Selection of Internals For Distillation Columns

GBH Enterprises, Ltd.

Process Engineering Guide:

GBHE-PEG-MAS-610
Selection of Internals for Distillation

Columns
Information contained in this publication or as otherwise supplied to Users is

believed to be accurate and correct at time of going to press, and is given in
good faith, but it is for the User to satisfy itself of the suitability of the information
for its own particular purpose. GBHE gives no warranty as to the fitness of this
information for any particular purpose and any implied warranty or condition
(statutory or otherwise) is excluded except to the extent that exclusion is
prevented by law. GBHE accepts no liability resulting from reliance on this
information. Freedom under Patent, Copyright and Designs cannot be assumed.
Refinery Process Stream Purification Refinery Process Catalysts Troubleshooting Refinery Process Catalyst Start-Up / Shutdown
Activation Reduction In-situ Ex-situ Sulfiding Specializing in Refinery Process Catalyst Performance Evaluation Heat & Mass
Balance Analysis Catalyst Remaining Life Determination Catalyst Deactivation Assessment Catalyst Performance
Characterization Refining & Gas Processing & Petrochemical Industries Catalysts / Process Technology - Hydrogen Catalysts /
Process Technology Ammonia Catalyst Process Technology - Methanol Catalysts / process Technology Petrochemicals
Specializing in the Development & Commercialization of New Technology in the Refining & Petrochemical Industries
Web Site: www.GBHEnterprises.com
Process Engineering Guide:
Selection of Internals for

Distillation Columns
CONTENTS
SECTION
INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE
SCOPE
FIELD OF APPLICATION
DEFINITIONS
GENERAL SELECTION CRITERIA
PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
Pressure Drop
Deep Vacuum
Hydraulic Capacity
Mass Transfer Efficiency
Turndown
Flow Regimes on Trays
Foaming
Two Liquid Phases
Scale Effects
Liquid Hold-up
Heat Transfer and Packed Columns
6
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
11
DISTILLATION TRAYS
11
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
Sieve Trays
Valve Trays
Dualflow Trays
Bubble Cap Trays
Baffle Trays
11
12
12
13
14
PACKINGS
14
7.1
7.2
7.3
Random Packings
Structured Packings
Grid Packings
14
14
15
EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS' PROPRIETARY

DEVICES
15
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
DisTech
Glitsch
Koch
Kuhni
Norton
Nutter
Sulzer
UOP
15
15
16
16
16
16
17
17
COLUMN REVAMP
17
TABLES
1
FIGURES
1
DECISION TREE
EXAMPLES OF DISTILLATION TRAY TYPES
EXAMPLES OF PACKING TYPES
TWO-STAGE LIQUID DISTRIBUTOR
10
EFFECT OF HEAT TRANSFER ON LIQUID FILM STABILITY
11
DUALFLOW TRAYS
13
BUBBLE CAP DETAIL
13
BAFFLE TRAYS
14
INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE
Distillation columns fall into two main categories with respect to their internals trayed and packed columns. Taken simply the distinction between the two types
of internals is:
(a)
Trays are horizontal and support a layer of liquid through which vapor is
blown via a series of holes in the tray floor, while
(b)
Packings provide more or less continuous surfaces down which the liquid
flows in films or streams; the vapor phase is continuous.
Of the many types of trays and packings on the market, some are nonproprietary and may be obtained from almost any of the manufacturers. Others
are proprietary, especially the more modern types of packings.
The main types of trays and packings are:
(1)
Sieve tray, one of the two most common types.
(2)
Valve tray, the other common type, but marginally more expensive.
(3)
Bubble cap tray, the traditional type of tray, extremely expensive, but it
has its applications.
(4)
Random packing, the traditional type of packing.
(5)
Structured packing, made from folded metal sheets or gauze, the latter
being much the more expensive.
(6)
Grid packing, mainly developed for dirty services and not much used in
distillation as it generally has poor efficiency.
Examples of these are shown in Figures 1 and 2.

For most ordinary distillations both packings and trays will do the duty. The
distillation tray and packing market is highly competitive. Even some proprietary
devices which initially seem very expensive may be competitive when the total
system costs are taken into account. This is because their high performance
enables the duty to be achieved in a smaller vessel. Meaningful cost
comparisons can be done only on the basis of specific quotations and total
system costs.
SCOPE
Clauses 4 to 9 of this Guide contain information to assist the process of selection

by approaching the topic from different angles:
(a)
General selection criteria (Clause 4) - start here to produce a short list of

the options.
(b)
Performance characteristics of the generic types - look at the sub clauses

5.1 to 5.11 and read those paragraphs which are relevant to the process
under consideration.
(c)
Trays (Clause 6), listing and describing the features of both generic types
and the more common proprietary types - the choice will generally be
between sieve and valve trays (6.1and 6.2).
(d)
Packings (Clause 7), listing and describing the features of both generic
types and the more common proprietary types - except with high pressure
(>10 bar), fouling or corrosive systems, structured packings should be
considered, though detailed costs may determine the final choice.
(e)
Equipment manufacturers' proprietary devices (Clause 8), listing the

better-known and more successful types - new devices should not be
chosen without specialist advice.
(f)
Column revamp (Clause 9) - increasing column performance in terms of

either capacity, efficiency requires special considerations. Various
manufacturers have developed devices which are particularly useful for
column revamp; seek specialist advice on their use.
FIGURE 1
EXAMPLES OF DISTILLATION TRAY TYPES
FIGURE 2
EXAMPLES OF PACKING TYPES
FIELD OF APPLICATION
This Guide applies to the process engineering community in GBH Enterprises

worldwide.
DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this Guide no specific definitions apply.
This Clause outlines general criteria on which to base an initial selection of the
type of internals required. Although selection on the basis of cost has to be done
with specific quotations and including vessel costs, a few general points can be
helpful:
(a)
In general, a column of given height and diameter will have a higher

capacity for the same separation with packing than with trays.
(b)
The cheapest installation is likely to be a trayed column at pressures near

atmospheric - more metal is required for packings and associated
internals than for trays.
(c)
At high pressures a packed column may be cheaper, but beware of

structured packing - some failures at high pressures (above about 10 bar)
have been reported.
(d)
Under vacuum conditions, a packed column is likely to be cheaper. Also

packings have a much lower pressure drop than trays, which can be
useful in vacuum services.
(e)
Significant technical risks, especially with proprietary devices, should not

be taken to achieve only a small reduction in costs.
Table 1 lists a variety of selection criteria and conditions under which the various
types of device should be considered. In trying to keep this table simple,
reference to proprietary devices has been avoided. These are dealt with in
Clause 8.
PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
This Clause describes the performance of the various types of internals with
respect to a number of parameters which frequently influence the choice of
internals. Some of these are included in Table 1.
5.1
Pressure Drop
This is the biggest difference between packings and trays. The pressure drop of
a trayed column may be up to 10 times that of a packed column, though some
proprietary designs come fairly close. Pressure drop can be particularly important
in vacuum distillation because a high value increases reboil temperature and
usually reduces relative volatility in the lower part of the column. Typical pressure
drops for one tray or equivalent in packing are given below:
TABLE 1
5.2
Deep Vacuum
In deep vacuum services (<0.1 bar) gauze packings are often required. The
reason for this is that at very low pressure, the vapor density is very low and
hence a large column diameter is required to avoid flooding. Thus the liquid
volume rate per unit cross section of column is very low and it is difficult to
ensure that all the packing is properly wetted. Gauze packings achieve this
through the capillary action between the wires of the gauze. High efficiency is
often achieved at least 5 theoretical stages per meter for an ideal system with a
relative volatility less than about 1.5.
5.3
Hydraulic Capacity
In most cases a packed column will have a higher hydraulic capacity than a
trayed column of the same diameter. This is because a significant proportion
(often 20-30%) of the column cross sectional area is lost to downcomers in a
trayed column.
Bubble cap trays have a lower capacity than most other trays.
Dualflow trays (which have no downcomers) have capacities similar to packings,
though they are prone to unstable operation, low efficiency and poor turndown.
Some proprietary designs have higher capacities - see UOP and Glitsch, Clause
8.
5.4
Mass Transfer Efficiency
The parameters usually used to characterize efficiency in distillation are:

(a)
For trays: overall efficiency, defined as

100 x (No. of theoretical trays) / (No. of actual trays)
(b)
For packings:
Height equivalent to a theoretical plate (HETP)
Note:
The words 'tray' and 'plate' are equivalent. The word 'stage' is sometimes used to
mean 'theoretical tray' and is sometimes preceded by 'theoretical'.
Both overall efficiency and HETP vary with system properties and hydraulic
conditions, and are not easy to predict accurately. For the comparison of trays
with packings a useful parameter is the height of packing equivalent to an actual
plate (HEAP). The efficiency of packings and trays tend to vary similarly with
system properties and hydraulic conditions such that HEAP is approximately
constant. Approximate values relating Pall rings to sieve or valve trays are given
below:
Modern proprietary packings should be able to do 10 - 20% better than this.

A technique for achieving up to 30% improvement in tray efficiency is
incorporated in some proprietary devices, notably the UOP Slotted Sieve Tray
(see Clause 8).
5.5
Turndown
All types of device have potentially good turndown, up to 2:1 or better. In most
cases turndown is limited by loss of efficiency, which has different causes for
different devices. In all cases the basic problem is inadequate liquid/vapor
contact:
(a)
Sieve trays - excessive weeping allows liquid to fall through the column
without traversing the trays.
(b)
Valve trays - at low rates, large patches of valves on the trays are shut
and a significant proportion of liquid traverses each tray with little vapor
contact.
(c)
Packings - at low rates, the liquid distributors can no longer achieve an

even distribution because the liquid head above the orifices is too small
and too sensitive to any out-of-levelness.
Generally speaking, packings have better turndown than trays. For liquids which
wet the packing surface, turndown in excess of 10:1 may be achievable, but this
is unlikely with non-wetting liquids. Valve trays have better turndown than sieve
trays, generally at least 3:1.
Packings are attractive for batch distillations because they have a lower liquid
inventory than trays, but beware the distributor design - liquid hold-up in the
distributor may be so high that the advantage is lost. For a high turndown, a two
or three stage distributor may be required to avoid high liquid inventory.
5.6
Flow Regimes on Trays
In the normal operation of trays, much of the two phase region on a tray is liquid
phase continuous with bubbles of gas; this is known as the froth or mixed froth
regime. In vacuum conditions, say below 0.5 bar, trays often operate in the spray
regime, where much of the two phase region is vapor phase continuous with
droplets of liquid. This can lead to high entrainment and low efficiency. Sieve
trays are more prone to this than valve trays.
At high pressures, say above 10 bar, trays often operate in the emulsion flow
regime, in which the froth on the tray consists of large numbers of small bubbles
(<5 mm dia.) dispersed in the liquid. When this froth enters the downcomer, the
bubble rise velocities and coalescence rates are so low that little phase
separation occurs. Hence a large tray spacing and/or low tray pressure drop are
required to accommodate low density froth without flooding the downcomer.
5.7
Foaming
Foaming can arise from several causes but in effect is similar to the high
pressure phenomenon noted in 5.6, and is highly dependent on flow regimes. It
rarely causes problems on the active areas of trays. The usual problem is
flooding of the downcomer caused by the back-up of a low density froth. Foaming
problems in the downcomer are less likely if the tray active area operates
in the spray regime, since the material entering the downcomer is then not an
established froth, but a shower of droplets.
Packings are rarely affected by foaming at normal design rates since they
generally operate in a totally different flow regime - a continuous gas phase with
streams or films of liquid cascading over the packing. However, they are likely to
flood at rates substantially below that calculated for a non-foaming system and
may be at, or close to, flood at the normal design rate - say within 10%.
5.8
Two Liquid Phases
Some distillations involve the intimate contacting of two liquid phases as well as
the contacting between vapor and liquid. Trays are known to give good
contacting of the three phases and are recommended for this type of duty.
Success has also been had with random packings, but there is less experience
and there is still some doubt whether adequate contacting can be achieved in all
cases. Also, distributor design is likely to be complicated.
Structured packings are to be avoided. These rely on the spreading of liquid over
a more or less continuous sheet. The surface tension differences between the
two liquids will ensure that the one with the higher surface tension will have very
little surface area for contact with either the vapor or the other liquid phase. Poor
performance can be expected.
5.9
Scale Effects
Packings are used in columns ranging from laboratory scale of 25 - 50 mm up to

at least15 m diameter. Mass transfer efficiency is generally better at small
diameters (less than 500 mm or so), probably because of better liquid distributor
performance and beneficial effects of liquid crossmixing. From 1 m upwards,
efficiency should not change but distributor design is critical.
Trayed columns are rarely used below 1 m diameter because of difficulties of
installation and maintenance. For column diameters less than 1 m, trays may be
assembled cartridges for insertion into the column. Typically each cartridge will
consist of up to 12 trays. Not surprisingly, these are expensive and not worth
considering if packings will do the duty.
At diameters above 2 m, capacity may be improved by the use of multi-pass
designs. Two pass designs are preferred as no loss of efficiency is expected.
With more passes it becomes difficult to ensure that liquid and vapor distribution
between the passes are equal so that the L/V ratio is always the same. Failure to
achieve this can result in an unexpected and largely unpredictable loss of
efficiency. Such designs therefore are not generally recommended. Seek
specialist advice if necessary.
In vacuum service, where liquid load is relatively small, single pass trays are
used up to large diameters (at least 7 m) but special care is needed to maintain
efficiency above about 3 m (see 8.8 - UOP).
5.10
Liquid Hold-up
Liquid hold-up in the mass transfer zone of a distillation column can be important
in batch distillation; increased hold-up increases batch times. Packings have a
much lower hold-up than trays but, unfortunately, the requirements for good
liquid distribution result in significant hold-up in the distributors. Unless care is
taken, the hold-up of a packed column may be as large as that of a trayed
column.
Steps to consider to reduce hold-up:
(a)
avoid batch sequences which result in high turndown ratio of liquid rates,
(b)
consider two stage distributor designs (such as in Figure 3) which reduce

the liquid head range for a given turndown ratio, and
(c)
consider trough type distributors which are likely to have lower hold-up
than pan types.
FIGURE 3
TWO-STAGE LIQUID DISTRIBUTOR
5.11
Heat Transfer and Packed Columns
Heat transfer between liquid and vapor is generally much more efficient than
mass transfer and rarely causes problems in trayed columns, but beware of
highly superheated vapors and highly sub-cooled liquids introduced into packed
beds. If, at the point of introduction, the temperature difference between a
superheated vapor feed and the column liquid, or between a sub-cooled liquid
feed and the column vapor, exceeds about 50C, the packing performance is
likely to suffer badly. This needs explaining. Figure 4 illustrates a solid vertical flat
surface with a liquid film flowing down it. The film thickness will naturally vary, as
shown. Heat transfer to the film will be proportional to the surface area. In unit
surface area of thick film the rate of temperature rise will be less than in unit
surface area of thin film. Thus, the surface tension in thin areas will fall relative to
that in thick areas, the film will tear apart and the surface area for heat transfer
between liquid and vapor will be much reduced.
Dealing with the problem of a superheated vapor is the easier of the two. In most
cases a sieve, a valve or dualflow tray below the packed bed will remove the
superheat sufficiently. It will also provide good vapor distribution for the packed
bed.
With a sub-cooled liquid, the best solution is to preheat the liquid before it enters
the column. Sometimes, additional packed height is allowed, but success cannot
be guaranteed with this approach.
FIGURE 4 EFFECT OF HEAT TRANSFER ON LIQUID FILM STABILITY
DISTILLATION TRAYS
In this Clause the various generic types of tray are briefly described,
concentrating on features which differ and are significant considerations in the
selection process. Figures 1 and 4 illustrate the types discussed. Where relevant,
some of the more common proprietary devices are mentioned.
6.1
Sieve Trays (Figure 1)
The sieve tray is one of the simplest designs and is entirely adequate for a large
range of duties. Its distinguishing feature is that the vapor flows through simple
holes in the tray floor. The holes are generally in the range of 6 - 12 mm dia.
Clearly, if the vapor flow rate is too low, liquid will flow down through these holes.
This is called 'weeping' and it reduces liquid/vapor contact and efficiency. Even
so, it is often possible to design for a turndown ratio of 2:1, or better.
Another problem is the converse of weeping. The high vertical velocity of the
vapor as it comes through the holes can entrain liquid droplets into the vapor
space above the froth on the tray.
At high rates, the liquid droplets are entrained up to the tray above, causing a
loss of efficiency. This is a serious problem only in vacuum service. It can be
alleviated by using small holes (4 - 6 mm) and is one of the features of the
proprietary UOP Slotted Sieve tray (see 8.8).
6.2
Valve Trays (Figure 1)
The valve tray aims to overcome the weeping problem of sieve trays. The holes
in the tray floor are large (almost always 39 mm dia) and are covered by a cap or valve, as it is called - which is free to move from resting on the tray floor to
lifting about 12 mm. Its movement is constrained either by a cage in which it sits
or by legs which are an integral part of the valve and hook outwards underneath
the tray floor. At high rates, all valves are fully open. At reduced rates, some of
the valves shut while others remain open - the valves do not float in a midway
position. Furthermore, the valves that are shut tend to cluster in patches and at
very low rates this can allow a proportion of the liquid to flow across the tray with
insufficient vapor contact. This is the main constraint on turndown on a valve
tray. Its turndown is generally better than a sieve tray and
will often achieve 3:1, or maybe 4:1.
Valve trays are generally regarded as proprietary devices, but they have been on
the market for many years. Most manufacturers have their own types, but they
are all more or less the same - with a few exceptions. One of these is the Nutter
valve tray - this uses rectangular valves. Another type is the Stahl Varioflex valve
tray which is designed so that the valves will float at intermediate positions,
hence better turndown is possible (12:1 turndown is claimed).
Valve trays tend to be more expensive than sieve trays, but the difference is
rarely sufficient to be a major factor in selection.
6.3
Dualflow Trays (Figure 5)
These are similar to sieve trays, but they have no downcomers and are,
therefore, cheaper. The hole diameter is often larger than that used on sieve
trays; 25 mm is not uncommon and 12 mm is about the smallest used. Since
they have no downcomers and tend to use larger holes, dualflow trays are often
used in moderate to severe fouling duties.
They give a higher throughput for the same tower diameter than sieve or valve
trays but may achieve only half to two thirds of their efficiency. Also they suffer
from problems at large diameter, above about 2 m, when efficiency can be
desperately low, say about half to two thirds of the efficiency of a 1 m diameter
dualflow tray on the same system.
Turndown is another problem with dualflow trays. This will be significantly less
than that achievable with a sieve tray. A turndown of 1.4 (i.e. to 70% of design
rates) will typically incur a 25% loss of efficiency. Heat transfer is generally much
more efficient than mass transfer and dualflow trays will achieve entirely
satisfactory performance.
In summary, a dualflow tray is worth considering only for fouling duties in a
column less than 2 m diameter, with a low turndown requirement.
For large diameters a proprietary design, the Stone and Webster Ripple tray, is
much more successful. It still has a fairly poor efficiency and is expensive due to
complicated mechanical design.
FIGURE 5
6.4
DUALFLOW TRAYS
Bubble Cap Trays (Figures 1 and 6)
Bubble caps, and various proprietary variants, are the original type of tray design.
The unique feature of the bubble cap design is illustrated in Figure 6. It consists
of a vapor riser in the tray floor which ensures that there will be a liquid level on
the tray through which the vapor has to bubble. Properly designed, they do not
weep and can be useful where this is essential.
They are also used on trays which require high liquid inventory, either for
chemical reaction or where heating or cooling coils are installed on the trays. In
such cases the chimneys may be high, sometimes up to 300 mm. Apart from the
situations just described, bubble cap trays are rarely used since they can be 10
times the price of a sieve tray, have lower hydraulic capacity and lower
efficiency.
FIGURE 6
6.5
BUBBLE CAP DETAIL
Baffle Trays (Figure 7)
These are used only with fouling systems where even dualflow trays suffer
blockage. They generally have good capacity, but poor efficiency. Seek expert
advice before using them.
FIGURE 7
BAFFLE TRAYS
PACKINGS
Packings fall into three general families: random, structured and grid. Figure 2
shows typical examples. While some types can be described as generic in that
they have been around a long time, newer packings have been developed which
offer advantages although they are proprietary and tend to be more expensive.
There is a bewildering variety of packings on the market - inventing a new shape
is a popular pastime. In the descriptions that follow, the main types (generic and
proprietary) which are most commonly used in distillation are mentioned. Other
types may well be appropriate for particular circumstances, but expert advice
should be sought.
7.1
Random Packings
Random packings, often described as rings or saddles although other shapes

exist, are made in metals, plastics and ceramics. Metals are almost exclusively
used for distillation because few plastics have sufficient strength at distillation
temperatures and ceramics tend to suffer from breakage during service. They are
easy to install in a column and can be removed and reinstalled for a full visual
vessel inspection - say with a corrosive system. For a given hydraulic capacity in
a given diameter they are usually less efficient than structured packings except at
high pressure (>10 bar).
Pall rings are the most common non-proprietary packing and generally the most
suitable for distillation duties. The major proprietary ones are CMR (Glitsch),
IMTP (Norton) and Nutter Ring (Nutter).
7.2
Structured Packings
As with random packings, structured packings are made in metals, plastics and
ceramics, but metals are almost always used for distillation. They are more
difficult to install than random packings. They are much more difficult to remove
and inevitably a proportion of the packing will be irretrievably damaged. They
perform well at around atmospheric pressure down into the vacuum region.
Gauze types are particularly useful below about 0.1 bar - although expensive, the
efficiency (as number of stages per m) is around 3 that of sheet types.
However the gauze types are sensitive to solids in the feeds and reflux.
All structured packings are proprietary and the most common ones of the sheet
type are Mellapak (Sulzer), Flexipak (Koch - in the US, under licence from
Sulzer), Gempak (Glitsch), Montz-Pak (Montz - under licence to Nutter in the US
and to ETA in the UK) and Intalox Structured Packing (Norton). All these
manufacturers have gauze versions for the high vacuum region and Montz has
a version made from expanded metal.
7.3
Grid Packings
Grid packings are primarily used for fouling systems, especially where heat
transfer is the main requirement. They were developed for the oil industry and
used in crude column quench sections, etc. Mass transfer efficiency is relatively
poor. There is insufficient GBHE experience of grid packings to make any value
judgments, but the major packing manufacturers include grid packings
in their range.
EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS' PROPRIETARY DEVICES
Worldwide there are many manufacturers of distillation column internals and

many of them offer proprietary devices which claim advantages in particular
circumstances. Some of these devices (e.g. structured packing) have proved so
successful that other manufacturers are bringing similar products to the market
which, nevertheless, avoid any patent problems. Other devices are eminently
forgettable. The ones listed here are not of this latter category, though some are
of limited value.
8.1
DisTech
DisTech concentrate on small hole sieve trays, but will supply valve trays and
packings.
8.2
Glitsch
(a)
Screen Trays - a high capacity tray which uses Johnson Vee-Wirescreen.

Efficiency may be a few % less than a sieve tray. The small width
apertures in the screen may limit use to clean duties.
(b)
Superfrac Trays - a new device designed for high capacity and high
efficiency (at high cost) - seek specialist advice before choosing it.
(c)
CMR (random packing) - used to be known as Cascade Mini Ring. A large

range of sizes, 8 in all, available. Claim higher efficiency for given capacity
than a Pall ring.
(d)
Gempak (structured packing) - the nearest look-alike to Sulzer's Mellapak

(see below), has been challenged by Sulzer and Koch (Sulzer's US
licencee) in the courts.
(e)
Higee (ICI invention licensed to Glitsch) - Mass transfer is achieved in a

rotating torus. May be worth considering for duties with no intermediate
feed (absorption and stripping duties) especially where space is at a
premium.
8.3
Koch
(a)
K-pac - essentially a modified Pall ring made from less metal. It has little
advantage over the Pall ring and is physically weaker. Norton has a similar
product.
(b)
Flexipak - a structured packing made under license from Sulzer. It is

essentially the same as Mellapak, but is made in different block sizes and
has different surface area per unit volume.
(c)
Fleximax - A random packing claimed to be of similar performance to

Norton's IMTP packing.
8.4
Kuhni
Kuhni specialize in equipment for distillation and liquid-liquid extraction. For

distillation they market a tray and a structured packing.
(a)
Slit-valve tray - this is not a valve tray in that the valves are fixed, similar to
the Nutter V>grid tray. The fixed 'valves' are much smaller than Nutter's
and each has two slits roughly 25 mm long by 2 mm high. Tray
configuration is unusual and there are two types. One type has a disc and
doughnut arrangement with alternating central and peripheral
downcomers. The other type has central downcomers only with pipes to
lead liquid from the central downcomer to the periphery of the tray below.
Both have radial liquid flow. The design is well suited to small to medium
size columns - say up to 2 to 3 m diameter. For larger columns,
conventional chordal downcomers and pass layouts are used
(b)
Rombopak - a structured packing with a rather different design from

Sulzer Mellapak. It has a more open structure which has problems with
high liquid loads
8.5
Norton
(a)
Hy-Pak - essentially a modified Pall ring made from less metal. It has little
advantage over the Pall ring and is physically weaker. Koch has a similar
product. Hy-Pak was replaced with IMTP, giving better performance.
(b)
IMTP - a metal saddle-type random packing developed for distillation.

Considerable commercial success since its introduction in 1977.
Applications vary from high vacuum to high pressure. The "standard"
against which other proprietary packings are judged.
(c)
Intalox Structured Packing (ISP) - a recently introduced structured packing

rather different from Sulzer's Mellapak. Tests at low to moderate
pressures, by University of Texas at Austin and FRI, gave good results.
FRI tests above 15 bar were disappointing getting steadily worse as
pressure was increased.
8.6
Nutter
(a)
Float Valve Tray - a unique rectangular valve design in two basic sizes
with various lift heights. Claimed to have less weeping at tray inlet than a
circular valve.
(b)
V-Grid Tray - similar to the float valve, but the 'valve' is fixed - it is simply
pressed out of the tray floor.
(c)
Nutter Ring - a random packing similar to IMTP. Two sizes, No 2 and No

2.5, have been tested by FRI and have performed well in comparison to
Pall ring packing with up to 10% better efficiency and capacity.
(d)
Montz Packing - licensed from Julius Montz in Germany specifically for the
US Market. It is a structured packing rather different from Sulzer Mellapak.
FRI tests have shown disappointing performance with the type B1, but
good performance with the newer type BSH at around atmospheric
pressure.
8.7
Sulzer
Sulzer was the first company to market structured packings. They started with
gauze types (BX and CY) which were developed for high vacuum distillation. A
sheet metal family (Mellapak) was then developed and has become so
successful that other companies have developed their own variants. Structured
packings are also available in plastics and ceramics, as are laboratory scale
versions (DX and EX). In recent years, Sulzer have entered the tray market
having acquired Metawa-Tray BV. More recently, they have decided to enter the
random packing market.
(a)
BX and CY Gauze structured packings - developed for high vacuum. The

gauze structure greatly assists liquid distribution with the very low liquid
rates in such duties. Feeds need to be clean and are usually filtered to
better than 100 micron.
(b)
Mellapak - a highly successful series of sheet packings. Used in vacuum,

atmospheric pressure and up to 10 - 15 bar. At higher pressures, there
have been serious failures - unexpected poor efficiency, though Sulzer
now believe they know how to solve the problem.
8.8
UOP
Although an old name, UOP has changed. It is now a joint venture between the
Union Carbide and Allied Signal Corporations, which handles the Union Carbide
distillation technology. Union Carbide concentrated their interests in two types of
tray, both being variants of the sieve type. With both types, small holes are
generally used - typically 6 mm.
(a)
Multi Downcomer tray - designed for high liquid rate duties, it can give up
to 30% extra capacity from the same column diameter. Tray spacing is
sometimes smaller than used with conventional sieve trays. Efficiency is
often lower than conventional one or two pass trays, by 5 - 10%.
(b)
Slotted Sieve tray - designed for low liquid rate duties (e.g. vacuum duties)
in large diameter columns (greater than 2 m). Aims to give high tray
efficiency. Efficiencies up to 100% can be achieved, possibly more.
COLUMN REVAMP
During the life of a plant it is common for significant process changes to occur
which change the demands on distillation columns. We are then faced with
considering changes to the column internals to meet the new requirements,
which will usually consist of one or more of:
(a)
Increased product purity.
(b)
Increased product rate(s).
(c)
Changed feed rate(s) and/or composition(s).
(d)
Increased recoveries.
With trayed columns, standard tray designs may be replaced with special
designs or with packings. With packed columns, there is generally less scope.
Random packings can generally be replaced with structured packings. In the
replacement of trays with packings, a perennial question is what about the
support rings and downcomer bolting bars? It has in the past been common
practice to leave these in place when installing random packings. FRI tests
indicate that this is probably a bad practice and is likely to result in a loss of
capacity and efficiency. It is recommended that the rings and bolting bars be
removed if at all possible. If time precludes this, it must be stressed that there
is some chance that the resulting performance may be disappointing, but if this is
seen as an acceptable risk, the job should proceed. The extent of the risk is
difficult to judge but may be a 25 - 40% increase in HETP.
Under no circumstances should structured packings be installed with tray support
rings and downcomer bolting bars still in place - it is difficult to do anyway.
Structured packing manufacturers often ask for the rings and bars to be cut back
to within 5 - 10 mm of the column wall.
At the beginning of a revamp exercise, it is strongly recommended that a careful
plant trial be done to establish the performance of the existing internals. This
should first of all be used to establish that there is nothing obviously wrong with
the internals. It is then useful to check how the performance compares with
prediction, because it is a truism that revamp involves the attempt to get the most
that is available. Design correlations are never accurate and their accuracy is
different for different systems. Test data at maximum operation can enable
normal design margins to be reduced.
Revamp studies should be undertaken with care and where it is clear that the
objectives cannot be met, except with reduced design margins, specialist help
should be sought.

Selection of Internals For Distillation Columns

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Selection of Internals For Distillation Columns

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Selection of Internals For Distillation Columns

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GBH Enterprises, Ltd.

Process Engineering Guide:

Selection of Internals for Distillation

Information contained in this publication or as otherwise supplied to Users is

Process Engineering Guide:

Selection of Internals for

GENERAL SELECTION CRITERIA

EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS' PROPRIETARY

GENERAL SELECTION CRITERIA

EXAMPLES OF DISTILLATION TRAY TYPES

EXAMPLES OF PACKING TYPES

TWO-STAGE LIQUID DISTRIBUTOR

EFFECT OF HEAT TRANSFER ON LIQUID FILM STABILITY

BUBBLE CAP DETAIL

Sieve tray, one of the two most common types.

Random packing, the traditional type of packing.

Examples of these are shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Clauses 4 to 9 of this Guide contain information to assist the process of selection

General selection criteria (Clause 4) - start here to produce a short list of

Performance characteristics of the generic types - look at the sub clauses

Equipment manufacturers' proprietary devices (Clause 8), listing the

Column revamp (Clause 9) - increasing column performance in terms of

EXAMPLES OF DISTILLATION TRAY TYPES

EXAMPLES OF PACKING TYPES

This Guide applies to the process engineering community in GBH Enterprises

For the purposes of this Guide no specific definitions apply.

GENERAL SELECTION CRITERIA

In general, a column of given height and diameter will have a higher

The cheapest installation is likely to be a trayed column at pressures near

At high pressures a packed column may be cheaper, but beware of

Under vacuum conditions, a packed column is likely to be cheaper. Also

Significant technical risks, especially with proprietary devices, should not

GENERAL SELECTION CRITERIA

Mass Transfer Efficiency

The parameters usually used to characterize efficiency in distillation are:

For trays: overall efficiency, defined as

Modern proprietary packings should be able to do 10 - 20% better than this.

Packings - at low rates, the liquid distributors can no longer achieve an

Flow Regimes on Trays

Two Liquid Phases

Packings are used in columns ranging from laboratory scale of 25 - 50 mm up to

consider two stage distributor designs (such as in Figure 3) which reduce

TWO-STAGE LIQUID DISTRIBUTOR

Heat Transfer and Packed Columns

FIGURE 4 EFFECT OF HEAT TRANSFER ON LIQUID FILM STABILITY

Sieve Trays (Figure 1)

Valve Trays (Figure 1)

Dualflow Trays (Figure 5)

Bubble Cap Trays (Figures 1 and 6)

BUBBLE CAP DETAIL

Baffle Trays (Figure 7)

Random packings, often described as rings or saddles although other shapes

EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS' PROPRIETARY DEVICES

Worldwide there are many manufacturers of distillation column internals and

Screen Trays - a high capacity tray which uses Johnson Vee-Wirescreen.

CMR (random packing) - used to be known as Cascade Mini Ring. A large

Gempak (structured packing) - the nearest look-alike to Sulzer's Mellapak

Higee (ICI invention licensed to Glitsch) - Mass transfer is achieved in a

Flexipak - a structured packing made under license from Sulzer. It is