Internals Program (EMoTIP) is available for designing and rating trays for fractionation columns. 2003 VARIABLE Pressure.08) 20 (320) 12 (300) 3. Large towers are sometimes designed in sections. (mm) LOWER LIMIT 3 (21) – 130 (– 90) 1. TOWER DIAMETER See the above table for the limits on the minimum and maximum tower diameter when using this Design Practice. lb/ft3 (kg/m3) liquid density. in. The following table gives the minimum recommended tray spacing values determined by maintenance considerations and support beam depth. TRAY SPACING Tray spacing is normally set to allow easy access for maintenance.5% 1 (25) 6% 1 0 (0) 1/8 (3) 16 (410) for access UPPER LIMIT 450 (3100) distillation 900 (6200) absorption 800 (430) 50 (15. such as C2/C3 splitters. This spacing is large enough to allow a worker to freely crawl between trays. (900 mm) may be used to permit a higher superficial vapor velocity or downcomer flood. However. with each section having a different diameter. (610 mm) is recommended. a tray spacing of at least 24 in.5 (90) 40% sloped. A tray spacing smaller than 18 in. and number of liquid passes is the most significant consideration in new designs affecting tower cost and maintenance. jet flood. (mm) Flow path length. For columns where frequent maintenance is expected. psia (kPa) Temperature. (mm) Open Area as % of Ab Downcomer clearance. cP (mPa•s) vapor density. ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. and ultimate capacity limitations. crawling between trays is uncommon because a worker can reach the column wall from the manway. a tray spacing of 18 in. such as fouling and corrosive services. While the ExxonMobil Tower Internals Program (EMoTIP) design algorithm selects tray spacings at 3 in.

ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 7 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. including height. VA . If a two pass design can be found. These in turn. More detailed selection criteria are given in Table 1. or result in downcomer sealing problems. "lattice" type trusses must be used to facilitate maintenance and permit good vapor distribution. 5 or less (≤ 1500) 5 to 8 (1500 to 2400) 8 to 10 (2400 to 3000) 10 to 20 (3000 to 6000) Greater than 20 (> 6000)** Notes: 18* 18* 18* 18* 24 Mm 457 457 457 457 610 in. TRAY AND DOWNCOMER LAYOUT Two important features of the tray layout are the bubble area Ab and the free area Af (see Figures 12 and 13 in Section III-A).5 gpm/in. since overall tower cost depends on many factors. ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. operating pressure and materials of construction. Since multipass trays increase the sensitivity to maldistribution. Generally. 2003 MINIMUM RECOMMENDED TRAY SPACING TOWER DIAMETER. due to increased cost for four pass designs and increased risk due to tray balancing and installation tolerances that are critical for four pass designs.5 dm3/s/m of outboard weir/pass). However. of outboard weir/pass (43. the use of multipass trays should also be considered. or inlet weir is present. Normally. which may result in decreased efficiency. Hole area has a direct effect on dry tray pressure drop. For towers larger than 20 ft (> 6000 mm) in diameter. this means that a capacity advantage of at least 5 to 10% for multipass trays is required. It is important to verify that such transitions do not restrict flow. ft (mm) CLEAN SERVICE (FOULING FACTOR = 0 OR 1) in. Increased hole area also helps reduce downcomer flood by reducing downcomer backup. and are more expensive than single pass trays. defined as any unperforated area farther than 3 in. Refer to Section IIIH for methods for achieving successful transitions from one number of liquid passes to another. One to two pass transitions and two to four pass transitions are the most common transitions. diameter. which cannot be reduced by other hardware changes. there is no waste area on a sieve tray unless a very low hole area is required (part of the tray is left unperforated) or if a shaped downcomer lip. a FRACTIONATION SPECIALIST should be consulted because of the lack of reliable design data above this rate.) NUMBER OF LIQUID PASSES The capacity of towers with high liquid rates can usually be increased by the use of multipass trays. cause maldistribution. 18* 24 24 24 27 FOULING SERVICE (FOULING FACTOR > 1) 1-Pass mm 457 610 610 610 686 2 or More Passes in. it will generally be preferred over a four pass design. Minimum tray spacing with a manhole is 24 in. recessed inlet box. The only way to obtain the desired dry tray pressure drop is to adjust the hole area. they can be justified only if their use reduces the overall tower cost. If an existing tower is limited by downcomer flooding. Hole Area The hole area on the tray should be large enough to avoid operating in the spray regime and small enough to ensure that excessive weeping is avoided. (75 mm) from the edge of the nearest perforation. (See Section III-H for a picture of a lattice truss. depend on the liquid handling areas (downcomers) and waste area Aw. Transitions Changeover from one number of liquid passes to another is frequently required where a feed stream or a circulating reflux stream is introduced. each case must be studied on its own merits. This is because rectifying sections tend to have lower liquid rates than stripping sections and therefore require fewer passes. – 18* 24 24 27 mm – 457 610 610 686 * ** If there is no manhole between trays. If the liquid rate is greater than 17.

The allowable range of hole sizes is outlined in Table 1.5% of the column diameter for the side downcomer on a one pass tray. Blanking For revamps. blank single rows or pairs of rows of holes.g. In this case a balanced design should not be attempted.. VA . leave single rows open. if single rows are blanked. This minimizes the channeling of froth over the blanked tray. the designer should check to see if the design is well balanced.125 in. [3 mm]) do have better entrainment characteristics for some systems. hole sizes of 3/4 to 1 in. and lower efficiency. Blanking strips must always be perpendicular to the froth flow on the tray. because their favorable corrosion characteristics for most refinery applications means that the thinner 410 SS decks are cost competitive with thicker carbon steel decks that include a corrosion allowance. If blanking 50% or less of the hole area. Improved Stripper Tray Design. consider the use of a modified arc (segmental) downcomer.). but make sure that all panels have the same effective hole to bubble area ratio. For large amounts of blanking (50% of the hole area or more): • • • Use a combination of items mentioned above. (See Section III-K for sizing segmental downcomers. smaller holes increase jet flood capacity. tray hydraulics. and turndown. To ensure good liquid distribution to the tray below. a sloped or stepped downcomer should be used if Adi is greater than 12% of As. however.5% of the tower diameter for chordal downcomers. and shall proceed towards the inlet side of the tray. (150 mm) wide. There is a small but distinct process performance advantage for thinner trays. For two and four pass trays.5 in. it must be at least 6 in.) Check adverse impact on tray efficiency (if any) because of the added waste area. channeling may result. It will not be possible to balance these designs without violating geometric constraints on downcomer sizing. While R&D studies have indicated that smaller hole sizes (0. Consider adding vertical baffles to restrict flow path width and create what is commonly referred to as a rectangular bubble area design. A well balanced tray design will have the jet flood and downcomer flood at approximately the same percentage of their respective limits (e. conversely. If the tower diameter exceeds 6 ft (1800 mm) and the liquid rate requires a downcomer area much less than 6% of As. Some towers. However. This prevents building a potential bottleneck into a tower and permits the unit to be pushed to its maximum by plant personnel. etc. low liquid rate fractionators. They will reduce the entrainment rate and reduce slightly the dry tray pressure drop. leave pairs of rows unblanked. The designer should run parametric cases in EMoTIP to balance a design for all potential operating points. such as low pressure. As a general rule. below the feed. Small holes are not recommended for fouling or corrosive services because they may plug or partially plug the orifices on the tray. small holes on carbon steel trays have a tendency to "rust over" during tower hydrotesting or storage. (13 mm) should be used. For moderately fouling services. the total downcomer outlet area for the side downcomers (or side plus center in the case of four pass) should be 10% and 14% of As.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 8 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. (See Figure C in Section III-l. the downcomer outlet area also must be at least 6% of As. resulting in excessive pressure drops. The downcomer top and bottom width should result in a chord length at least 62. Determining the appropriate hole size for sieve trays depends on various factors such as: the nature of the service. 85% jet flood and 85% downcomer flood). hole area may be reduced by either using blanking strips or replacing the panels with ones having a smaller hole area. particularly at low liquid loadings when operating in the spray regime. a hole size of 1/2 in. (19 to 25 mm) are recommended. The downcomer clearance is the vertical distance between the bottom edge of the downcomer and the tray deck.) If a segmental downcomer is used. Do not mix panels with different hole sizes on the same tray. Blanking patterns should begin with either the second or third row adjacent to the outlet weir (depending on which blanking pattern is chosen). the designer should try to get all sections of the tower as balanced as possible (i. Sieve trays are not recommended for highly fouling services. Downcomer Width And Area The downcomer should have adequate area to prevent premature column flooding. will always be controlled by jet flood and/or entrainment rates. respectively. For most cases. (See discussion in Section lII-A on downcomers for more details. (25 mm) and is based on avoiding excessive liquid velocity at the tray inlet and to provide an acceptable downcomer seal.. This clearance should be no smaller than 1 in. 2003 Hole Size Hole diameters on sieve trays usually range from 1/8 in (3 mm) to 1 in (25 mm). Likewise. decreased capacity.) Outlet Weirs And Downcomer Clearances Criteria for selecting outlet weir heights and downcomer clearances are given in Table 1. Small holes have a higher weeping tendency. Otherwise. This assures that the chord length is at least 62. Tray Balancing Even when a new tray design or revamp meets all ExxonMobil criteria. ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. above the feed vs. Most refinery and chemical plant applications should have a downcomer clearance of 1.e. If pairs of rows are blanked. 410 SS trays should always be compared with carbon steel. (38 mm) or larger.

tray spacings must be locally increased to be larger than the manhole diameter. This is because the side downcomer weir length is relatively short. and if very short. an equal number of valves for valve trays). since four pass trays do not have a chamber common to all passes at a given elevation. may be inadequate for accommodating tray manways. which uses the area to calculate the degree of pressure equalization between the chambers afforded by the vapor tunnel or crossover. which makes it particularly difficult to achieve balanced liquid distribution. the design which provides the maximum flexibility is the one where the total tray pressure drop is equal or nearly equal for each pass.2 gpm/in. in part due to additional tray balancing considerations. the percent of flood should be roughly in balance to avoid premature flooding by one pass only. The distribution ratio should be within 8% of unity at design conditions. vapor.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 9 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. if an acceptable design can be found. the designer may choose to reduce the relative bubble area (keeping Ao / Ab constant) for the outboard passes to reduce the vapor rate to those passes. Frequently. Alternatively. To minimize the effects of maldistribution on efficiency. Larger manholes are necessary if personnel entering the column need to wear special bulky protective equipment. [559 mm]) reduce tray efficiency. where bubble and downcomer areas are already fixed. in order to have the tray passes balanced from a hydraulic and efficiency point-of-view. Although multipass trays increase tray and downcomer capacity and lower tray pressure drop. An alternate method of balancing is to use a different outlet weir height and/or downcomer clearance for each pass to promote or retard the liquid flow on specific pass(es) as needed.and four-pass trays are more complex than one or two pass trays. so vapor can flow from one chamber to another. This technique is more useful in designing revamps. For clean and noncorrosive services. The manhole diameter affects the number of parts that are used to assemble each tray and other tower internals. Multipass Tray Balancing Three. Column Access Entry into the shell of a distillation tower is possible only through manholes. Furthermore. Therefore. they result in shorter flow path lengths. Three-pass trays are only available in rating mode within EMoTIP. it is good practice to install manholes in the space above the feed trays where the tray spacing is normally lengthened. The criteria are also met in two pass trays since there is a common chamber at alternate trays that permits equal vapor and liquid flow as well as pressure drop per pass. Recommended manhole diameters are in the range of 18 to 30 in. it is also desirable to maintain about an equal ratio of liquid to gas rate per pass for good efficiency. The equations for liquid. This is to prevent liquid from jumping across (choking) the downcomer. because fine tolerances and adjustments on downcomer clearance are required and these are difficult to make during installation. Single pass trays obviously meet these criteria since there is only one flow path for the liquid and one for the vapor to travel. Another means of balancing the vapor split is to provide the center and off-center downcomers with vapor crossover pipes through the downcomers (also known as vapor tunnels). are generally preferred over four or three-pass trays. and pressure distribution are presented in Table 3 for three and four-pass trays. The distribution ratio calculated by EMoTIP is the ratio of qv/QL for two passes – the pass with the highest divided by the pass with the lowest gas to liquid ratio. For a tray with multiple passes (see Figures 8 and 9). may be higher than the other passes. 2003 Multipass Trays Multipass trays allow an increase in tower capacity by lowering the tray or downcomer liquid load by splitting the tray liquid into two or more paths. However. (460 to 760 mm). This can be achieved by specifying a picket fence weir on the center downcomer pass (the B pass. Usually. this is not the preferred method. the designer should provide approximately equal bubble areas and equal hole areas for each pass (alternatively. ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. see Figure 9) that reduces the B pass outlet weir effective length to approximately the chordal weir length of the A pass. special care must be taken to ensure well-balanced operation. However. The liquid flow should then be re-balanced. (406 mm) is not wide enough for a tray manway. Another common tray balancing problem is that the percent of flood on the passes flowing toward the side of the tower (the A passes for three and four pass [see Figures 8 and 9]. Three-pass trays are not available within the EMoTIP design algorithm since their panels are much less symmetrical than two or four-pass trays. the vapor split per pass can be varied by changing the Ao/Ab ratio per pass. VA . If the difference in overall flood is greater than about 4% between passes. However. (457 mm) is considered adequate for internal access purposes. A minimum flow path length of 18 in. giving a high liquid weir loading and thus raising the calculated percent of flood. The designer should verify that equal liquid flow is provided to each pass. each manhole may serve more than 20 trays. and causing premature flooding (see Section III-A for further information on downcomer choking). of diameter/pass (10 dm3/s/m of diameter/pass). This provides a means of vapor crossover between adjacent passes and helps equalize the pressure among other passes at the same elevation. This will enable each pass to handle approximately the same vapor loading and have the same dry tray pressure drop. Anti-jump Baffles must be provided on all center and off-center downcomer(s) of multipass trays if the liquid rate exceeds 4. Two-pass trays. A flow path length smaller than 16 in. Shorter flow path lengths (smaller than 22 in. each manhole serves 10 to 20 trays. The "vapor tunnel" area is an input in EMoTIP.

If the number of sections becomes too large. It should be noted that 20% fractional weepage can be tolerated without significant efficiency loss. As the vapor rate is reduced still further. develop a tray design for each of the new smaller sections. The remaining portion proceeds to the tray below in a normal fashion via flow over the weir and into the downcomer. this region normally begins at or below 50% of the jet flooding vapor velocity. Turndown requirements are dictated by the combination of two effects. It is limited by flooding at high vapor and liquid rates and by excessive weeping at low vapor rates. This can be done by either: • • Installing a jumpover line from the tower bottoms drawoff line to the reboiler inlet. 2003 Startup Considerations At very low vapor velocities (such as during startup). 10. This reduces the apparent efficiency. however. The weeping rate can be characterized by the parameter "fractional weepage. However. gpm (dm3/s) at conditions Referring to Figure 1. see Section III-H. Weeping at the inlet of a tray.5% and that operation in the spray regime is avoided. The jumpover line must have a valve. Weeping at the outlet side of a tray has little effect. misses the cross flow efficiency boost of two trays (the liquid falls into the outlet side of the tray below). Weeping is the portion of the liquid flow on a tray that "leaks" or "weeps" downward through the perforations. VA . The only practical way to reduce weeping is by reducing the hole area on the tray. A turndown ratio of between 2/1 and 3/1 is usually achievable with sieve trays.2). For the design of chimney trays. sieve trays may dump. The region between fw > 0 and fw < 1 is called the weeping region. valve trays should be considered.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 10 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. gpm (dm3/s) at conditions Total liquid rate. Figure 16. the weeping rate increases and the tray efficiency begins to drop. Weeping at the inlet of a tray is more severe than weeping at the outlet of tray. on drawoff trays a more restrictive limit on weeping may be appropriate (see GP 05-02-01. As the vapor rate is reduced further. Operational turndown should not be overestimated since this could result in decreased tray open area. defined as the fraction of the total liquid rate that weeps. The final hole area must insure that the hole area to bubble area ratio exceeds 3. special provisions may be necessary to ensure that the reboiler will have liquid feed during startup. Liquid bypassing is another effect that reduces efficiency in the weeping region. the vapor rate at which liquid starts to weep through the perforations is called the weep point. The hole area should be reduced until the hole velocity at minimum rates is equal to or exceeds the hole velocity at 20% fractional weepage. Lower hole areas can still be used. Par. This is due to the fact that the liquid that weeps is not fully contacted with vapor on the tray." fw. and thus proceeds to the next lower tray at a different composition than the liquid entering the tray through the downcomer. however. For a well designed tray. = Qw QL fw where: Q w = QL = Weep rate. Creating a bottleneck in a tower due to a drawoff tray design should be avoided. If this reduces the loadings range to an acceptable level.) ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. Vapor rates at and below this point are said to be in the dumping region (fw = 1). the use of valve trays should be considered or a chimney tray used. when thermosyphon reboilers are used on sieve tray towers. or until another hole area restriction is reached. This may dictate the use of less hole area than that allowed on the adjacent trays. consider breaking the original section into two (or more) smaller sections. That is. If the weeping rate cannot be reduced to acceptable levels by decreasing hole area.5% minimum hole area in the remaining active portion. If the loading profile variations are significant and the trays cannot meet the required turndown. PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS Tray Turndown And Weeping Turndown is the ratio of the maximum to minimum vapor loadings between which good tray efficiency is maintained. or By providing a chimney tray as the drawoff tray. (See Section III-H. drawoffs and other tower internals. usually tray spacing is increased to help compensate for reduced hole area and/or bubble area. with the result that no liquid level is maintained on the tray feeding the reboiler drawoff box. the point at which all the liquid weeps through the holes defines the dump point (see Figure 1). so that it can be closed when the reboiler is generating enough vapor to support the liquid on the drawoff tray. The weir load affects clear liquid height and thereby tray residence times. Hence. The first is operating turndown and the second is the inherent variation in the loading profile over a tower section. by blanking a portion of the tray while keeping a 3.

they will not be as widely applied. then the designer should study: • • • Whether the predicted efficiency with weeping is still satisfactory. it should be specified for both center. See the discussion in Section III-A on the "operating window" for more background. Because of the complex design problems involved. or by the inlet weir. large downcomer residence time. liquid carryover. although EMoTIP can handle any lip radius.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 11 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. The most common shaped lip radius specified is 1 in.25 in. Tray Efficiency And Heat Transfer The designer should recognize that efficiency calculations are necessary for each section in a fractionation tower. Larger hole sizes are often recommended to reduce the tendency toward an emulsion flow regime on the deck that small holes promote. or Whether valve trays with their greater flexibility are economically justified. are there more trays present than needed (run EMoTIP to confirm the effect of weeping on efficiency and refer to Section III-I). but assumed a fixed 2 in. the simplest way to reduce weeping is to decrease the tray's hole area by blanking. Foam factors are used by the EMoTIP program to account for the foaming tendency of a chemical system. The number of actual trays required for a tower or tower section is then calculated by dividing the number of theoretical trays (which are developed during the process simulation stage of the design) by the efficiency expressed as a fraction. The downcomer clearance with a shaped lip should also be set so as not to exceed the Vud limit of 1. A foam factor of 1. the designer should consider valve trays or packing. the tray may weep and entrain at the same time (i.A drawoff box generally creates waste area (Aw) on the tray and may also obstruct the flow of vapor from the tray below. The tray efficiency should be calculated by the procedures given in Section III-I. when excessive entrainment occurs at low liquid loading. High Liquid Rate Tray Design There are cases where high liquid rates require use of either a large downcomer clearance (over 3 in. of weir/pass (< 3. This dictates a conservative design approach. there is no "operating window" or turndown available). Include features such as a large downcomer inlet area. (57 mm) of hot liquid. Furthermore. Trays With Drawoff Sumps . Unfortunately. off-center and side passes. One of the most common ways to reduce entrainment is to increase the hole area.7 dm3/s/m/pass of weir/pass).e.4 m/sec). See Sections lIl-l and III-F respectively for more information on tray efficiency and heat transfer. (24) should be used to predict entrainment when L is equal to or less than 1. Tray design for foaming services is difficult. (50 mm) radius lip in the calculation of hudL. this increases the rate of liquid weeping. the trays selected to check hydraulics are sometimes not suited for efficiency calculations due to concentration profile reversals or other reasons. In addition. Low Liquid Rate Tray Design When designing a tower to operate at low liquid rates.5 gpm/in. If blanking cannot reduce the fractional weepage to 20% (or less) without hitting other hydraulic limitations. VA .e. shaped downcomer lips were also often used in these services. For multipass trays requiring a shaped lip. your FRACTIONATION SPECIALIST should always be consulted. 2003 For revamps and some grassroots cases where initial operation rates are less than design. This is because the obstruction presented by the vertical face of the recessed inlet box. would cause turbulence and defeats the purpose of the shaped downcomer lip. Foaming Foaming in fractionation and absorption towers can significantly reduce capacity and lead to premature flooding. Refer to the discussion on Froth to Spray Regime Transition later in this section for ways to reduce entrainment. because of the new limit on velocity under the downcomer. Another option that can reduce entrainment is to use smaller holes. i. Radius lips larger than 2 inches (50 mm) are not recommended. and a high hole area to keep the dry tray pressure drop below 2. Installing picket fence weirs is one method to reduce entrainment rates and also avoid spray regime operation. but the key is proper downcomer sizing.. 1133 designs did not allow specification of the lip radius. A shaped downcomer lip must not be used when either a recessed inlet box or an inlet weir has been specified. Note that for E-Method entrainment. [75 mm]) or a deep recessed inlet box.0 ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.3 ft/sec (0. The design criteria for such trays are outlined in Section III-H. Tower Internals. Even with an optimum design. an insufficient clear liquid height could result in an unsealed downcomer or poor fractionation efficiency due to an inaccurate calculation of liquid residence time on the tray. and solvent losses. it may become necessary to design the tray specifically with minimal entrainment in mind. or Whether economic considerations permit increasing loadings by "over-refluxing" the tower during turndown operations. In past 1133 designs. They are applied to both the jet flood and in several key locations in the downcomer flood and downcomer choke calculations. If sufficient flexibility cannot be obtained with sieve trays. While shaped downcomer lips may still help reduce head loss under the downcomer and are mandatory for foaming services. a large downcomer clearance with a radius tip. (25 mm). Eq.

No Inlet weir. recessed boxes and inlet weirs should not be used in fouling services.. etc. If the designer is confronted with a new chemical system. If the designer expects a chemical system to be a stable foam. Foam factors are often "best guess" numbers and are normally derived from experience. This vapor recycle is not normally enough to affect the tray capacity. and liquid maldistribution to the tray. VA . Consider fixed valves. but a good downcomer design should keep the volume fraction vapor carryunder below 0. a FRACTIONATION SPECIALIST should be consulted regarding appropriate lab or pilot plant scale tests. Foam factors are applied to very low surface tension systems close to the critical point to account for the effect of inaccuracy in the prediction of surface tension.5 (13) 0. To avoid blockage in this area due to fouling.5 (38) 1.75 (19) DCC. Vapor Recycling When the liquid velocity entering the downcomer is greater than the velocity of the bubbles rising through it. Fouling Fouling is the accumulation of any type of solid deposit on a tower internal device. The fouling factor is currently only used in the design algorithm to set hole size. then an anti-foam agent may be required. Foam factors based on hydrocarbon molecular weight are used for heavy hydrocarbon fractionators such as crude and vacuum towers (pipestills). No Inlet weir. Many "foaming" systems such as gas treating solutions exhibit foaming only under degraded conditions. The table below shows the effect on the tray design algorithm for a given fouling factor: Hole Size.375 (9.0 (51) Do not use float valve design. not measurement. The probability and consequences of fouling in the column must be fully evaluated. See Section III-A for more background on vapor recycling. etc. for which a foam factor is not available. elimination of suspended solids. (mm) Fouling Factor 0 1 2 3 Description Ultra-clean Clean Moderate Fouling Heavy Fouling Severe Fouling Fixed 0. even a very low downcomer inlet velocity and a large downcomer may not prevent tower flooding. EMoTIP calculates the volume fraction vapor carryunder based on the liquid volumetric rate. If the foam is very stable.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 12 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.5) 0. premature flooding. a downcomer clearance of at least 1.5 (38) 2. Refer to Table 2 for the fouling factor recommended for each tower service. c) If the foam source can't be eliminated. Also. Both the tower service and the tower internal location must be specified so that EMoTIP can correctly set the fouling factor. EMoTIP includes a fouling factor (FF) to automatically set the fouling tendency based on historical experience with service and location in the tower. This is usually an effective but expensive solution to the problem since anti-foam must be added continuously. 2003 signifies a non-foaming system. in. (mm) Starting point 1. ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. vapor recycling occurs. The foam factors provide enough hardware upside flexibility to accommodate some solution degradation. 1. Fouling on a sieve tray reduces the effective hole size of the sieve holes and will eventually plug the tray. 2. Consider large fixed valve.5 in. minimum recommended tray spacing. in. Other Considerations 1 (25) 4 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX Do not use trayed design. 19 to 25 mm) should be used in sieve trays operating in moderately or heavy fouling services. See Table 2 for the list of foam factors recommended for use in EMoTIP based on service and tower section. Consider sheds or grid. This may cause excessive downcomer backup.) or even complete inoperability. and the use of inlet weirs.15 for high pressure towers. capacity. minimum downcomer clearance. (38 mm) should be used. Larger holes (3/4 to 1 in. but will not prevent flooding in all cases. The vapor cannot disengage and this results in vapor being swept through the downcomer and recycled onto the tray below.) b) Consider using packing and consult your FRACTIONATION SPECIALIST.5 (64) Do not use float valve design. Solid deposits may also accumulate under the downcomer in fouling services and therefore restrict the downcomer exit flow area.2 or greater is a definite foaming system. Fouling results in diminished tower performance (efficiency. then: a) Process changes should be considered to eliminate the source of the foaming (removal of entrained hydrocarbons into aqueous systems. This calculation is based on high pressure FRI sieve tray data with non-foaming systems. because production well injection chemicals or corrosion inhibitors often induce foaming in these towers.

is given below: γ = 0. TOWER CHECKLIST Table 7 of Section III-A contains a detailed tower checklist that should be reviewed for all new designs as well as revamps.γ Jet Flood . The correction is limited to a maximum of 6% flood. (Customary or Metric) Eq. (1a) The positive value of gamma for trays limited by jet flood decreases the overall flood. if one or the other flood dominates. and C for a single tray design at three different pressure levels.17 for JetFlood ≥ DC Flood. Overall Flood = max [Overall Flood (Jet. Price will typically be about the same. DC) = max (Jet Flood. The optimal value of the correction coefficient gamma. Overall Flood (Jet. and depends primarily on the limiting flooding mechanism. The reader may want to compare these figures with the generic Figure 22 in Section III-A. Overall Flood Overall flood is a statistical combination of jet flood. 2003 Corrosion Corrosion is a process where some materials gradually wear away usually by chemical action or chemical action combined with fluid velocity (erosion/corrosion). CAPACITY/ PERFORMANCE RESTRICTION MECHANISMS This subsection presents the different mechanisms that restrict column throughput and/or affect tower performance.12 for JetFlood < DC Flood. Probability Of Non-Flooding Operation EMoTIP reports the probability that a given sieve tray design will not be flooding at a given percent of overall flood. the tray design is well balanced and only a small correction is needed. For services where fractionation is not critical. DC Flood) . obtained from a statistical study. All the major capacity limits described in this section are calculated using EMoTIP and graphically depicted in Figure 2A.DC) and the ultimate capacity flood. (1) is a correction term designed to improve the statistics and therefore the probability of successful designs. . Figure 2 shows how the various capacity limits change as a function of vapor to liquid ratio and pressure level. The overall flood model uses the following equation developed to combine jet flood and downcomer flood. downcomer flood and ultimate capacity flood. This is commonly referred to as a tray performance diagram. If the jet flood is close to the downcomer flood. designs up to a maximum of 90% Overall Flood by this correlation are acceptable. (9 mm) in diameter on carbon steel trays may rust over during hydrostatic testing and should be avoided. The probability ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. VA . The probability model used in EMoTIP is based on almost all known flood runs from the FRI sieve tray database. Holes smaller than 3/8 in. the final Overall Flood is then the maximum of Overall Flood (Jet. The overall flood model also takes into account the ultimate capacity check. Always confirm materials selection with a MATERIALS SPECIALIST. It also provides the designer with the most important equations and design criteria used in determining the limitations of a particular design. B. Suggestions for improving tray and downcomer designs to meet ExxonMobil design limits are also included in this subsection. The likelihood of corrosion and its potential effect on column internals must be reviewed. Thinner 410 SS trays should be evaluated as an alternate to thick carbon steel trays (with high Corrosion Allowance) to avoid the equipment reliability issues due to excessive corrosion products forming in wet service towers. On the other hand. a larger correction is necessary. an "overall flood" correlation has been developed for cross flow fractionation devices. These different parameters are discussed independently in detail in Section III-A.0. DC). Ultimate Capacity Flood] (Customary or Metric) Eq. (2) Designs up to a maximum of 85% Overall Flood by this correlation are acceptable. such as pumparound trays.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 13 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. The negative value for gamma for trays limited by downcomer flood is required because the downcomer flood model over-predicts the tray capacity. OVERALL CAPACITY The overall capacity of any fractionating tower is determined from a combination of different vapor and liquid flooding mechanisms.DC Flood (Customary or Metric) Eq. For this reason. (1) The second term on the right hand side of Eq. because the jet flood model slightly underpredicts the tray capacity.

liquid rate. (3) where: ff = foaming factor ( ≥ 1.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 14 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. reboiler and drawoff internals must be correctly designed. Following are the equations to calculate percent jet flood for a single pass. the foam factor must be correctly estimated.The jet flood equation includes a foaming factor term. tray spacing. vapor density. the new jet flood model keeps the allowable jet flood constant and changes a service factor. free area.3 94. Much more than avoiding tray hydraulic flood is involved in the successful design and operation of a sieve tray tower. The foam factor is a qualitative measure of the foaminess of the system at hand and is based on experience.8 5. vapor rate. System Factors for a list of foaming factors for different services. and such things as fouling or damage must not have occurred. The following independent variables are used in the jet flood model: liquid density. The only screening performed on the FRI flood runs was to remove runs with a liquid rate 3 over the weir of less than 1.5 50. Jet flooding occurs when the vapor rate is sufficiently high to "jet" or "entrain" liquid from a given tray to the tray above. Jet flooding is a strong function of tower diameter and tray spacing and a lesser function of the number of liquid passes used. For instance.25 in. the design basis must be accurate. It is the primary cause of tower flooding for lower pressure towers. VAPOR HANDLING LIMITATIONS Jet Flooding Jet flooding is the limitation that most commonly sets the vapor handling capacity for cross-flow trays.8 1. It is also important to note that in the case of foaming service tray designs. and tower area.6 98. VA . hole area.0 ) Where the capacity factor is based on the bubble area: æ q öæ Cb = ç v ÷ ç ç A ÷ç è b øè ö ρv ÷ (ρL − ρv ) ÷ ø (Customary or Metric) Eq. to achieve the same end. The probability of non-flooding operation of a tower at a given percent of overall flood can be estimated from the table below. hole diameter.4 85. Whereas the old Table 2.4 30. 2003 model is a function of overall flood only. DESIGN % OF OVERALL FLOOD % PROBABILITY OF NON-FLOODING DESIGN 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 99. See Section III-A for more background information.0. "Design Criteria for Specific Towers" in Reference 17 sets the allowable percent of jet flood based on the service. bubble area. the tray efficiency must be correctly determined.8 It is important to note that this table does not predict the probability of successful operation.5 gpm/inch (3. Jet Flood Equations . any uncertainty in the foam factor will reduce the probability of non-flooding for a given overall flood.7 dm /s/m) of weir and to also remove runs which had less than 1. (4) ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. æ C ö Jet Flood = ç b ÷ ff çC ÷ è bF ø (Customary or Metric) Eq. downcomer inlet area. It is always equal to or greater than 1.7 70. inlet. (32 mm) of hot liquid dry tray pressure drop at 85% overall flood. control systems and instrumentation must be without defect. outlet weir length.3 14. known as the foam factor. Refer to Table 2.

has a coupled effect of hole area and vapor density.028 ÷ (APC ) (XL ) è o ø (Customary) Eq.2 ÷ (ρ v ) ú æ QL ö ÷ ú ç ÷ ú ç l ÷÷ o øø è ú û (Customary) Eq. For trays. (5). a 14% boost in jet flood capacity will be obtained by going from an 8% hole area tray to a 14% hole area tray (on bubble area). At a low vapor density. Eq. For new column designs. liquid rate over the weir. (6) The liquid rate correction term. tray spacing and physical properties. This jet flood model includes effects for hole size. (5) The hole area correction term. XL = 1 lo ë û é ê ê æA = exp ê− 0.02 êç o * 100 ÷ − 10 ú êexp ê ú − 1ú çA ÷ êè b úê ë (ρv + 0.3 APC = 1 + 0. hole area. is given as: éæ A ùé ö é ù ù 0. However. going from a 6% downcomer top 3 3 3 3 area to a 25% top downcomer area will increase capacity by 2. APC.4 kg/m ).2 (Customary) Eq. At high liquid rates.provides an upper bound to the capacity of a cross flow fractionating tower regardless of tray design and tray spacing. for instance about 6% more capacity can be achieved on going from a 0. the calculated value can be used to help determine if the tray design is well balanced and if the tray is jet flood limited or limited by some other flood mechanism or secondary design parameter.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 15 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. 2003 The capacity factor at jet flood is defined as: æ ρv = 0. the Tray Ultimate capacity and the Universal Ultimate capacity.5 æ Af ö ç ÷ çA ÷ è bø 0.5 mm) hole. XL is given as: éQ ù if ê L ≤ 4ú . Tray Ultimate Capacity . The same change 3 3 in hole area will yield a 2. If so. In addition. (6).04 CbF (H) 0.15 lb/ft (2. For instance. switching from trays to packing or vice-versa will yield a different ultimate capacity. changing downcomer size has almost no effect on jet flood. and the tower free area.8% at 3 lb/ft (48 kg/m ) vapor density. ultimate capacity usually only limits in hydrocarbon distillation systems above 250 psia (1730 kPa).25 ) û ú ø û ë ûë (Customary) Eq. (7) éQ ù if ê L > 4ú .35 lb/ft (21.4 kg/m ) and 4. Tray ultimate capacity cannot be increased with hardware modifications that do not affect the free area since it is solely dependent on the vapor load. It is the highest vapor load a conventional trayed column can handle. Any tray modification that increases free area (such as sloping the downcomer) will make a small improvement in tray ultimate capacity. A hole area of 10% is vapor density neutral. (8) There is no specific design limit placed on the jet flood value. the designer should increase the column diameter of the design. with low liquid rates. than at a high vapor density.0795 ç çρ −ρ è L v ö ÷ ÷ ø 0. X L lo ë û ö ÷ ÷ ø −0. because the packing ultimate capacity equation includes a liquid rate term. at a vapor density of 0. the designer must determine whether the ultimate capacity has been reached. VA .6 kg/m ).36ç di çA ê è s ê ê ë æ ç ç ç1 − ç ç è 2 ù ö ú ÷ ú 4 ÷ 0. Two versions of the ultimate capacity are determined for trays.5% at 0. Smaller holes will yield more capacity by Eq. downcomer inlet area as a fraction of tower area.5 æ 0.046 ö ÷ expç ç d + 0. The APC term. and pressure). These effects were not present in the previous jet flood model based solely on tower free area. Ultimate Capacity Ultimate capacity is the maximum available capacity for vapor flow in a given column diameter with a known liquid rate and physical properties. For revamps. increasing the hole area has a larger 3 3 effect on jet flood capacity. a tray with greater free area or packing may provide some relief to a ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. temperature. and bubble area. system properties (composition. At low vapor density.4% increase in jet flood capacity at a vapor density of 1.75 inch (19 mm) hole to a 3/8 inch (9. since it is incorporated in the Overall Flood.15 lb/ft (2.

The critical Weber number and the critical Reynolds number are defined by: We c = 2 ⋅ (σL ⋅ 0. (11) Where the capacity factor based on the free area is: æq Cf = ç v çA è f öæ ÷ç ÷ç øè (ρL − ρv ) ÷ ø ρv ö ÷ (Customary or Metric) Eq. Universal Ultimate Capacity . Of the 894 flood runs in the FRI database only 27 are limited by tray ultimate capacity (i.e. is more conservative from a design perspective. (9). use a coefficient of 0. which places a limit on achievable capacity independent of hardware design. It is dependent only on the system properties (composition. The critical Weber number forms the basis for this calculation.00067197 ) ρv ⋅ ut ⋅ Dp /12 ( ) (Customary) Eq. The universal ultimate capacity may be applied to both trayed and packed towers. (13) Using a lower Wec will predict ultimate capacity limitations for a greater percentage of runs. The system properties determine a drop size.65 in Eq. It is important to note that the tray ultimate capacity is one of the correlations for sieve trays with a high degree of uncertainty. some non-conventional internals that rely on enhanced deentrainment may be able to function at high values of ultimate capacity.65 ê ú ú ê ë 1 + β û ë ρL − ρv û 0. 2003 tower limited by tray ultimate capacity. FRI data suggests that: We c = 0. Many of these runs also have high values of either jet or downcomer flood.5 Eq. and considers the entire tower area rather than just the free area. temperature. (15) ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. cross-flow fractionating tower. (Customary or Metric) Eq. and pressure) and on the tower cross sectional area. The correlation also includes the effect that increasing the liquid rate has on decreasing the vapor capacity. VA .is another way to view ultimate capacity. (12) Since the overall flood limit is typically 85%. The equations below are used to calculate the tray ultimate capacity of a conventional tray.00220462 ) ( Dp /12 )⋅ ρv ⋅ u2 t (Customary) Eq. The universal ultimate capacity correlation also considers the Reynolds number dependency on the drag coefficient.25 (Customary) 0. (10) For the metric equation. é β ù é σL ù Cult = 0.e. Also. (14) Rec = (µv ⋅ 0. the ultimate capacity flood limit is also 85%. The universal ultimate capacity uses the tower cross sectional (superficial) area instead of the free area that is used in the existing tray ultimate capacity correlation.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 16 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. i.4 ê L ú ë ρv û æ C Ultimate Capacity Flood = ç f çC è ult ö ÷ ÷ ø (Customary and Metric) Eq. this move toward using superficial area is consistent with FRI's newest ultimate capacity correlation. the 0.396 vs. it appears to be a better indicator of the true ultimate capacity of a given tower shell. Universal ultimate capacity is independent of tray design and tray spacing or type of packing. (9) éρ − ρv ù where: β = 1.7 (Customary or Metric) Eq. the ultimate capacity sets the overall flood).

Spray regime is a transition from froth to a spray of discrete droplets. and atmospheric pipestill ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. a condition known as "blowing dry". the vapor and liquid densities. In such cases.5 (Customary or Metric) Eq. VA . (19) Percent Universal Ultimate Capacity is the ratio of the capacity factor based on superficial tower area to the capacity factor at ultimate capacity: éq ù Cs = ê v ú ë As û é ρv ù ê ú ρL − ρv û ë 0. (16) The drag coefficent depends on whether the drop size yields an Rec which is in the Stokes Law Intermediate region or Newton's law region of applicability: CD = 0. but can also be high as a percentage of tray liquid rate. Spray Regime And Entrainment Spray regime and entrainment are both secondary design parameters that are primarily vapor handling limitations. Dp.44 CD = CD = 18. when the tray liquid load is low. even at low values of jet flood. water wash towers. the vapor volumetric rate. (17) The following equation calculates the terminal velocity of a liquid droplet from the superficial area. It is also referred to as "blowing" when it is extreme. a larger diameter tower should be designed. and the liquid volumetric rate. Refer to Section III-A for additional discussion.5 (Customary) Eq.6 c 24 Rec Rec > 500 2 < Rec < 500 Rec < 2 (Customary or Metric) Eq. (21) If the Universal Ultimate Capacity is greater than 85%. éæ 1000 ⋅ w`v ut = êç ç êè 3600 ⋅ ρv ë ù æ 1+ β ö æ LL ö ö ÷ As ú ⋅ ç ç β ÷ + (1 + β ) ⋅ ç A ÷ ÷ ÷ ç ÷ ú è ø ø è sø û (Customary) Eq. w`v. The limiting capacity factor for the universal ultimate capacity is then: é 1000 w`v ù é ρv ù Cuniv = ê ú ê ú ë A s ρv 3600 û ë ρL − ρv û 0.Spray regime operation occurs primarily at high vapor velocities and low liquid rates. Such conditions are likely to occur in distillation towers operating below 50 psia (345 kPa). Entrainment is the lifting of tray deck liquid to the next tray above. and cD and can be solved simultaneously for the unknowns. the spray appears to be suspended above the deck. 2003 Where the drop size can be calculated from: c ⋅ ρv ö æ3 ÷ D p = ç u2 D ç 4 t g ⋅ ∆ρ ÷ ⋅ 12 c è ø (Customary) Eq.5 Re0. Froth To Spray Regime Transition .ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 17 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. (18) Equations (14) through (18) represent five equations in five unknowns: ut. (20) æ C Universal Ultimate Capacity = ç s çC è univ ö ÷ ÷ ø (Customary or Metric) Eq. Rec. It increases rapidly with increasing vapor rate as the flood point is reached.

08 ≤ ρv < 0. is: é VL ù éA ù = c1 ê o ú ê ú A b û SF ë ë Ab û 0. The appropriate fraction of the transition point to use for design calculations can be found from the table below.6) L ≤ 1. (≤ 3.6) ρv ≥ 0. However. previously 20% maximum) and a more accurate and robust jet flood correlation at low liquid rates.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 18 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.6 (≥ 9. See Figure 16. interphase contact becomes poor.04 (Customary) (Metric) Note the dependence of the equation on tray spacing.5 93. There are two methods for predicting entrainment used by the ExxonMobil Tower Internals Program.5 gpm/in. The resulting correlation. liquid rate. R&D studies have shown that the transition from froth to spray is primarily an inertial phenomenon related to the ability of the vapor jet to penetrate the liquid on the tray.6 (1. VA . and certain hardware parameters.3 é1ù ê ú ë do û 0.0 + 0. the E-Method and the M-Method. Intertray Entrainment . and the tower fractionation efficiency deteriorates.08 (≤ 1. The maximum allowable percent of Spray/Froth transition velocity has been increased by 10% from the values given in Reference 17. refer to the NOMENCLATURE section.3 [ H] 0.5 (1.5 110 Alternatives are available to the designer to avoid operating in the spray regime.057 ρv) 110 L > 1.7 dm3/s/m) 93.0 + 0.2 Eq. the liquid becomes suspended as a dispersed phase above the tray deck. In the spray regime. Section III-A. which gives the vapor load per unit tower bubble area at which the transition from froth to spray occurs. These alternatives are presented in the order in which they should be considered: NEW DESIGNS REVAMPS • • • • • • Increase the hole area Decrease the hole diameter Install picket fence weirs* Increase the tray spacing Increase the bubble area Use packing • • • • Increase the hole area Decrease the hole diameter Install picket fence weirs* Consider packing *For more details contact your FRACTIONATION SPECIALIST. For definitions of the terms and information on units to be used in this equation. if the calculated entrainment values from both ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. and liquid rate per inch of weir. (22) Where: c1 = 0. all passes should be checked even though the pass leading to the center downcomer will usually limit.9 ρv) 60.28 ≤ ρv < 9. Note that increasing the weir height will not help solve this problem.214 c1 = 0. For trays with more than one pass. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PERCENT OF THE SPRAY/FROTH VELOCITY VAPOR DENSITY lb/ft3 (kg/m3) ρv ≤ 0.28) 0. Mini-valves (either fixed or moveable) should also be considered as a spray regime remedy. hole size.7 dm3/s/m) ≤ 66 60.5 gpm/in.5 (1. (> 3.2 é QL ù ê ú ë Io û 0.The quantity of entrainment generated is dependent on vapor rate. 2003 wash zones. This is due to tighter limits on entrainment (now 10% maximum vs. Neither one of these methods is very accurate due to the inherent problems in measuring entrainment rate and the exponential nature of entrainment as a function of vapor rate.

5 gpm/in. (24). (FRI) and ExxonMobil test programs. if the fractional entrainment fe.e. Tray geometry factor (see Figure 3). the hole area should be increased and the fractional entrainment rate recalculated.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 19 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.5 gpm/in. otherwise use Eq.15 é ù é VL ù 0.54 é A o ù 0.45 é é VL ù é d o ù ê ê ú ê ú ê ë A b û ë 0.59 0. (m ).5 û ê ê 0. calculate for both inboard and outboard passes.1 C 4 é 3. For 2 pass trays. 2003 methods lie within the acceptable limit of 10%.8042 [ L ] ë f e = 0. dimensionless. calculate for both center and side passes. System properties factor (see Figure 5). E-Method Entrainment . Nevertheless.27 [ h wo ] 0.55 ù ú ú ú ú K σµ ú û n (Customary) Eq. Tray bubble area ft . For two pass trays. Liquid mass flow rate.54 ê 0. k Ib/hr (kg/s).59 ê ú 0. (23) fe = Kφ KL Kσ Kε (Metric) Eq. (23M) Where: fe Kφ KL Kσ Kε Ab wL = = = = = = = Fractional entrainment.7 dm3/s/m of weir/pass). substitue Ic for Ic. Descriptions of the E-Method and M-Method correlations are below. * ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. determine KL for each pass.55 [ h wo ] ê ú [H] K σµ ú ê[L ] ê ú ë Ab û ë û n (Metric) Eq.45 é 1083 A b ù ê ú 324 ê ú [do ] ê ú ê ú lc ë Ab û ë û = 0.15 éHù ê 24 ú ë û 0. This correlation takes into account the effect of system physical properties and tray hardware parameters on entrainment rates. (24M) For the inboard pass on tow pass trays. (24) fe 0.. Liquid rate/tray spacing factor (see Figure 4A or 4B). (i. For term definitions. the entrainment rate divided by the design liquid rate) exceeds 10%. of weir/pass (is greater than 3. it is unlikely that the column will experience entrainment problems. of weir/pass ( ≤ 3. refer to NOMENCLATURE. Use this equation if the volumetric liquid rate is greater than 1. 2 2 The equation below should be used to calculate fractional entrainment (fe) when the liquid rate is less than or equal to 1. Vapor energy dissipation factor (see Figure 6A or 6B). 0. VA . fe = Kφ KL Kσ Kε é Ab ù ê ú 1000 w L û ë é Ab ù ê ú ë wL û (Customary) Eq.1 ê ú 0.27 0.Entrainment is based on data from Fractionation Reasearch Inc.7 dm3/s/m of weir/pass).96 A b ù ê ú lc ë û éAo ù ê ú ëAb û 0. For two pass trays.

Entrainment depends on the vapor rate at flooding conditions and is thus dependent on the jet flood model. set hwo = 1 in. dimensionless n Note: 9. ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. Downcomer capacity has been an active area of research at FRI and ExxonMobil since the early 1980's. n = 6. dimensionless Tray spacing below the deck. set hwo = 2 in. the downcomer must be large enough to handle the froth from the tray deck and clarify this froth. ö æ ÷ ç é QL ù ÷ ç Cb −C bF * ê 23 + 31 ú÷ ç lo ú ÷ ê û ë ç ÷ ç 0.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 20 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. (27) Using x to scale both vapor and liquid rates (keeping a constant ratio of vapor to liquid). (< 25 mm).12. 17 for example) relied on satisfying a series of design constraints. (26) where: x HB = = Multiplier on Liquid and Vapor rates at which tray is rated. (mm) Then. Percent downcomer flood represents the ratio of the actual vapor and liquid rates to the rates that would result in 100% downcomer froth backup.6 ) (Customary) If hwo If hwo 2 in. Downcomer flood solves the following equation for x. it is usually sufficiently accurate and will be slightly conservative. (50 mm) 1 in. The contacting area must be large enough to handle the required liquid and vapor rates while promoting the desired mass transfer. Premature tower flooding can occur as a result of either inadequate downcomer area or depth.4 ρ > < [ v] 1/6 ( if ρ v > 0. Even for absorbers or strippers where gas or liquid rates alone are changing. (25) LIQUID HANDLING LIMITATIONS Liquid flows across the tray and is contacted by the ascending vapor. C4 = where: fe 0. (25 mm) M-Method Entrainment . the liquid enters a downcomer. Models of downcomer capacity have been developed which not only predict the downcomer froth density and froth height but also accurately predict when the downcomer floods. VA . is the appropriate way to handle a downcomer flood calculation for most towers.) HB + h wo = hd ( x ) Ψ( x ) (Customary or Metric) Eq. Likewise. such as the one included in EMoTIP.08 .08. 2003 when: ρv > 0.20 æρ −ρ ö ÷ ç ç l v÷ ÷ ç ÷ ç ÷ ç ÷ ç ρ ÷ ç v ø è ø è * 10 ( ) w E = CbF Ab [ρv (ρl − ρv )] (Customary) Eq. (hd and Ψ are shown as functions of x in this equation. which carries it to the tray below where the contacting process is repeated. instead of actually determining the downcomer flood point. More recent models of downcomer flood. provide an accurate means to predict the liquid handling capacity of the tray and therefore improve the design. (> 50 mm). Earlier design procedures for downcomers (Ref. Downcomer Flood Percent downcomer flood is the criterion that determines how close a tower is to flooding as a result of excessive froth height in the downcomer. downcomer flood for the loads at which the tray is rated is given by: DC Flood = 1 x (Customary or Metric) Eq. At the downstream end of the tray. in. otherwise C4 = 1 ρv (Customary) = = Fractional entrainment.

weir height term hw + 2 π ∗ do2 ∗ A b 4 ∗ A o ∗ 0. It is composed of the inlet head (hi) on the tray. The clear liquid height must be high enough to provide sufficient contact time between the liquid and the vapor for mass transfer to occur. in. Lockhart-Martinelli Flow Parameter qv (60 ∗ 7.Clear liquid height is the height of liquid on a tray expressed in inches (mm) of hot liquid. Downcomer flood is also strongly affected by the tray pressure drop through the conventional downcomer filling. given by: P = b= lo . the head loss under the downcomer (hud). The clear liquid height used in the downcomer flood model is the Hofhuis equation. consider increasing the number of liquid passes to reduce the liquid rate per length of weir for each pass.0785 Ω * ç ÷ ç ÷ èbø 0. increase downcomer filling. h i = hc (tray without inlet weir) h i = 0. (32) ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. See Figure 19 in Section III-A. and may cause premature weeping. weir length term Ab Φ= QL 1 ρL * . which avoids a trial and error calculation of clear liquid height and was found to give a better fit to the downcomer flood data by FRI. the crest over the weir.48 * (QL / l i )2 / 3 + h wi (with inlet weir) (Customary or Metric) (Customary) Eq. downcomer filling will increase due to the weir height.e.25 (Customary) Eq. i. (29) Eq.48 ) ρv Tray Pressure Drop (ht) . Each of the pressure drops (or heads) is expressed in inches (mm) of hot clear liquid.e. The clear liquid height is a function of the liquid rate. and the frictional head loss due to two-phase flow through the downcomer (hdc). æPö hc = 2. (30) Tray Clear Liquid Height (hc) . (31) where: Ω = 3 hw + 2 . If an inlet weir is present.Downcomer filling is defined as the clear liquid height (i. reducing the bubble area on the tray increases the frothing action and will reduce the downcomer capacity. Downcomer Filling (hd) . For downcomer limited trays. (26).866 P = Calculated Hole pitch. This increases the numerator in Eq. hole pitch..ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 21 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. (28) Inlet Head (hi) . outlet weir height. Downcomer filling components are described next. and bubble area. the tray pressure drop (ht) across the tray immediately upstream of the downcomer being considered. % hole area. If the tower is heavily liquid loaded and hc is too high.25 Φ 0. because they increase the tray's pressure drop. 2003 The EMoTIP downcomer flood model includes a tray hydraulic model to calculate the froth density on the tray and therefore the amount of froth that the downcomer must handle. hd = h i + ( ht + hud + hdc ) ∗ ρl ρ l − ρv (Customary or Metric) Eq. and added pressure drop of the liquid flowing between the downcomer apron and the inlet weir. VA . collapsed froth height) in the downcomer. Excessive clear liquid heights should be avoided. ht = hed + h′ c (Customary or Metric) Eq. Tray pressure drop is critical in tray design since it is one of the major components of downcomer filling and therefore downcomer flood. increase the downcomer flood.The inlet head is equal to the clear liquid height (hc) on a tray if there is no inlet weir present.The tray pressure drop (ht) is composed of the dry tray pressure drop (hed) and the clear liquid height (h'c).

(25 mm) radius 0. lb/ft3 (kg/m3) coe = Downcomer exit coefficient based on the radius of shaped lip dc: 0. 2003 Note that the clear liquid height term (h'c) used in the tray pressure drop calculation is calculated from the FRI method found in Topical Report 88 and therefore differs in value from the clear liquid height term (hc) used for the inlet head in the downcomer calculations.This is a new term not found in the conventional downcomer filling clear liquid height. and is a complex function of the downcomer entrance velocity.4Fw * (QL / lo ) 2 / 3 + S 6h wo c The dry tray pressure drop is calculated from: hed = φ ∗ S5 ∗ (qv /A o ) 2∗ ρv ρL (Customary) Eq. (34) (Customary) Eq. Ao/Ab . hudL æ ρ m ç (1 − ζ )2 ç ρ L è hud = ö ÷ ÷ ø (Customary or Metric) Eq. The FRI method for pressure drop calculates the clear liquid height from: h′ = 0.036 for 1 in. (Adi/Ado) and HB. (36) where ζ = vapor fraction of aerated liquid flowing under downcomer ρ m = Mixture density under downcomer. do Head Loss Under the Downcomer (hud) . S6 and S9 = Functions of lo/Dt . t.020 for 2 in.The head loss under the downcomer uses a correlation of the froth clarification action of the downcomer to correct the standard clear liquid head loss to an aeration corrected head loss. dPdc is the two phase pressure drop in downcomer. VA . It is a function of the hardware dimensions (Adi/As). hdc = KD ∗ dPdc (Customary or Metric) Eq. (51 mm) radius Head Loss Due to Two-Phase Flow Through the Downcomer (hdc) .ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 22 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.338 ÷ ø. the tray deck interfacial ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. the tray deck froth density. Using the FRI TR 88 method results in the tray pressure drop calculation results in better agreement with tray pressure drop data. f( lo/Dt ) S5 . (37) KD is a correction factor that accounts for the fact that frictional pressure drop will occur mainly in the entrance region of the downcomer. Both terms represent the collapsed froth clear liquid height on a tray. φ = eè c φ = Liquid head correction for dry tray pressure drop Fw = Weir constriction factor.06 for sharp edge 0. (35) æ Q hudL = c oe ç L çcl è db ö ÷ ÷ ø 2 (Customary) Eq. (33) where: æ −S ⋅hc ö 9 ′ ÷ ç ç h′ + 5.

Entrainment effects are included in the M-method efficiency calculation. As the entrainment rate increases above 10%. VA . Entrainment effects (additional liquid due to entrainment) are not included in either the jet flood or the downcomer flood calculation.Percent downcomer froth backup is the froth height in the downcomer divided by the distance from the bottom of the downcomer to the top of the outlet weir. Reference 13 contains more background on the validity of the EMoTIP correlation at high liquid viscosity. conservative entrainment limits are recommended for design. Because predicting absolute values of entrainment is difficult. High values can be expected if the tray froth density is low. FRI Topical Report (TR) 101. The allowable downcomer entrance velocity limit is given by: ρL − ρ V æ β ö æ ç =ç ç 1 + β ÷ ∗ çσ ⋅ ÷ ρL 2 è ø è ö ÷ ÷ ø 0. but an increase from the MoTIP limit of 5%. (See below. This model is considered accurate for high-pressure systems but may be conservative at medium and low pressures.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 23 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.The downcomer choking criteria is based on an ultimate-capacity like analysis of bubble separation in liquid. a FRACTIONATION SPECIALIST should be consulted about whether a given secondary criterion can be violated. In revamp situations. (39) The percent of downcomer choke is then given by: ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. A more accurate method of accounting for average downcomer area was developed for the EMoTIP model and a correction factor developed based on fitting the model to downcomer flood data using convergence on a constant vapor/liquid ratio basis. then when entrainment levels are high enough. The term was developed by regarding the two-phase bubbly flow in a downcomer as liquid flowing through a packed bed of bubbles. but not in the E-method efficiency. Downcomer flooding will occur if this frictional head loss due to two-phase flow through the downcomer is excessive. The EMoTIP model is a modified version of the model in TR 101. (38) There is no separate design criteria for % DC Froth Backup. M-method entrainment reduction can be achieved by reducing the jet flood. a full hydraulic flood will result.) The downcomer froth density used in the downcomer flood and froth backup calculations is divided by the foam factor (ff). For details on the development of this model. Downcomer Froth Backup . This is often referred to as a state of "incipient flood".) Reference 16 contains all the equations currently in the EMoTIP downcomer flood model and can be used for hand checks of EMoTIP results. tray efficiency will suffer. This is often the case if the choke term in EMoTIP is excessive. Liquid Entrainment . E-method entrainment reduction for new or revamp designs can be achieved by methods similar to those to control spray regime operation. the chosen criteria reflect value that are known historically to be acceptable.25 Vdi(Ult) ∗ 1 ff 2 (Customary) Eq. but for one reason or another (such as confounding with another variable) do not have enough data backup to prove that they do not affect tray design. (See Reference 10. æ ö hd ÷ ∗ 100 % DC Froth Backup = ç ç ψ ∗ (HΒ +h ) ÷ wo ø è (Customary or Metric) Eq. Others pick up specific issues that may occur from time to time with tray designs. the reader is referred to Reference 15. all grass root tray designs should meet all secondary parameter criteria. Downcomer Choking Due to Velocity . but not critical. The dependence of this downcomer two-phase pressure drop on liquid viscosity is conservative and therefore a liquid viscosity cut off of 1 cP is implemented in EMoTIP. All downcomer flood effects are captured through the downcomer flood model. In this last case. the liquid physical properties and the total available downcomer height. Still others are thought to have a role in tray performance from the physics of fluid flow on the tray. This is a reduction from the earlier 1133 program limit of 20%. The frictional head loss term can be a significant factor in the calculation of downcomer flood.The design criteria for liquid entrainment is 10% of the liquid flowing on the tray by either the M-method or the E-method. Lower pressure towers that tend to be limited by jet flood can have stable operation with some level of entrainment. 2003 area. SECONDARY DESIGN PARAMETERS Secondary design parameters are constraints on tray design that are important. Some of these parameters help keep the tray design within acceptable bounds where the capacity correlations are valid. combined with downcomer choking and the secondary parameter: Square Root of (% DC Froth Backup x % DC Choke). In general.

5 gpm/inch (3. Velocity Under the Downcomer (Vud ) .25 to 5. either high or low. (40) The previous limit for this parameter was 75% in MoTIP. It can also cause a blocking effect of the holes on the inlet side of the tray due to momentum.1 ft/sec (0.5 dm /s/m).This new correlation is still in the testing stage but should be a good indicator of whether a tower is too small for any internal. In those cases. EMoTIP performs this test and will not print out a probability of non-flooding design for the tray if a minimum dry tray pressure drop of 1. These entrance velocities are similar to those used in the 1133 program. The current criterion in EMoTIP is 1. The downcomer clearance should be increased if this limit is not reached. VA . If the limit of 85% is reached. The criterion for this parameter is to keep it below 70%. Maintaining a dry tray pressure drop is an old rule of thumb for sieve tray design to maintain a stable tray frothing action. in that trays with low dry tray pressure drop at a fixed 85% of overall flood. an increased diameter is required. swept back weirs or modified arc downcomers may be used to decrease the liquid rate per unit length on side downcomers. However. Likewise. With tighter downcomer sealing criteria. and longer flow path lengths.5 inches (32 to 140 mm) of hot liquid. The limit has been increased to 100% in EMoTIP. However.To keep within the bounds of the data used to develop the capacity correlations. high values of the DC choke parameter do usually indicate that the downcomer mouth area is restrictive and extra downcomer capacity can be obtained by increasing the downcomer mouth area. This latter effect tends to be worse with low dry tray pressure drops. This increase is already reflected in the table under Froth to Spray Regime Transition earlier in this section and the allowable criteria are also printed out by EMoTIP.25 inches of hot liquid (32 mm) is not maintained at 85% of overall flood. Increasing the number of passes should be evaluated provided sufficient diameter exists. the foam factor was to the first power in this equation.4 m/sec). except perhaps non-conventional devices that use centrifugal or impaction deentrainment. many 1133 designs will have high Vud. Universal Ultimate Capacity . Square Root of (% DC Froth Backup x % DC Choke) . which could reduce tray efficiency.Statistical analysis has shown that the 1133 program limits on froth to spray transition can be safely increased by 10%. low tray spacing. Please consult with a FRACTIONATION SPECIALIST if this criteria can not be met during revamps or reratings. it is recommended to maintain the dry tray pressure drop in the range of 1. as they increase the plugging potential of the tray.To keep within the bounds of data used for both the capacity and efficiency correlation development. Recessed inlet pans or inlet weirs may also be used to prevent a high velocity under the downcomer from adversely affecting tray action. Multi-downcomer trays such as the HiFi tray or the ECMD tray are also options for high liquid rate conditions. Picket fence weirs 3 may be used to increase the liquid rate should it be less than 1. and a recommended hudL of up to 1. (41) Liquid Rate per Unit Length Weir .33 m/sec) limit in MoTIP.5 to 17. There was no limit on this parameter in 1133 designs. inlet weirs will cause increased downcomer backup.3 ft/sec (0. Froth/Spray Transition . The research on the EMoTIP probability of flooding provided support for this old rule of thumb. ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. Both recessed inlet pans or inlet weirs should be avoided in situations of potential liquid born foulant. With an allowable value of 100%. Tray design for foaming systems require large downcomers and a large downcomer mouth area to provide sufficient residence time for foam collapse in the downcomer. (38 mm). The foam factor also appears in this equation squared.7 dm /s/m). In MoTIP.5 to 13 mm) high may be used in place of an inlet weir to help alleviate the effects of high velocity under the downcomer. exhibit markedly increased scatter in the flood point. SQRT ( DC Backup ∗ DC Choke ) = (% DC Froth Backup ∗ % DC Choke ) (Customary or Metric) Eq. squaring the foam factor keeps entrance velocities at about the same absolute value as allowed by MoTIP with a design limit of 75%. the liquid 3 rate per unit length of weir should be within the criteria of 1.7 to 43. because statistical analysis of this variable has shown it is not a very significant predictor of flood above and beyond the basic downcomer flood model itself.Excessive velocity in the inlet area of the tray can result in channeling across the tray. a small breaker bar.A better predictor of downcomer flooding than the choke parameter alone is the square root of the product of choke and downcomer froth backup. 3/8 to 1/2 inch (9. which is an increase from the 1.5 gpm/inch of weir (3.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 24 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.5 in. 2003 % DC Choke = Vdi ∗ 100 Vdi (Ult ) (Customary or Metric) Eq. and result in excessive froth heights on the outlet side of the tray and premature flooding (commonly referred to as a rooster-tail effect or outlet side flood). Dry Tray Pressure Drop .

so as a percentage of the total vapor flow in the tower it is small. VA . (25 to 38 mm) at turndown in high liquid rate services are acceptable or in services where there is a need to minimize downcomer fouling. It should be maintained at less than 20%.5 in. but are only suitable for computer calculation. Therefore.0 – 1. Therefore. (43) where: Q w = Weep rate.6 ∗ 1.144 (Customary) Eq. If a seal is not obtained. Hole area has the largest effect on weeping and should be reduced to reduce the weeping if it is excessive. The estimated weeping is calculated both at the design conditions and the turndown conditions (if they differ from the design). Downcomer unsealing up to 1. consider: • • • Increasing the outlet weir height. (42) where: Vbwp = Vapor velocity through the bubble area at the weep point. the downcomer should be sealed at design rates by the liquid on the tray below. In high pressure and heavily liquid loaded towers it may not be possible to reduce the value below 15-18%. it usually has no appreciable effect on jet flood or tray efficiency and is not included in those calculations. • Using a recessed inlet box. (38 mm) provided the downcomer filling is not exceeded at design rates and the velocity under the downcomer limit is not exceeded. Downcomer seal is also calculated at minimum rates. Downcomer Sealing .Weeping as a percentage of the total liquid rate on a tray will generally have limited effect on tray efficiency if weeping is less than 20%.22 ∗ ρL ⋅ h′′ cwp ( ) 0. because the clear liquid height must be determined simultaneously. This sum plus 1/2 in. Adding an inlet weir. it is necessary to check the sum of the clear liquid height at the inlet to the tray (hi) and the head loss under the downcomer (hud) at design liquid rates. The EMoTIP weeping correlation is a variation of the FRI TR 119 model. Larger degrees of unseal are allowable at turndown. Both the E-Method and M-Method efficiency calculations have corrections for weeping so an estimate of the effect of weeping on tray efficiency can be made. 2003 Vapor Fraction Under the Downcomer (Vapor Recycle) . Liquid Weeping at Conditions . Reducing the clearance to 1. A downcomer clearance of 1 in. The clear liquid for these equations is the public domain version of hExxon 1133 clear liquid height (referred to as the Colwell model in the literature).ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 25 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. but downcomer design should attempt to minimize it. Therefore. If the turndown requirements for the tower cannot be met with a sieve tray. (13 mm) must be at least equal to the downcomer clearance. ft/s t = Tray thickness. The basic equations for weep point and weeping rate are given below.5 in. Note that designing near the high end of the head loss range may unnecessarily increase downcomer filling if a higher clearance will still seal the downcomer. inch h ′′ = FRI TR 119 clear liquid height at the weep point. Downcomer unsealing at turndown does not seem to adversely effect tray efficiency according to available FRI data. and is the same model that was used in MoTIP. 1. This number is the vapor as a fraction of the total volumetric flow in the downcomer.44 ö æ æA ö çç o ÷ Ab ÷ çè ÷ æ ρL − ρv ø = 14.5 ∗ ç ÷∗ç ρ ç ρv v ç ÷ è ç ÷ è ø Vbwp ö ÷ ÷ ø 0. a moveable valve tray should be evaluated.09 ∗ α 2 ç çç èè Vb Vbwp ö ö c ÷ ∗ 2g ⋅ æ h′′ − h′′ ö ÷ ∗ A c ç t÷÷ o ÷ è α ø÷ ø ø (Customary) Eq.043 ⋅ 0 ⋅uL ÷ æ æ ç ÷ç t è ø ç1 − ∗e Q w = 94. Details on this method for weeping may be found in FRI TR 119 and Reference 12.094 æd ö ∗ç o ÷ è t ø −0.To prevent some of the vapor from bypassing a tray by traveling up the downcomer. gal/min ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. there is no justification for setting downcomer clearance any lower than that required for downcomer sealing. (25 mm) is acceptable in very clean services.There is no limit on this parameter in EMoTIP. inch cwp The weeping rate is determined from the following equation: d æ ö ç −0. if a turndown rate is defined.

dimensionless (Using FRI TR 119 procedure) h′′ = FRI TR 119 clear liquid height at the condition where Qw is calculated.and high-range weeping rate. guidelines are presented in Section lIl-l. The optimization matrix finds the minimum tower diameter. Selecting these additional options allows EMoTIP to design with these hardware features if they are deemed applicable to the specific design by the program. Typically tray spacing is evaluated from 18 to 36 inches (450 to 900 mm) in 3 inch (75 mm) ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. Traditionally. However. SIEVE TRAY DESIGN PROCEDURE At the basic design stage. the desired tray layout.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 26 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. The following are fundamental factors that influence tray performance and therefore. stream properties. and the type of tray to be used. liquid loadings are from the tray in question since these are nearly always the maximum values. inch c h ′t′ = FRI TR 119 Tray pressure drop. the designer should be aware that loadings can increase significantly across a given theoretical tray. inlet weir option. for 4 and 6 tray strippers. EMOTIP DESIGN ALGORITHM EMoTIP is capable of designing one.DBG). For new tower designs and for rating existing towers. inch uL = Liquid velocity across the tray deck. It does not design three pass trays. EMoTIP also does not include seal pans. each determined from a second objective function (OBJ). Designers should verify by inspection (not auto-selection) the minimum and maximum loaded trays in a section to be used for tray design or rating. and the turndown loadings have been established. In the default condition. Inside each cell of the matrix is the minimum diameter needed to meet all of the designer's criteria. evaluating every possible combination of standard tray geometry. based on liquid not weeping. If this is the case and the overall efficiency is less than about 70%. For example. and four pass trays with either straight or sloped downcomers. It is able to search the entire design space. there are 21 possible combinations of tray spacing and number of passes. that will yield a valid tray design for each combination of tray spacing and number of passes. Once the vapor and liquid loadings. This factor improves the weep rate fit in the mid. The "design optimization matrix" is shown below. A flowchart of the search algorithm is shown in Figure 10. operating conditions. Tray Efficiency. and therefore proper minimum loadings for a given design should be used. which is the industrial area of concern because the effect on tray efficiency is more pronounced in this area. and other internals can have an impact on which tray is capacity limiting a given tower. the type of internals must be correctly chosen before the ExxonMobil Tower Internals Program (EMoTIP) can be used for design. Vapor loadings are to the tray in question. Tray spacing and the presence of drawoff boxes. Dopt. Dopt (TSmin. VA . this assumption can have a significant impact on the tray design and operation. This information is normally calculated as part of the heat and material balance(s) for the tower and is usually obtained from a computer program such as PRO/II or PROVISION. ft/s The only difference between this procedure and the FRI TR119 procedure is the insertion of the 1.09 factor in the weep rate equation. and modified arc downcomers in any of its designs. the following parameters should already be known: vapor and liquid flow rates. A discussion of the ExxonMobil Tower Internals Program design algorithm is included in this section. EMoTIP provides this matrix at the end of the design option debug file (*. designers have assumed 50% of the design loadings when specifying minimum liquid and vapor loadings. In the case of bottoms and sidestream strippers for pipestills. and picket fence weir option. feed zones. sweptback weirs. An optimum tower diameter is determined for each of these 21 cells in the matrix. 2003 α = Froth density on tray. ft/s Vb = Vapor velocity through the bubble area at the condition where Qw is calculated. However. the ExxonMobil Tower Internals Program (EMoTIP) should be used. The designer must then prorate loadings between the loadings to and from the theoretical tray in question. transitions. EMoTIP uses an overall objective function (OBJoverall) to determine the best design from a matrix of achievable designs. This is done by determining the vapor load for the trays in a section (using data from the tray loading summary in the PRO/II output) and selecting the trays with the largest and smallest vapor load. the vapor loading to the upper actual tray may be higher. this program feature proves to be very valuable and represents a distinct advantage over previous tray design programs. Since the user cannot reproduce this method by hand. The first step in tray design is to obtain the vapor and liquid loadings and their respective physical properties.4) = 15 ft (4600 mm) means that a 15 ft (4600 mm) diameter tower is needed if a 4-pass tower with the minimum tray spacing allowed by the designer is desired. two. The program allows the user to select any combination of the following options simultaneously: shaped lip option.

.Froth/spray regime (see Figure 13) f(Ent) ..2) Dopt (TSmin+TSstep. OBJoverall.2) Dopt (TSmax-TSstep.4) .Dry tray pressure drop (see Figure 11) f(FS) .Liquid load per unit weir (see Figure 12) f(Choke) .Application of inlet weir = 1.Vapor channeling (valve trays only) f(DCShape) . However.1) Dopt (TSmax. since designing at a low percent overall flood is the best way to ensure successful tower operation.Weeping less than 20% at Turndown Condition (see Figure 18) f(Seal2) . the starting value for TSmin may be reset automatically depending on the fouling or foaming factors.125 debit The 21 cells which each represent an optimum design for a given combination of tray spacing and number of passes are then evaluated with a second objective function.Weeping % (see Figure 17) f(Seal) . For each of the twenty one different combinations or cells in the matrix.802 × f Np × f (Overall Flood) ( ) (Customary) Eq.1) . number of passes and the minimum tower diameter.. The dependence of OBJoverall on tray spacing and diameter represents a realistic measure of the relative cost of tower height to diameter.4) EMoTIP allows overriding all maximum. application-specific information (such as space available for tower footprint. minimum. or by user override of the default TSmin. Dopt (TSmin. The default design algorithm values are given in Table 4A (customary) and Table 4B (metric). Dopt. (45) ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.2) . OBJoverall = (OBJ) × Dt1. Dopt (TSmin.Downcomer entrance choking (see Figure 14) f(FPL) .4) Dopt (TSmax. VA .Vapor carryunder through the downcomer (See Figure 21) f(ValveWeep) .4) Dopt (TSmin+TSstep.1 debit f(VaporChannel) .Valve tray weeping (valve trays only) f(InletWeir) . resulting in seven rows in this matrix. and step sizes for all geometry in design mode.Sloped side downcomer = 1.066 × H0. Dopt (TSmax-TSstep.2) Dopt (TSmax. the optimization matrix should be consulted before a final design is chosen.Flow path length (see Figure 16) f(Weep2) .Design condition downcomer seal (see Figure 19) f(PicketWeir) .03 debit f(GPMin) . There are 16 such debits: Design Debits: fi(Design Consideration) f(DTPD) .Turndown condition downcomer seal (see Figure 20) f(Carryunder) . The objective function OBJ determines the optimum design for each cell within the matrix given its corresponding tray spacing.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 27 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.Entrainment (see Figure 15) f(Weep) . The objective function finds the optimum design by minimizing the following equation: OBJ = (Overall Flood) × ∏ fi (Design Consideration) i (Customary or Metric) Eq. (44) OBJ is primarily controlled by percent overall flood..1) Dopt (TSmax-TSstep...Application of picket fence weir = 1. the program finds the optimum design based on the objective function OBJ. etc) in the determination of which design is the best.. However. possible step changes in cost for large diameter or very tall towers.. Number of Passes 1 TSmin Tray Spacing TSmin+TSstep .1) Dopt (TSmin+TSstep. so the designer can include more realistic. The fi(Design Consideration) represent debits applied to OBJ when a design is close to a secondary design limit. 2003 increments. TSmax-TSstep TSmax 2 4 Dopt (TSmin.

ExxonMobil Proprietary

Section III-B Page 28 of 83

FRACTIONATING TOWERS

SIEVE TRAYS

DESIGN PRACTICES

December, 2003

The other factors in OBJoverall include the objective function OBJ; a function of number of passes; and a correction on overall flood. The functionality of these other factors is given below. f Np = 1 +

( )

Np − 1 10

(Customary or Metric)

Eq. (46)

70 f (OverallFlood) = OverallFlood

f (OverallFlood) = 1

if Overall Flood >70% if Overall Flood <70%

(Customary or Metric)

Eq. (47)

The best overall design is defined as the one that minimizes OBJoverall.

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA

**ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS
**

Section III-B Page 29 of 83

SIEVE TRAYS

DESIGN PRACTICES

December, 2003

NOMENCLATURE

Ab Adi Ado Af Ao APC As Aw b Cb CbF C4 cD coe Cf Co Cs Cult Cuniv c do dPdc Dp Dopt Dt EO fe ff FF fw Fw gc H HB hc h'c h''c hcDP h''cwp hd hdc hed hf = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Bubble area of pass, (see Figure 12 in Section III-A) Total downcomer inlet area for pass, ft2 (m2) Total downcomer outlet area for pass, ft2 (m2) Free area for pass, ft2 (m2) (superficial area minus arithmetic average of inlet and outlet area of downcomer(s) above the tray minus the waste area) (see Figure 13 in Section III-A) Hole area for pass, ft2 (m2) Hole area correction term in jet flood equation, dimensionless Superficial (total) tower area, ft2 (m2) Waste area for pass, ft2 (m2) (normally zero for new sieve tray designs) 2 2 Weir length term for Hofhuis tray clear liquid height calculation; see Eq. (31), in/ft (mm/m ) Capacity factor based on pass bubble area, VL/Ab, ft/s (m/s) Capacity factor at jet flood, ft/s (m/s) Intermediate to Eq. (24) Droplet drag coefficient, dimensionless Downcomer exit coefficient, see Text, Eq. (36) Capacity factor based on pass free area, ft/s (m/s) Pass vapor capacity factor based on hole area = Vo

é ρv ù ê ú ρL − ρv û ë

0.5

ft2

(m2)

,ft/s (m/s)

Capacity factor based on tower superficial area, ft/s (m/s) Capacity factor at the tray ultimate capacity limit, ft/s (m/s) Capacity factor at the universal ultimate capacity limit, ft/s (m/s) Downcomer clearance between tray and downcomer apron at tray inlet, in. (mm) (see Figure 6B in Section III-A) Hole diameter, in. (mm) Two phase mixture pressure drop in the downcomer, in. (mm) of hot liquid Drop size, in. (mm) Optimum tower diameter as function of tray spacing & number of passes, ft (m) Tower diameter, ft (mm) Overall efficiency, % (see Section lIl-l) Fractional entrainment, dimensionless Foaming factor, dimensionless Fouling factor, dimensionless Fractional weepage, dimensionless (Qw / QL) Weir constriction factor, dimensionless Gravitational constant, 32.2 ft/s2 (9.8 m/s2) Tray spacing, in. (mm) Tray spacing below tray, in. (mm) Hofhuis clear liquid height on tray, in. (mm) of hot liquid FRI TR 88 clear liquid height on tray, in. (mm) of hot liquid FRI TR 119 clear liquid height on tray, in. (mm) of hot liquid Clear liquid height at dump point, in. (mm) of hot liquid FRI TR 119 clear liquid height at weep point, in. (mm) of hot liquid Downcomer filling, in. (mm) of hot liquid Head loss due to two-phase flow through the downcomer, in. (mm) of hot liquid Effective dry tray pressure drop, in. (mm) of hot liquid Tray froth height, in. (mm) of hot liquid

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA

ExxonMobil Proprietary

Section III-B Page 30 of 83

FRACTIONATING TOWERS

SIEVE TRAYS

DESIGN PRACTICES

December, 2003

hi ht h''t hud hudL hvt hwi hwo KD Kφ KL Kσ Kσµ Kε L L′ LL LL(Min) Lw Ic * Ic ldb lfp Ii lo Io*

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Tray inlet head, in. (mm) of hot liquid FRI TR 88 total tray pressure drop, in. (mm) of hot liquid FRI TR 119 total tray pressure drop, in. (mm) of hot liquid Head loss under the downcomer or splash baffle corrected for froth flow, in. (mm) of hot liquid Liquid head loss under the downcomer or splash baffle, in. (mm) of hot liquid Head loss of vapor flowing through off-center vapor tunnel, in. (mm) of hot liquid Inlet weir height, in. (mm) Outlet weir height, in. (mm) (see Figure 3, Section III-A) Correction factor for downcomer frictional pressure drop, dimensionless Tray geometry factor in E-Method entrainment correlation Liquid rate-tray spacing factor in E-Method entrainment correlation System properties factor in E-Method entrainment correlation System properties factor in the low liquid rate E-Method entrainment correlation Vapor energy dissipation term in E-Method entrainment correlation 3 Liquid rate, gpm/in. of effective weir/pass, (dm /s/m of weir/pass) Liquid rate, gpm/in. of diameter/pass (dm3/s/m of diameter/pass) Liquid load, ft3/s (dm3/s) at conditions Minimum liquid load, ft3/s (dm3/s) at conditions Liquid rate weeping factor Side downcomer chord length at inlet, in. (mm) Inboard tray downcomer chord legnth at inlet, in, (mm) Pass length of downcomer bottom, in. (mm) Flow path length (distance between inlet and outlet downcomers), in (mm) (see Figure 12 in Section III-A) Pass inlet weir length, in. (mm) Pass effective outlet weir length, in. (mm) (see Figure 12 in Section III-A) Pass outlet weir length on inboard tray, in. (mm) (see Figure 12 in Section III-A) Pass length of bottom edge of downcomer or splash baffle, in. (mm) (see Figure 12 in Section III-A) Number of actual trays Number of theoretical trays Number of passes Low liquid rate entrainment parameter [see Eq. (24) for mathematical definition] Objective function for Dopt at given tray spacing and number of passes, dimensionless Overall objective function to determine best design, dimensionless Calculated hole pitch, in. (mm) Pass weeping rate at the dump point, gpm (dm3/s) at conditions Pass liquid rate, gpm (dm3/s) at conditions Pass weeping liquid rate, gpm (dm3/s) at conditions Pass volumetric vapor rate, ft3/s (m3/s) at conditions Downcomer inlet width, in. (mm). For modified arc downcomers, r represents the minimum pinch point rise, see Section III-K Downcomer bottom width, in. (mm) Critical Reynolds number, dimensionless Dry tray pressure drop parameter Clear liquid height parameter Clear liquid height parameter Tray thickness, in. (mm) Tray spacing maximum used in optimization matrix, in. (mm)

lud = = NA = NT = Np n = OBJ = OBJoverall= P = QDP = = QL Qw = = qv r = rud Rec S5 S6 S9 t TSmax = = = = = = =

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA

**ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS
**

Section III-B Page 31 of 83

SIEVE TRAYS

DESIGN PRACTICES

December, 2003

**TSmin TSstep uL ut Vb Vbwp Vdi Vdi(ult) Vdo
**

Vf

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

=

Tray spacing minimum used in optimization matrix, in. (mm) Tray spacing step used in optimization matrix, in. (mm) Liquid velocity across pass tray deck, ft/s (m/s) Terminal velocity in universal ultimate capacity equations, ft/s (m/s) Vapor velocity through the pass bubble area, ft/s (m/s) Vapor velocity through the pass bubble area at the weep point, ft/s (m/s) Velocity of clear liquid entering pass downcomer, ft/s (m/s) Allowable downcomer entrance velocity limit, in. (mm) Downcomer outlet velocity, ft/s (m/s) Vapor velocity based on average tower free area, ft/s (m/s) Pass design vapor load = qv ê

ρv ù ú ρL − ρv ú ê û ë é

0.5

VL VL(Ult) Vo Vud Wec wE wL wv w`v x XL

at conditions, ft /s (m /s)

3

3

Ultimate capacity vapor load dependent on system properties, ft3/s (m3/s) at conditions Pass vapor velocity through the holes, ft/s (m/s) Velocity under the downcomer, ft/s (m/s) Critical Weber number, dimensionless Pass liquid entrainment rate, lb/s (kg/s) Pass liquid mass flow rate, k lb/hr (kg/s) Pass vapor mass flow rate, k lb/hr (kg/s) Pass vapor mass flow rate at universal ultimate capacity limit, k lb/hr (kg/s) Multiplier on vapor and liquid rates in downcomer flood calculation, dimensionless Gpm/in of weir correction factor Froth density on tray using FRI TR 119, dimensionless

é ρ − ρv ù Factor in ultimate capacity equation, 1.4 ê L ú ë ρv û

0.5

α β

∆ρ Φ φ γ

(Customary and Metric)

Density difference, (ρL - ρv) Lockhart-Martinelli Flow Parameter, dimensionless Liquid head correction term in dry tray pressure drop, dimensionless Correction term for overall flood equation Liquid viscosity at conditions, cP (mPa•s) Vapor viscosity at conditions, cP (mPa•s) Weir height term in Hofhuis tray clear liquid height calculation; see Eq. (31), dimensionless Vapor fraction of aerated liquid flowing under downcomer (vapor carryunder), dimensionless Liquid density at conditions, Ib/ft3 (kg/m3) Vapor / Liquid mixture density under the downcomer = ζ ⋅ ρv + (1 − ζ ) ⋅ ρL , Ib/ft3 (kg/m3) Vapor density at conditions, Ib/ft3 (kg/m3) Liquid surface tension at conditions, dynes/cm (mN/m) Standard liquid surface tension, dynes/cm (mN/m) (see Figure 2) Downcomer froth density, fraction of froth volume occupied by liquid, dimensionless

µL µv

Ω

ζ ρL ρm ρv σL σSTD ψ

= = = =

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA

VA . the EMoTIP program will be available as part of the Pegasys install. SOURCE * PEGASYS PRO/II PROGRAM NAME OR NUMBER ExxonMobil Tower Internals Program MoTIP is recommended until EMoTIP is integrated with PRO/II VERSION NUMBER 1. ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.01 5.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 32 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.55 The ExxonMobil Tower Internals Program utilizes the design equations contained in this section and the design limits in Table 1. * If Pegasys 5. please contact your Technical Computing Representative or consult with a FRACTIONATION SPECIALIST for help.2 is installed after September 1. 2003. Existing tray designs can be rated by specifying all of the tray hardware dimensions in "user specifies all geometry" mode. EMoTIP is the recommended program to use for new tower or tray designs and for rating purposes. 2003 COMPUTER PROGRAMS AVAILABLE PROGRAMS For up-to-date information on available programs and for user instructions.

Downcomers and Weirs a) Type of downcomer Chordal Segmental [with 6 in.0 to 1.) However. VA . Use of variable tray spacing to accommodate loading changes from section to section should be considered to minimize tower height and avoid tower swaging. increasing the outlet weir height or using an inlet weir or recessed inlet box. Set the clearance to meet the downcomer sealing criteria and the velocity under the downcomer criteria. use single pass. (150 mm min. Higher values of head loss under the downcomer can be used if necessary to assure sealing of the downcomer.5 gpm/in of weir/pass (42.(200 mm min. For the final design. suspended lengthwise in the middle of the center and off-center downcomer and extending the length of the downcomer. b) Center.5 in. of diameter (17 dm3/s/m of diameter). off-center downcomer width (inlet and outlet) and anti-jump baffles — Whenever the liquid rate exceeds 4. (50 to 75 mm). (6 mm) is less than the downcomer clearance at design rates. and up (25 mm and up) 1. choose the number of passes which minimizes the total tower cost (i. Inlet weirs add to downcomer filling. consider decreasing the clearance. 2. The minimum diameter for 4 pass trays is 10 ft (3050 mm). 2 or 4 1.5 in.. An old rule of thumb for selecting the number of passes is: for diameters 5 ft (1500 mm) and less. tower height and diameter).ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 33 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. (350-400 mm) high anti-jump baffle. Downcomer unsealing of up to 1. for diameters over 5 ft (1500 mm). If the liquid rate exceeds 17. and up (38 mm and up) in fouling services e) Downcomer seal Operating or process seal (see Section III-A) Inlet weir or recessed inlet box should be avoided in fouling services ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. Recessed inlet boxes are more expensive but may be necessary in cases where an operating seal would require an excessively high outlet weir.5 dm3/s/m of weir/pass) consult your FRACTIONATION SPECIALIST. If the downcomer is unsealed.5 in (25 to 38 mm) at turndown in high liquid rate services are acceptable or in services where there is a need to minimize fouling.) Outlet width: 6 in. of diameter (17 dm3/s/m of diameter) and try 1 pass if the liquid rate is equal to or less than 7 gpm/in. These alternate designs are contained in the C:\TEMP\EMOTIP. (350 to 900 mm) ALLOWABLE RANGE 12 to 36 in. (50 mm) 0 to 4 in. as limited by downcomer filling or maintenance considerations. as long as the maximum Vud criteria is not exceeded. 2 and 4 (3-pass designs are not available in EMoTIP) 3.) The optimum weir height is the one which maximizes tray efficiency without creating downcomer sealing or filling problems. in some cases they may be desirable for 3-pass or 4-pass trays to insure equal liquid distribution. EMoTIP design algorithm attempts to pick the correct number of passes. Tray Spacing VALUES SUGGESTED 15 to 36 in. (300 to 900 mm) COMMENTS It is generally economical to use minimum values. the liquid level on the inlet side of the tray can be made high enough to seal the downcomer through the use of the outlet weir (operating seal). use a 14-16 in.) 2 in. In most cases. (38 mm) 1 in. for more details. However.DBG file after a design run. It also develops alternate designs for every combination of tray spacing and number of passes where a feasible design can be achieved.5% of the tower diameter for good liquid distribution.5 in. This will prevent froth from choking the downcomer as it converges from opposite sides. Tray Efficiency.2 gpm/in. do not use a shaped downcomer with a recessed box or inlet weir.e. See Section lII-l. 2003 Table 1 Sieve Tray Design Principles (METRIC VALUES SHOWN IN PARENTHESES) DESIGN FEATURE 1. the downcomer will not be sealed. This optimum usually occurs at a height of 2 to 3 in. Less than 15 inch (350 mm) spacing is not recommended for new designs. (See Section III-A. min. if the sum of the clear liquid height at the inlet to the tray (hi) and the head loss under the downcomer (hud) plus 0. (150 mm) minimum rise] Inlet width: 8 in. min. (0 to 100 mm) Inlet and outlet chord length must be at least 62. c) Outlet weir height d) Clearance under the downcomer 1. look at 2 passes if the liquid rate exceeds about 7 gpm/in. Number of Liquid Passes 1. consider use of a shaped downcomer to reduce the head loss. Figure 11. of diameter (10 dm3/s/m of diameter/pass). If high liquid rates occur. The base of the antijump baffle should be level with the top of the outlet weirs or the tray deck if no weirs are present (see Figure 14 in Section III-A.

6. the Ab/As ratio is based on dividing Ab by (As . (57 mm) — 1.25 in. Design for a dry tray pressure drop of 2. However. (9 mm) in diameter on carbon steel trays may rust over during hydrostatic testing and should be avoided. Tray Efficiency 3..140 mm) Calculate per Section lIl-l Maximum allowable of 5.25 in.5 inches (64 mm) or larger to allow foam to escape the downcomer. the lower the open area. If turndown downcomer seal becomes a problem consult your FRACTIONATION SPECIALIST.3 or greater — Foam factor will derate both jet flood and downcomer flood.5 in. In general. b) Maximum Dry Tray Pressure Drop c) Radius tip and downcomer clearance 2. (140 mm).0 in. in foaming service 2. Foaming Design Criteria a) Set foam factor to 1. For trays having a significant amount of waste area. (57 mm). blank uniformly within the bubble area. Percent hole areas below 3. (57 mm) or less.g. (13 mm) 3/4 in. at very high liquid rates to prevent downcomer filling. Blanking is generally not required unless the tower is being sized for future service at much higher rates or if some trays have much lower vapor loadings than the rest of the tower.25 . Larger hole sizes should be used if fouling is anticipated. holes smaller than 3/8 in.Aw). such as operation in the spray regime. (76 mm) Calculate per Section III-I 1. Also use a generous downcomer clearance of 2. b) Ratio of hole area to bubble area (Ao/Ab). To maintain best efficiency. Sieve tray efficiency will be equal to or better than that of other commercially available trays provided there is not an entrainment or excessive weeping problem. Ab 40 to 90% of As 40 to 90% of As d) Hole blanking e) Dry Tray Pressure Drop 5. (25 mm) radius tips.5 in (64 mm) downcomer clearance or larger — ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. (e. consider valve trays and consult your FRACTIONATION SPECIALIST. percent 6 to 10% 3. (See discussion of blanking below.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 34 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.5 to 15% c) Bubble area. The use of alloy trays to overcome this problem should be considered. Hole Size and Layout a) Hole diameter 1/2 in. (3 to 25 mm) Smaller holes generate less entrainment for some situations. the higher the efficiency and the lower the capacity.3 or larger 1.5% are not recommended because the distance between holes becomes excessive and liquid channeling may occur.25 in. A tray with 8% open area gives good efficiency and flexibility without a capacity debit for a wide range of liquid rates.) Ab/As ratios below 40% or above 90% must not be used. 2003 Table 1 (Cont) Sieve Tray Design Principles (Metric Values Shown in Parentheses) VALUES SUGGESTED ALLOWABLE RANGE COMMENTS DESIGN FEATURE 4. VA .5. because they are outside the range of available data. upper trays of absorber de-ethanizers and lower trays of heavy hydrocarbon steam strippers). (19 to 25 mm) for fouling services 1/8 to 1in. Design using at least 1 in. to 1 in. If turndown becomes a problem. See GP 0502-01 for more details on tray blanking. Higher open areas may be required at very low liquid rates to avoid the spray regime.5 in (38 mm) radius tip 2.5 in (32 . or in vacuum service to avoid excessive pressure drop. It will also ensure a design with low downcomer inlet velocities if the downcomer choke is kept below 100%.

2 1 1 See Table A See Table A See Table A 1 1 1 1 See Table A See Table A See Table A 1. 2003 Table 2 System Factors PROCESS Powerformer Feed Stripper Deisopentanizer Depentanizer Stabilizer (deisobutanizer) Absorber-Deethanizer Debutanizer Splitter and Rerun Tower Hydrotreater Polymers Kerosene Stripper Gas Oil Stripper Propylene/Propane Splitter C2/Propylene Splitter Hexane Undercutter Hexane Drying Tower Hexane Recovery Tower Isobutylene Purification Tower FCCU FCCU Main Fractionator Top Middle Bottom Water Wash Section Light Cat Naphtha Splitter Stabilizer Debutanizer Absorber-Deethanizer Sponge Oil Absorber Distillate Stripper Crude Unit Prefractionator Atmospheric Pipestill Vacuum Pipestill Sidestream Stripper (APS) Sidestream Stripper (VPS) Heavy Hydrocarbon Bottom Stripper Naphtha Splitter Depropanizer Debutanizer Deisopentanizer Aromatics Deisohexanizer Benzene Tower Toluene Tower Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom TYPE OF TOWER FOAMING FACTOR See Table A 1 1 1 1 1.2 See Table A See Table A See Table A See Table A See Table A See Table A See Table A See Table A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FOULING FACTOR 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 35 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.2 1 See Table A See Table A 1 1. VA .

2 1.3 Water wash 1.1 1. 2003 PROCESS Aromatics cont.3 1 1. C4 ) Depropanizer Debutanizer Absorber-Deethanizer Absorber-Depropanizer Steam Cracked Naphtha Rerun Tower Steam Cracked Naphtha Stripper Distillate Stripper (bottoms < 250F) Distillate Stripper (bottoms > 250F) Debenzenizer Detoluenizer Primary Absorber Sponge Oil Absorber Caustic Treater Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom FOAMING FACTOR 1 1 See Table A 1.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 See Table B See Table B 1.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 36 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.1 FOULING FACTOR 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 3 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 Solvents iC3OH Dehydration Tower Hexane Tower Heptane Tower Gofiner Gas Treating Product Stripper H2S/MEA Absorber H2S/DEA Absorber H2S Regenerator Ucarsol Absorber Ucarsol Regenerator Sulfinol Absorber ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.1 1.2 1.2 1.15 1 1. Steam Cracker (See Note 2) C8/C9 Splitter TYPE OF TOWER Xylenes Splitter Primary Fractionator Demethanizer Prefractionator C2 Topping Still (<320 psia) C2 Topping Still (>320 psia) Demethanizer Ethylene/Ethane Splitter Deethanizer (btm.1 1 1 1 1.3 1.3 Water wash 1.3 Water wash 1.1 1. < 160F) Deethanizer (btm > 160F & sig.3 1 1 Top Bottom 1 1 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1. VA .1 1.

2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1. VA .3 1.5 1.3 1.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 37 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.3 1.3 2.2 1.1 1.1 1 1 1 1 1 FOULING FACTOR 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Miscellaneous Light Ends Dehexanizer Propylene/Propane C3/C4 Splitter i-Butane/n-Butane i-Butane/1-Butene 1-Butene/n-Butane Butadiene Purification Tower Cyclohexane/n-Heptane i-Octane/Toluene Miscellaneous Towers Coker Main Fractionator Hydrocracker Main Fractionator Quench Tower Isostripper (Alky Main Fractionator) Methanol/Water Ethanol/Water Isopropanol/Water Glycol Fractionator ACN Extractive Distillation LNG/NGL/LPG Condensate Stripper/Stabilizer Nitrogen Rejection Scrub Tower Demethanizer Deethanizer Depropanizer Debutanizer Deisopentanizer NGL Splitter ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.4 1 2 Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom 1. 2003 PROCESS Gas Treating (Con't) TYPE OF TOWER Sulfinol Regenerator Water wash Sour Water Stripper Catacarb Absorber Catacarb Regenerator Caustic Absorber Amine (FLEXSORB) Absorber Amine (FLEXSORB) Regenerator Glycol Regenerator Glycol Dehydrator Caustic Regenerator Selexol Absorber Selexol Regenerator Top Bottom FOAMING FACTOR 1.1 1 1.5 1.2 1.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Top Middle Bottom 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Top Bottom 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.

2 1.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 38 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.2 1. then htb = hta + hvt htb = htc where: hta = heda + hca htb = hedb + hcb htc = hedc + hcc Note: Sub-subscripts a. Each set of equations must be solved by trial-anderror.1 1. and reboiler return areas of three and four pass trays can get complicated. drawoff trays. then hta = htb + hvt If htb > hta. If applying these foam factors results in exceeding the allowable tray design criteria please consult with a FRACTIONATION SPECIALIST. Therefore.05 1. VA . b.5-2 1-1. the following equations must be solved (refer to Figure 8).3 Surface Tension (dyn/cm (mN/m) 2-2.5 1. Table 3 Equations For Determining Liquid And Vapor Splits The equations for liquid.5 <1 Notes 1: Apply "low surface tension foaming factor multiplier" only if a foam factor not already available from Table 2. and may not be thoroughly discussed in Section III-H. The appropriate equations in each set are modified for the special case of vapor crossover.1 1. (4) and (5) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) QLa = QLC hdb = hdc QLa + QLb + QLc = QLtotal wva = wvc hta + htc = 2 htb wva + wvb + wvc = wvtotal (5) (4) If hta > htb.1 1. Three Pass Trays To determine the vapor and liquid flow rates for each pass of a three pass tray. Note that feed trays. This program should be used for all multipass tray designs. ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. 2: The foam factors for ethylene recovery towers are being reevaluated. 2003 TABLE A HYDROCARBON Foaming Factor 1 1.05 1.05 1. consultation with a FRACTIONATION SPECIALIST is recommended. vapor.2 Molecular Weight (Note 3) <150 150-250 250-300 >300 TABLE B ABSORBER Foaming Factor 1. NO VAPOR CROSSOVER WITH VAPOR CROSSOVER Replace Eqs.3 MW Lean Oil <100 100-150 150-300 >300 TABLE C LOW SURFACE TENSION (SEE NOTE 1) Foaming Factor Multiplier 1. This is a trial and error procedure for rating purposes only. EMoTIP contains a convergence procedure that solves the flow rates and pressure drops for multipass trays. and c refer to the pass of the tray. and pressure drop distribution are presented here for three and four pass trays. 3: The information on the foam factor dependency on molecular weight is general guidance and may be conservative at times and it may be overridden if a particular engineer has experience that shows otherwise.

the following equations must be solved (refer to Figure 9).b. 2003 Four Pass Trays To determine the vapor and liquid flow rates for each pass of a four pass tray. (6). This is a trial and error procedure.c. VA . AND (8) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) hta htb htc htd QLa = QLc QLb = QLd hdc = hdd QLa + QLb + QLc + QLd = QLtotal wva = wvc wvb = wvd hta + htc = htb + htd wva + wvb + wvc + wvd = wvtotal = heda + hca = hedb + hcb = hedc + hcc = hedd + hcd (6) (7) (8) (5) If hta > htb. then htb = hta + hvt htc = htd 2wva + 2wvb = wvtotal 2wvc + 2wvd = wvtotal where: Note: Sub-subscripts a.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 39 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. then hta = htb + hvt If htb > hta. (5). NO VAPOR CROSSOVER WITH VAPOR CROSSOVER REPLACE EQS. (7). and d refer to the pass of the tray ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.

Universal ultimate capacity.18 1-pass: rud fracmin = rud / Diameter 2-pass: rud fracmin = rud / Diameter 4-pass: rud fracmin = rud / Diameter Tray spacing (H). in. Downcomer bottom width (rud).5 80 OFmax(8) OFmax(8) OFmax+6(8) 1.25 6 6 r 0.5 5 10 0. in. % Dry tray pressure drop.5 0. of hot liquid Overall flood. % Geometric mean of % DC Froth Backup and % DC Choke Downcomer seal. gpm/in. in.0025 0. Number of passes (Np) Tower diameter (Dt). in.25 5. in. ft.0025 0. Operating limits Liquid flowrate per outlet weir length. (4) (5) (6) (7) (2) (2) Max Step Target Determined from fouling factor Determined from service 3. Tray thickness (t). in.4) 0.035 0.5 20 1. VA . in.0 1. in. in.5 0.5 H (3) 0.15 0. Downcomer top width (r). in. Glitsch valve pitch.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 40 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. 2003 Table 4 Default Design Algorithm Values Table 4A (Customary Units) Default Values (1) Min Fouling and service-specific geometries Hole diameter (do).1 ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. Geometry limits Downcomer clearance (C).125 0.1097 0. in. % Jet flood.5 0.: 1-pass 2-pass 4-pass 3 16 1 2. % Froth to spray transition (% of PEGASYS limit) Entrainment [both Exxon and Mobil models].05 (Allows 1.5 (9) 80 95 110 10 70 -0. % Velocity under the downcomer. % Downcomer choke due to vapor bubble velocity.5 17. % Tray ultimate capacity.2.25 0. % Downcomer flood. Weeping. (Vud) ft/s 3.0764 36 180 4 50 50 50 0. Flow path length (lfp).25 Hole area to bubble area ratio (Ao/Ab): sieve valve Effective weir length [for cases w/ picket fence].0993 0.3 1.

(3) Large diameter towers are designed at the minimum rud / diameter given in table.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 41 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. (8) OF designates overall flood.25 if foaming factor ≥ 1. (5) Based on 62. (4) Only straight downcomers are allowed when foaming factor ≥ 1. step. (2) Determined from fouling factor and foaming factor.3. VA .20.5% DC outlet length / diameter. (7) Based on 60% side DC outlet length / nearest off-center DC chord length. (9) 2. (6) Based on 60% side DC outlet length / nearest center DC chord length. max. 2003 Notes: Table 4A (1) Allows user override of all geometry limits and operating limits (min. target). and limited to a maximum of (r / H) = 1.1. ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.

000 0. % Downcomer flood.335 ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.25 6. % Geometric mean of % DC Froth Backup and % DC Choke Downcomer seal.0764 900 4500 4 15. % Dry tray pressure drop.1097 0. mm Geometry limits Downcomer clearance (c).75 3. mm. % Tray ultimate capacity.0025 6. % Downcomer choke due to vapor bubble velocity.0993 0. mm Downcomer bottom width (rud).4) 150 150 150 0. mm Tray thickness (t).396 31. (NP) Tower diameter (Dt). m/s -12.05 (Allows 1. mm Downcomer top width (r). mm Glitsch valve pitch. % Velocity under the downcomer.15 0. mm Number of passes. % Jet flood. % Froth to spray transition (% of PEGASYS limit) Entrainment [both Exxon and Mobil models]. mm: 1-pass 2-pass 4-pass Hole area to bubble area ratio (Ao/Ab): sieve valve 75 400 1 750 1500 3000 0. dm3/s/m Universal ultimate capacity.18 1-pass: rud fracmin = rud / Diameter 2-pass: rud fracmin = rud / Diameter 4-pass: rud fracmin = rud / Diameter Tray spacing (H). (4) (5) (6) (7) (2) (2) Max Step Target Determined from fouling factor Determined from service 90 H (3) 3. mm Weeping. mm Flow path length (lfp).000 15.000 15.0025 0.7 (9) 80 95 110 10 70 75 0.7 20 0.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 42 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.035 0. mm Operating limits Liquid flowrate per outlet weir length.47 80 OFmax(8) OFmax OFmax+6 139.25 150 150 r 0. 2003 Default Design Algorithm Values Table 4B (Metric Units) Default Values (1) Min Fouling and service-specific geometries Hole diameter (do). VA .25 Effective weir length [for cases w/ picket fence]. mm of hot liquid Overall flood.73 43.2.125 6.

(3) Large diameter towers are designed at the minimum rud / diameter given in table. (9) 57.1.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 43 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.20. and limited to a maximum of (rud / H) = 1. max. VA . target). (4) Only straight downcomers are allowed when foaming factor ≥ 1. (2) Determined from fouling factor and foaming factor. (6) Based on 60% side DC outlet length / nearest center DC chord length. 2003 Notes: Table 4B (1) Allows user override of all geometry limits and operating limits (min. (8) OF designates overall flood. (5) Based on 62.3. step.15 if foaming factor ≥ 1.5% DC outlet length / diameter. (7) Based on 60% side DC outlet length / nearest off-center DC chord length.

2 0 Weeping Region Dumping Region Dump Point Vapor Rate DP3BF10 Weep Point ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 44 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. f w 0. 2003 Figure 1 Weeping And Dumping Regions Fair To Poor Efficiency Unacceptable Efficiency Good Efficiency Good Efficiency 1.0 Fractional Weepage. VA .

2003 Figure 2 EMoTIP Tray Performance Diagrams (Customary Units) Figure 2A EMoTip Performance Diagram For C6/C7.0082 cP µL = 0.91 dyn/cm ff = 1.7 lb/ft 0.239 cP σ = 13.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 45 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.321298 lb/ft 3 ρL = 40.00 0.3 0. VA .2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Liquid rate (gpm / inch of weir) ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.5 0.4 Cb (ft/s) 0. 24 PSIA Physical properties: 3 ρV = 0.6 µV = 0.

0096 cP µL = 0.00 ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.2 0.6 0.5 0.15 dyn/cm ff = 1. 2003 Figure 2B EMoTIP Performance Diagram For iC4/nC4.4 Cb (ft/s) 0.78 lb/ft 3 ρL = 30. VA .3 0.089 cP σ = 5. 165 Psia Physical properties: 3 ρV = 1.7 lb/ft 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Liquid rate (gpm / inch of weir) µV = 0.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 46 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.

ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 47 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.6 0.064 cP σ = 2. VA .36 lb/ft ρL = 27.0111 cP µL = 0. 300 PSIA Physical properties: 3 ρV = 3.1 lb/ft 3 0.5 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Liquid rate (gpm / inch of weir) ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.4 Cb (ft/s) µV = 0.39 dyn/cm ff = 1.00 0. 2003 Figure 2C EMoTIP Performance Diagram For iC4/nC4.2 0.3 0.

25 – (Ao / Ab)) + (1-(Ao / Ab))2} Where : KD = 0.0 0.28 (Ao / Ab)6.15 0.2 0.1 .4 0.01 0.08 .04 .0 Kφ 2.12 / (do / t)0.0 4.05 0.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 48 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.00 do / t = 6-16 4 Kφ = (1*109)(J5)3.0 6.10 Ao / Ab 0. 2003 Figure 3 E-Method Entrainment Kφ Factor (Same for Customary and Metric Units) 500 400 200 100 80 60 40 2 20 10 8.0776 In (do / t) ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.02 0. VA .06 .8 0.76 0.6 0.20 DP3BF04 Note: Obtain J5 from J5 = KD { 0.1492 + 0.4 (1.0 1.

2003 Figure 4 E-Method Entrainment Kl Factor Figure 4A (Customary Units) 100 (H.08 / H5.01 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 L.22*106 (L1.0 21 2. of Weir / Pass DP3BF5A ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.) KL = 1.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 49 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. VA .0 24 KL 1 27 0.5 30 33 0.1 .02 0.2 36 0.05 . in.23) 12 50 20 15 10 18 5. gpm / in.

5 0.08 / (H / 1000)5.2 0. VA . dm3 / s Per Meter of Weir / Pass DP3BF5B ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. mm 300 400 10 8 6 5 4 3 2 600 500 KL 1 0.6 0.1 .08 .00207 (L1.05 .23) 0.03 .4 0.02 KL = 0. 2003 Figure 4B E-Method Entrainment Kl Factor (Metric Units) 100 80 60 50 40 30 20 Tray Spacing.3 700 800 900 0.01 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 45 50 60 L.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 50 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.06 .8 0.04 .

000 800 600 500 400 300 200 K = 1982 σ L–1.5 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 DP3BF06 σ L. dynes / cm (mN / m) ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. 2003 Figure 5 E-Method Entrainment Kσ Factor (Same for Customary and Metric Units) 1.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 51 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. VA .85 σ 100 80 60 50 Kσ 40 30 20 10 8 6 5 4 3 2 1 0.

2003 Figure 6 E-Method Entrainment Kε Factor Figure 6A (Customary Units) 1x10–1 100000 80000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 1 1x101 1x102 1x103 1x104 10000 8000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 Vo2 wv / Ab 1000 800 600 500 400 300 200 Kε = 1 x 10-12 (Vo2 wv / Ab)3.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 52 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.28 100 1x10–6 1x10–5 1x10–4 Kε 1x10–3 1x10–2 1x10–1 DP3BF7A ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. VA .

21 x 10–12 (Vo2 wv / Ab)3.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 53 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. 2003 Figure 6B E-Method Entrainment Kε Factor (Metric Units) 1x10–4 10000 8000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1x10–3 1x10–2 1x10–1 1 10 1000 800 Vo2 wv / Ab 600 500 400 300 200 100 80 60 50 40 30 20 Kε = 1. VA .28 10 1x10–9 1x10–8 1x10–7 Kε 1x10–6 1x10–5 1x10–4 DP3BF7B ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.

8 0.68 .2 Legend: Liquid Viscosity (µ L).2 1.317 L σ for L σ < 1.6 σ STD = 10 1.6 0. 2003 Figure 7 Kσµ Factor For E-Method Entrainment Correlation (Same for Customary and Metric Units) 1.8 0.4 1.55) σ K = σµ 0.0 for σµ σ L σ STD σ STD ≥ 1. cP (mPa • s) 0 1 10 Surface Tension (σ ). VA .1 0.244/µ L0.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 54 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. dynes/cm (mN/m) 100 DP3Bf02 ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.05 Surface Tension-Viscosity Parameter (K σµ) 0.4 0.0 STD 0.2 0.0 K = 1.(0.0 µ L = 0.

Sub-subscripts a. and c refer to the pass of the tray. VA hwi b c hwo c Pass C . ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.b. 2003 Figure 8 Three-Pass Tray Geometry a b Pass A 1 2 3 Pass B 4 5 Pass C 6 7 hwo hwo Pass A Pass B a hwi Pass C 7 6 5 Pass B 4 3 Pass A 2 1 hwi ca Pass C Pass B cb cc Pass A Note: The numbers shown on the plan view refer to the dimensions required as input to the 1143 computer program.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 55 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.

VA a hwo hwi hwi hwi hwi Pass A Pass B Pass B Pass A a d b b c d c a . Sub-subsripts a. b.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 56 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. 2003 Figure 9 Four-Pass Tray Geometry C L hwo hwo hwo 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 3 2 1 cC cd cd cC Pass A Pass B Pass B Pass A hwo hwo hwo hwo hwi hwi hwi 6 7 8 9 10 10 8 7 6 ca Pass C Pass D cb cb Pass D hwi ca Pass C Pass D Pass D 9 Pass C d d c a b c b Pass C Note: The numbers shown on the plan view refer to the dimensions required as input to the 1143 computer program. and c refer to the pass of the tray ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.

ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 57 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. apply OBJ ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. 2003 Figure 10 EMoTIPSieve And Valve Tray Design Algorithm Optimum design found Initialization Calculate OBJoverall for matrix of designs yes Tray spacing loop (Start with Hmin) H =H+Hstep no H =Hmax? yes Number of passes loop (Start with Npmax) no Reduce Np (4 to 2 to 1) NP =NPmin? yes Diameter loop (Start with Dtmin) Dt =Dt+Dtstep no Any good design at Dt? yes Downcomer top width loop (Start with rmin) r =r+rstep no r =rmax? yes Downcomer bottom width loop (Start with rud min) no rud=rud+rstep rud =rudmax? yes Ao/Ab loop (Start with Ao/Abmin) no Ao/Ab=Ao/Ab+Ao/Abstep Ao/Ab = Ao/Abmax? Rate tray. VA .

2003 Figure 11 Dry Tray Pressure Drop Design Consideration Function (CUSTOMARY UNITS) Dry Tray Pressure Drop Factor for Objective Function 1.08 1.12 1. in of hot liquid ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.75 2.98 1.25 hed.06 1.25 4.75 4.25 f(hed)=1+(hed-3.25 2.5) /100 2 f(hed) 1.75 5.04 1.75 3. VA .ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 58 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.25 3.02 1 0.1 1.

5 13.14 ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.08(Gpm/in) + 1.13e-6)(Gpm/in)5 + (8.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 59 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.1 1.5 3.04 1. VA .(2.017(Gpm/in)2 .5 17. Gpm/in.5 L. 2003 Figure 12 Liquid Load Design Consideration Function (CUSTOMARY UNITS) Outlet W eir Loading Factor for Objective Function 1.5 7.08 f(Gpm/in) 1.59e-5)(Gpm/in)4 (1.5 5.98 1.06 1.9e-8)(Gpm/in)6 .12 1.0.5 11.5 15.66e-3)(Gpm/in)3 + 0.02 1 0.5 9. of W eir/Pass f(Gpm/in) = (1.

2003 Figure 13 Froth/Spray Transition Design Consideration Function Froth/Spray Transition Factor for Objective Function 1.02 1.01 1.1} / 350 if FS < 70% if FS > 70% f(FS) 1.045 1.015 1.04 1. % of Exxon Max Allowed ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 60 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.025 f (FS) = 1 = 1 + { exp [ (FS-70) / 15 ] .995 0 20 40 60 80 100 Froth/Spray Transition. VA .035 1.005 1 0.03 1.

02 1. % ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. VA .08 f (Choke) = 1 if Choke < 40% = 1 + { exp [ (Choke-40) / 15 ] .04 f (Ent) = 1 + { exp [ (E-Method + M-Method) / 5 .1 1.1 ] } / 1100 f(Ent) 1. % Figure 15 Entrainment Design Consideration Function Entrainment Factor for Objective Function 1.98 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Choke.05 1.02 1 0. 2003 Figure 14 Downcomer Choke Design Consideration Function Downcomer Choke Factor for Objective Function 1.99 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 E-Method + M-Method.12 1.06 1.1} / 550 if Choke > 40% f(Choke) 1.06 1.04 1.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 61 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.01 1 0.03 1.

02 1 0.08 1.06 1.21 =1 = 0.1 1. 2003 Figure 16 Flow Path Length Design Consideration Function Flow Path Length Factor for Objective Function 1. VA . in ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.0071(lfp)+1.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 62 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.000909(lfp)+ 0.9364 if lfp < 30% if 30% <lfp < 70% if lfp > 70% f(lfp) lfp.12 1.04 1.98 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 f(lfp) = -0.

2003 Figure 17 Weeping Less Than 20% @ Turndown Turndown Cond.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 63 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.06 1.01 1 0.02 1.99 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Weep.04 f(Weep) 1. #1 Weeping Factor for Objective Function (Sieve and Fixed Valve) 1.03 1.05 F(Weep) =1 + [exp (Weep/5-1)] /1100 1. % ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. VA .

15 1.65 -0.4 f(Seal) = 1 + 0.35 1.[DCSeal at design cond] ) only applied if DCSeal < DCSealminallow 1.5 f(Weep2) =1 if Weep <20 at T/D =2 if Weep >20 at T/D 1 0.25 1.25 -1. VA f(Seal) .3 1. in. Sealing Factor for Objective Function 1.15 -1. #2 Weeping Factor for Objective Function (Sieve and Fixed Valve) 2.05 1 -1. Figure 19 Weeping Rate Design Consideration Function Turndown Cond.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 64 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.5 * ( DCSealminallow . % ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.85 -0.05 -0.55 Downcomer Seal. 2003 Figure 18 Sealing Factor @ Design Rates Design Consideration Function Design Cond.1 1.2 1.5 2 f(Weep) 1.5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Weep.95 -0.75 -0.

85 -0.04 1.25 -1. 2003 Figure 20 Sealing Factor @ Turndown Rates Design Consideration Function Turndown Cond.1 2 -0.01 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Percent Vapor Carryunder ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.45 -0.3 2.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 65 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. Figure 21 Vapor Carryunder Design Consideration Function Vapor Carryunder Factor for Objective Function 1.05 -0.[DCSeal at design cond] ) only applied if DCSeal < DCSealminallow 2.75 -0.6 2.95 -0.35 Downcomer Seal.8 f(Seal2) = 2 + ( DCSealminallow .02 1. in.15 -1. Sealing Factor for Objective Function 2.55 -0.7 2.2 2.4 2.03 1. VA f(Seal2) .5 2.05 f(Carryunder) 1.25 -1.06 1.65 -0.07 1.

ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 66 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. the stripping section (below the feed) limits the tower capacity. physical properties. The highest loaded tray in the stripping section. conditions.3 Vapor rate = 322. but after designing the stripping section trays based on stage 16. After running a PRO/II simulation for a depentanizer.0096 cP A turndown of 50% is required. VA .2 lb/bbl Liquid viscosity = 0.4 psia Liquid temperature = 366.58 klb/hr Vapor density = 0. it is determined that 16 theoretical stages are required to obtain the desired separation. 2003 SAMPLE PROBLEM A grassroots depentanizer is to be designed.1765 cP Surface tension = 8. a 50% turndown will be specified for design. The following output report is obtained after running EMoTIP in design mode.700. 1) It is assumed that sieve trays have already been determined to be the correct internals selection for this tower. and turndown requirements for theoretical stage 16 are entered into EMoTIP.82 klb/hr Liquid density = 217. In addition.94 dyn/cm Liquid molecular weight = 125.972 lb/ft3 Vapor viscosity = 0. theoretical stage 16. using the default design algorithm limits: ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. For theoretical stage 16. In addition. This means that all trays must be designed so that they can handle both the design loads and 50% of the design loads. this value is entered into EMoTIP for calculating efficiency. The loadings. has the following design flowrates and conditions according to the PRO/II model: Operating pressure = 66.9 Vapor molecular weight = 123.8 F Liquid rate = 560. with 7 stages above the feed (rectifying section) and 9 stages below the feed (stripping section). the equilibrium slope from the McCabe-Thiele diagram has been determined from the composition profile in the PRO/II output report to be 0. it is necessary to check the minimum loaded tray in the section to ensure that it too can handle 50% of design rates without significant loss of efficiency.

7 % 9.0 % 17.14 % 50.5 < < Froth/Spray Transition Ultimate Capacity Universal 110.4 % 88.0 % 38. US gpm/in of weir 0.0 % 100.00 ft Design Case Tray Spacing = 18.3 55.0 01-May-2003 ***** ***** ************************************************************************** Date: 02-May-03 Time: 10:48:16 User Name: Project: Comments: sample user Depentanizer sample Tower Tag No: sample tag Facility: sample facility Depentanizer stripping section design based on theo 16 Process: Service: Powerformer Depentanizer Tower Section: Bottom Sieve Tray Tower Diameter = 2 Pass 11.5 1.5 % < < < < 10.0 % 70.0 % ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.4 % 99.7 % 77.4 % 45. VA .0 % 10.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 67 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. 2003 ************************************************************************** ***** EXXONMOBIL USE ONLY Page No.0 % < 85.01 % 0. Key Comp 1 77.0 % 85.2 % 40.2 % 58. 1 ************************************************************************** ***** ***** EXXONMOBIL TOWER INTERNALS PROGRAM VERSION 1.7 % 78.0 in -------------------------------------------------------------------------TRAY PERFORMANCE SUMMARY (EACH VALUE IS FROM ITS LIMITING PASS) -------------------------------------------------------------------------PRIMARY DESIGN PARAMETERS CRITERIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------Overall Percent Flood Percent Ultimate Capacity Tray Percent Jet Flood Percent Downcomer Flood Probability of Non-Flooding Design Turndown: % Thruput at 20 % Weep Design Overall Effic.0 % -------------------------------------------------------------------------SECONDARY DESIGN PARAMETERS CRITERIA -------------------------------------------------------------------------Liquid Entrainment (M-Method) Liquid Entrainment (E-Method) DC Choking Due To Velocity SQRT(DC Backup * DC Choke) Liquid Rate.

VA .ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 68 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.39 0.3 1.50 < 1. Velocity Under Downcomer. Vapor Fraction Under DC Downcomer Seal in in ft/s 1.50 20. Total Tray Pressure Drop.9 5. ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.04 1.0 % Liquid Weeping at Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------- WARNING: See Page 6 for 5 warning messages. 2003 Dry Tray Pressure Drop.0 % > < -0.25 - 5.30 in 0.04 0.

00 74.125 3.054 ft2 5.6 % 5.809 0.036 11.680 8.000 38.375 0.48 81.692 ft2 95.000 32.033 ft2 10.785 0.00 ft 18.00 0.7 % 66.00 No Yes Inlet Weir Distance in Recessed Inlet Box Picket Fence Weir Swept Back Weir Eff Weir Length ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.5000 1965 2.29 2.0 in Avg.50 No No No % 100.48 2. 2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------FOR CONTRACTOR AND VENDOR USE Page No. Waste Area Flow Path Length DC Top Chord Len DC Btm Chord Len DC Clearance Outlet Weir Ht Tray Thickness Hole Diameter Number of Holes Hole Area Hole/Bubble Area ft2 % ft2 in ft2 in ft2 ft2 ft2 ft2 ft2 in in in in in in in CNTR-SIDE Sloped 10.000 39.000 30.392 14. BA = = = 10.000 38.385 ft2 62.500 2.378 5.875 0.00 2.75 PASS B SIDE-CNTR Sloped 10.0 % Tray Spacing = Tower Area = PASS A FLOW DIRECTION * DC Type DC Top Area DC Top Width DC Btm Area DC Btm Width Wasted DC Area Bubble Area Bubble Waste Area Free Area Volum.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 69 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.074 0.071 21.000 0. Adi Avg.500 0. VA .074 0.00 0.63 97.90 0. Ado Tot.15 131.500 5.625 1.5000 2057 2. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------TRAY GEOMETRY SUMMARY * INDICATES INPUTTED GEOMETRY -------------------------------------------------------------------------* Tray Type No.75 NON-STANDARD TOWER INTERNALS DC Lip Radius Inlet Weir Ht in in 0.806 8.50 2.50 130. of Pass Diameter = = = Sieve 2 11.000 5.464 39.067 0.

40 psia 366.972 lb/ft3 0.43 US gpm 560.48 100. -------------------------------------------------------------------------LOADING AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES -------------------------------------------------------------------------Service: Pressure Temperature Depentanizer = = 66.00 Req'd NOTE: Values for DC areas. NOTE: The specified pass for an inlet weir is the pass upstream of the downcomer it seals.48 100. and waste area for Pass B are 50% of the total for the associated center DC.176 cP 8.903 1.00 Vapor Flow = = 92.8 klb/h 50. VA .ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 70 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.29 100.00 % 217. 2003 Eff Weir Length Eff DC Btm Length Eff DC Btm Length Eff Flow Path Len Anti-Jump Baffle in % in % 97.00 131.80 degF Liquid Flow = = 1807.00 97.941 dyn/cm 125.48 100.00 foul fac = 1 ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.22 ft3/s 322. widths.010 cP Liquid T/D Fact Liquid Density = = Vapor T/D Fact Vapor Density Vapor Viscosity = = = Liquid Viscosity = Surface Tension Liquid Mol Wt Foaming Factor = = = Fouling Factor = 1 (Clean) Defaults for this tower and section: foam fac = 1.200 lb/bbl 0.00 81.00 % 0.6 klb/h 50.

44 MISCELLANEOUS CALCULATIONS -------------------------JET FLOOD PARAMETERS Liquid Load C-Fact Based on BA US gpm/in ft/s 9.52 2.04 % 0.18 49.39 54.96 38.00 0.04 0.84 77.106 1.09 50.00 0.48 38.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 71 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------TRAY HYDRAULICS -------------------------------------------------------------------------PASS A FLOW DIRECTION CNTR-SIDE PASS B SIDE-CNTR PRIMARY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Overall Flood Ult Capacity Tray Jet Flood DC Flood Prob.43 6.35 99.39 SECONDARY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Liquid Ent M-Method % Liquid Ent E-Method % DC Choke % 0.231 9.35 40. VA .66 66.01 0.01 0.52 1.39 0.16 40.242 DOWNCOMER BACK-UP (IN OF HOT LIQUID) ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.27 0.270 0.01 58.38 99. 2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------EXXONMOBIL USE ONLY Page No.119 1.270 0.75 52.04 76.69 76.29 4.14 50.72 78.11 3.91 0.04 0. of Non-Flood T/D to 20% Weep % % % % % % 77.45 45.56 45.00 SQRT(DCBackup*Choke)% Froth/Spray Trans Ult Capacity Univ % % Dry Tray Press Drop in Tot Tray Press Drop psi Velocity Under DC Downcomer Seal Vapor Frac Under DC Liquid Weep ft/s in TURNDOWN PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Downcomer Seal Liquid Weep in % 4.01 -0.

85 0.61 Tot Tray Press Drop in DC Fric Head Loss Head Loss Under DC Tray Inlet Head Hofhius Tray CLH Tray Froth Density Tray Froth Height in in in in in 6. VA .703 0. 2003 FRI Tray Cl Liq Ht in 2.91 0.45 48.257 7.87 0. Percent Thruput at 85% Overall Flood (Const L/V) Liq Vel into DC Top ft/s 108.74 0.86 1.73 1.78 1.848 DC Clear Liq Height in DC Froth Density DC Froth Height DC Backup in % 14.44 8.85 11.49 4.34 0.06 69.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 72 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.83 4.070 0.849 10.201 ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.200 109.01 Note: Downcomer calculations use Hofhius clear liquid height equation.66 1.271 3. Total tray pressure drop uses FRI clear liquid height equation.34 5.92 0.86 0.

00 1.8627E-07 ft2/s (Calculated) (Calculated) PASS A FLOW DIRECTION CNTR-SIDE PASS B SIDE-CNTR MASS TRANSFER PARAMETERS Lambda NOG Liquid Phase Control (from E-Method) Clear Liquid Height Froth Density % in 14.700 Liquid Molecular Weight = 125.00 101.14 102.14 102. Pass Averaged Tray Eff. EMV Lng FPL/Sml DBA Corr.22 0.91 1.41 1. N Uncorrected Murphree Tray Efficiency.54 5.8244E-05 ft2/s = 0. Corrected Tray Effic.88 100.00 102. % % % % 101. VA .31 7.97 % M-Method 75 % FOR: Depentanizer PHYSICAL PROPERTIES USED ONLY IN EFFICIENCY CALCULATIONS Slope of Eqm Line = 0.07 2.28 = 0.82 EFFICIENCY CALCULATIONS Vert Mixing Pools. 5 -------------------------------------------------------------------------TRAY EFFICIENCY CALCULATIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------KEY COMPONENT NUMBER 1 DESIGN OVERALL EFFICIENCY: EFFICIENCY MODEL USED: TYPICAL DESIGN OVERALL EFF: 87.37 % 100. Effective Tray Effic.39 1.41 1. 2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------EXXONMOBIL USE ONLY Page No.22 13.31 0.69 0.00 1.00 1.77 ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. j Point Efficiency Horiz Mixing Pools. Weepage Correction Entrainment Corr.90 102.00 82.52 2.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 73 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.00 83.90 Vapor Molecular Weight Vapor Diffusivity Liquid Diffusivity = 123.00 1.75 0.

VA .61 % Note: The E-Method efficiency model is not suggested for this service.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 74 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.97 Note: 0. ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. Design Overall Effic. % % 0.41 103.50 87. 2003 Overall Lambda Expected Overall Effic.85 design safety factor included in Design Overall Efficiency E-Method DESIGN OVERALL EFFICIENCY: 76.

maximum total tower height. However. WARNING: USER SHOULD FINE-TUNE DESIGNS TO MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF WARNING MESSAGES BY MAKING GEOMETRY ADJUSTMENTS IN RATING MODE FOR NON-RATING OPTIONS. PAGE 4 NOT PRINTED FOR THIS CASE. For this reason. 2-pass tray with 18 inch tray spacing is the best design for the stripping section. This determination is based on a pseudo-cost objective function in the EMoTIP design algorithm. The present design case gives the following design comparison table at the end of the debug file: ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. 2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------EXXONMOBIL USE ONLY Page No. and maintenance considerations can play a very important role in determining the optimum tower design. that allows the user to compare alternate designs. WARNING: ANTI-JUMP BAFFLES ARE REQUIRED ON CENTER DOWNCOMERS WHEN LIQUID LOAD > 4.0 ft diameter. a design debug (*. and tray spacing cannot be accurately captured in a simplified cost objective function.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 75 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.DBG) file is created when a design case is run. Many factors. VA . Technology ownership of this program is the Fractionation Technology Group in the CDFS section located at the Central Engineering Office in Fairfax. the balance between diameter. such as design of other sections of the tower. WARNING: OUTLET WEIR HEIGHT IS GREATER THAN 1/6 OF THE TRAY SPACING. VA. The design algorithm has determined that a 11.20 US gpm/in of weir . area available for the tower footprint. WARNING: PICKET FENCE WEIRS APPLIED DUE TO LOW LIQUID RATE. CONTACT A FRACTIONATION SPECIALIST BEFORE APPLICATION OF PICKET FENCE WEIRS. 6 -------------------------------------------------------------------------COMPLETE LIST OF WARNING MESSAGES -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please see your local Fractionation Specialist regarding assistance with your tray design and advice regarding warning messages and intrepreting the output. number of passes. WARNING: PAGE 4 OF THE OUTPUT REPORT (HYDRAULICS RATIOS) ONLY RELEVANT FOR 3-PASS AND 4-PASS TRAYS. OR TO BALANCE THE PASSES OF 2-PASS OR 4-PASS TRAYS.

in Tray Spacing.0 10. because the algorithm searches the entire design space for the best design (the sample depentanizer design looked at over 2. This option is recommended for advanced users only. 2003 Optimum Diameters. 18 inch tray spacing may be insufficient to allow for easy maintenance. if the tower cannot be greater than 12 ft in diameter). in Tray Spacing.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 76 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. 24 inch tray spacing may be the best choice.0 ***** For new designs.0 13. 3) For design of the depentanizer rectifying section.0 33.6 million tray geometries). or very low dry tray pressure drop at turndown rates.0 10. Limiting the design window can save time by reducing the number of tray geometries considered in the design algorithm.0 18. (9 theoretical stages) / (0. 11. Another option available to the designer is the ability to specify design limits. if the user wishes to make the tower more or less conservative than the default. This is not a large tower. Performance design limits may also be set by the user. and are recommended for typical designs for which no additional information is known.5 1 10. the design results of sieve tray program 1133 in Pegasys 5.0 10. after designing each section.0 ft diameter. VA .0 ft diameter. This is rounded up to 11 actual trays for the depentanizer stripping section. a similar process is performed as above. Geometry design limits may be set if certain geometric constraints are known (for example.5 11.0 30. 4) As mentioned in step 1. the table above shows the minimum tower diameter needed to meet all of the design limits as a function of tray spacing.0 10. 18 inch tray spacing design is chosen.0 10. the designer could decide to use 1-pass trays.97% as given on page 5 of the output report.0 10. it must be determined whether a swedged tower is appropriate.5 9. so economics would likely justify keeping the same diameter for the stripping and rectifying section. Perhaps a 10. in Tray Spacing. 2) Assuming that the 2-pass.0 21. downcomer unseal.0 24.5 2 9. in which case an 11.2 (the older tower internals program) are displayed below for the stripping section. the least loaded tray must be rated at turndown conditions to ensure that the tray will not exhibit excessive weeping. A design case with the default design limits can take several minutes to run.5 10. in Tray Spacing. 24-inch tray spacing tower is the best design for this application. the design efficiency for the stripping section design is 87.8797) = 10. in Tray Spacing. in 36.2 actual trays. in Tray Spacing. 5) For comparison. If the designer wanted to increase tray spacing from 18 inches.0 10. However.5 11. Or. Default limits are built into the program.0 4 10. ft Num Pass Tray Spacing.0 10.0 ft diameter.0 10. ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.5 10.5 10.5 9.0 27.

VA . DEFAULT TO 0.7 MM) DESIGN LIQUID RATE DENSITY ASSUMED TO BE #/FT3 ***** CAUTION ***** DESIGN CASES UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MAY NOT BE OPTIMUM AN ANTI-JUMP BAFFLE MUST BE PROVIDED ON THE INBOARD DOWNCOMER IF THE LIQUID RATE EXCEEDS 4. 2003 WARNINGS AND ERROR MESSAGES --------------------------- HOLE DIAMETER NOT SPECIFIED.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 77 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.2 GPM/IN (10 DM3/S/METER) OF DIAMETER/PASS ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.5 IN (12.

49.555 86.00 18. OF LIQUID PASSES HOLE AREA PER TRAY FRACTIONAL WEEPAGE DC FILLING.572 FINAL TRAY DESIGN ----------------TOWER DIAMETER TRAY SPACING NO.000 6. % ULTIMATE CAPACITY. 85.00 2.310 / 0.502 0.0) (MAX= 90. % SPRAY TRANSITION.0) INCHES (MIN=-0.00 18.750 8.00 0.20) (MAX= 50.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 78 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.0) FT/SEC FT/SEC (MAX= 0. OF HOLES TRAY DECK THICKNESS INCHES OUTBOARD DC INLET RISE DC INLET AREA INCHES FT2 16.25) 4.000 2.500 4. OF LIQUID PASSES HOLE SIZE HOLE AREA PER TRAY NO. 0.710 1./ 47.500 NO YES CHORD LGTH AT TOP OF DC INCHES DC OUTLET RISE DC OUTLET AREA INCHES FT2 CHORD LGTH AT BTM OF DC INCHES DC CLEARANCE RECESSED BOX SHAPED DC LIP DOWNCOMER TYPE OUTLET WEIR HEIGHT INCHES ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax./ 53.000 6.171 16.0) (MAX= 90.500 INCHES FT2 FT INCHES 11.555 86.074 INBOARD 8. 44.765 0.307 / 0. % * JET FLOOD.8325 3544.307 / 0.500 NO YES CHORDL INCHES 1.015 131.500 1.600) (MAX= 1.171 1. VA .5 TOWER DIAMETER TRAY SPACING NO.0) (MAX= 20.750 8.8325 0./ 76./ 0. 7.015 131.287 / 0.516) (MAX= 0. % ENTRAINMENT. 2003 SIEVE TRAY DESIGN PROGRAM NUMBER 1133 VERS./ 46.502 0.0) (MAX=100.032 50.710 8. 0. 0. FT2 (MAX= 0. % ++ DC INLET VEL DC OUTLET VEL DC INLET CHOKING DOWNCOMER SEAL FT INCHES 11.

30 1.6532 8. VA .ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 79 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.68 ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.000 95.802 0.033 87.00 MAXIMUM) 49.923 0.8 3.42 8.908 6.5 77.66 4.000 81.30/ 1.000 73. 2003 INLET WEIR HEIGHT CROSS SECTIONAL AREA FREE AREA WASTE AREA BUBBLE AREA HOLE/BUBBLE AREA BUBBLE/CROSS SECT AREA FLOW PATH LENGTH INCHES FT2 FT2 FT2 FT2 PCT PCT FT 0.98/ 3. % (50.000 73.941 0.66/ 0.9716 0.4000 560.018 0.176 DYNES/CM CP NON-FOAMING HYDROCARBON $ DOWNCOMER FILLING CALCULATIONS (INCHES ARE OF LIQUID AT CONDITIONS) -----------------------------OUTBOARD/INBOARD DRY TRAY PRESSURE DROP CLEAR LIQUID HEIGHT (HED) INCHES (HC) INCHES INCHES PSI INCHES 3.11 1.908 6.90/ 46.12/ 1.8200 / 280.8 3.88/ 5.8028 366.580/ 0.6850 OF VAPOR AT COND (DES/MIN) CP VAPOR VISCOSITY AT COND FT3/SEC OF VAPOR AT COND VAPOR LOAD AT COND TRAY LIQUID TEMPERATURE OPERATING PRESSURE KILOLBS/HR OF LIQUID (DESIGN/MIN) LB/FT3 OF LIQUID AT COND (DES/MIN) LIQUID RATE (DESIGN/MIN) US GAL/MIN SURFACE TENSION AT COND LIQUID VISCOSITY AT COND SYSTEM TYPE 1807.3064 / 903.6850 / 38.4100 38.98/ 8.LIQUID RATES AND PROPERTIES AT CONDITIONS ------------------------------------------------KILOLBS/HR LB/FT3 OF VAPOR (DESIGN/MIN) 322.9716/ 161.18/ 0.802 VAPOR .2247 FT3/SEC DEGF PSIA 14.8000 66.88 0.0096 92.5 77.290 0.40 ## TOTAL TRAY PRESSURE DROP (HT) TOTAL TRAY PRESSURE DROP (HT) INLET HEAD DC HEAD LOSS (HI) (HUD) INCHES INCHES DC FILLING(DENSITY CORR) (HD) DC FILLING.96 0.

/ 0.516 MAXIMUM) (0.415/ 15. TRAY FLEXIBILITY CALCULATIONS (AT MINIMUM RATES) -----------------------------------------------FRACTIONAL WEEPAGE $ DOWNCOMER SEAL. EST. 0.487/ 6.00 MAXIMUM) 0. % ( 90. % TRAY FROTH DENSITY (OUT/INBOARD) (FRACT FROTH VOL OCCUPIED BY LIQ) EST. FT/SEC DC INLET CHOKING TRAY CAPACITY CALCULATIONS -------------------------* JET FLOOD. DOWNCOMER LIQ./ 53. FT/SEC (0.032 0. % SPRAY TRANSITION. LIQUID HOLDUP (DECK+DC).181 0. VA .502 0./ 46.813/ 5.20 MAXIMUM) (-0.613 * DENOTES INPUTTED HARDWARE INFORMATION ++ LOW/MODERATE PRESSURE CORRELATION USED FOR MAX INLET VELOCITY $ WEEP CORRECTED CLEAR LIQUID HEIGHT NOT USED IN CALCS ## INBOARD PASS CHORD LENGTH USED FOR INBOARD PASS CLEAR LIQUID HEIGHT CALC AS OF NOV.VISCOSITY PARAMETER MAXIMUM RECYCLED VAPOR.933 0. % ENTRAINMENT.199/ 0. % ULTIMATE CAPACITY. 1998 ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.243 21.0 MAXIMUM) (100.252/ 0.307/ 0. 2003 DOWNCOMER VELOCITY CALCULATIONS ------------------------------++ INLET VELOCITY.855 9. SURFACE TENSION .25 MINIMUM) 0. 49.600 MAXIMUM) (1.502 0.0 MAXIMUM) ( 90.ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 80 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.238 0./ 76.765 OUTLET VELOCITY.310/ 0.0 MAXIMUM) 85. MAX) ( 20.287/ 0. 44.307/ 0.572 MISCELLANEOUS CALCULATIONS -------------------------DESIGN LIQUID RATE (L) VAPOR LOAD/FREE AREA JET FLOOD (VL/AF) ALLOW GPM/INCH OF WEIR/PASS 10./100. HOLDUP. INCHES ( 0.170/ 0./ 0.861 FT/SEC FT/SEC 0. FT3 FT3 0.

KL NG NL COMPONENT NOG PERCENT LIQUID PHASE CONTROL KEY COMP NO.368 LIQUID MASS TRANSFER COEFFICIENT.2 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND LOADINGS -------------------------------LIQUID RATE LIQUID MOLECULAR WEIGHT LIQUID MOLECULAR DIFF (FRI) VAPOR RATE VAPOR MOLECULAR WEIGHT LB-MOLES/HR LB/MOLE CM2/SEC LB-MOLES/HR LB/MOLE 4454.5 COPY NUMBER 1 ALL CALCULATIONS ON THIS PAGE ARE MADE AT DESIGN RATES AND INCLUDE THE EFFECTS OF WEEPING EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE NOTED EQUILIBRIUM PARAMETERS ---------------------- COMPONENT EQUILIBRIUM SLOPE LAMBDA KEY COMP NO.581 123.411 MASS TRANSFER PARAMETERS -----------------------VAPOR MASS TRANSFER COEFFICIENT. 2003 SIEVE TRAY EFFICIENCY CALCULATIONS .002 1. VA .700 0.382 125.745E-04 2616.1 0.096 1. KG CM/SEC CM/SEC 0.883 ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.OUTBOARD PASS VERS. 7.283 RESIDENCE TIME CALCULATIONS --------------------------FRACTION WEEPING CLEAR LIQUID HEIGHT INCHES 0.763 4.887 0.512 14.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 81 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.903 0.1 1.

ExxonMobil Proprietary Section III-B Page 82 of 83 FRACTIONATING TOWERS SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December.180 3.982 ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax.252 2. 2003 FROTH DENSITY LIQUID RESIDENCE TIME VAPOR RESIDENCE TIME SECONDS SECONDS 0.802 32.880 0.499 MISCELLANEOUS CALCULATIONS -------------------------EFFECTIVE FLOW PATH LENGTH NUMBER OF MIXING POOLS INTERFACIAL AREA CM2/CM3 FT 3. VA .

9 POINT EFFIC.1 72. RATE * OVERALL EFFIC.1 68. TRAY EFFIC.ExxonMobil Proprietary FRACTIONATING TOWERS Section III-B Page 83 of 83 SIEVE TRAYS DESIGN PRACTICES December. DESIGN OVERALL EFFIC.1 70.2 80. 2003 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * KEY COMP NO. * * * * * * * * * * ALL EFFICIENCIES DEBITTED 10% ON POINT EFFICIENCY * * * * * * Normal Program Completion ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax. MIN. VA . NO WEEP OVERALL EFFIC.4 72.

- Deshidratación de Gas natural
- EMCO J0550 Vapour Coupler En
- E2630 Loading Arm En
- CEntral Puerto Bravo
- Distancias IRI 1
- Modelamiento de Radiación Térmica
- Mapa de Lotes
- Expansión de Carga
- Calculo de Eficiencia de Hornos
- 123Optimising Crude Unit Design
- 05556-Oil Refinery Processes
- 098788 Heat Integration in a Crude Distillation
- Petroleum Fractionation Overview
- Calculo de Eficiencia de Hornos
- API vs Non API Pumps
- b722-6
- 43643
- 040344 Increase Capacity
- Capitulo 04
- Webinar Distillation Control August 2010
- 11 Refining
- V7 3 Engineering Software Final
- annex 2D

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful- Tray Efficiency
- Exxon DP - Control Valves
- Distillation Column Tray Hydraulics
- dp03d
- DP08h
- Drums Liq-Liq & Vap-Liq-Liq Separators DP v-B
- Vapor Liquid Separator
- XIV-B
- DP08I
- Isolation Exxon
- Process Engineering Manual 005 I
- dp08j
- Tray Column Design
- Process Engineering Manual 005 II
- [Glitsch] - Ballast Tray - Bullettin 4900
- Technip Process Manual
- DP_toc
- 76530132 Process Design Manual Lurgi
- DP 11-11-4 Offspec Prodcut Drawoff
- DP 23-23-6 Pipeline and Marine Receipt Manifolds
- DP 3-3-1 Terminal Piping Arrangement
- DP 3-3-3-1 Piping Design -- Mechanical Design
- Sieve Tray Calculations
- DP 11-11-3 Oil Water Separators
- dp08g
- Flujo Fluido Exxon
- Multipass-Tray-Design
- Engineering Design Guideline- Tray Hydraulic Rev 01 Web
- [Glitsch] - Ballast Tray - Bullettin 4900
- DP03B

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd