H I G H C A PA C I T Y T R AYS

Should You Switch

to High Capacity
Trays?
igh capacity trays have been ster feels to an average driver. The per-

A number of new
proprietary designs
H the distillation success of the
1990s. The decade started
with only one major high-ca-
pacity-tray choice available. This has
changed radically, with every medium-
formance (capacity) change is exhilarat-
ing — but crashes now can take place at
150 mph instead of 50 mph. Just as a
sports car isn’t right for every driver’s
needs, high capacity trays won’t solve
promise significant and larger-sized equipment vendor now all distillation difficulties.
offering a proprietary design or even Unfortunately, much of the informa-
benefits for more than one. tion needed to evaluate, design, and
These offerings have revitalized the apply high capacity trays is proprietary.
distillation. But, use of trays — especially in revamping Thus, the potential user must rely heavi-
processes for higher capacity. Relative- ly on the equipment supplier.
they also can limit ly few high-capacity trays, however, are In this article, I will explain the basic
in service compared to structured pack- concepts used in high capacity trays,
operating flexibility ing or more traditional trays. We still and point out their advantages, disad-
are in the learning stage of high-capaci- vantages, and pitfalls. I will restrict my
and pose other ty-tray implementation. As in every coverage to currently commercially
learning stage, failures occur as well as available designs from major tray ven-
problems. successes. dors. My objective is to give the engi-
High capacity trays have been a great neer the tools to sort out what is possi-
advance in moderate to high pressure ble, what may be possible, and what is
distillation (above 100 psig), where they hype. With these tools, the tray con-
have opened up low-cost revamping op- sumer is not so absolutely dependent on
portunities. Until now, such services an equipment supplier’s evaluations.
have been restricted to conventional First, though, it is necessary to un-
trays or random packing. This has limit- derstand how to increase the capacity of
Andrew W. Sloley,
ed throughput to relatively lower rates a “conventional” tray and how lessons
Process Consulting Services Inc.
than in low pressure distillation, where learned with standard trays provide
structured packing could be successfully background for evaluating high capacity
used. Depending upon the conditions, designs.
high capacity trays can increase
throughput by 10–25% over a good The basics of a tray
standard tray design. Processes includ- Figure 1 shows a conventional tray.
ing propane/propylene separation, as Vapor rises through a liquid pool on the
well as refinery-gas and natural-gas-liq- tray deck and then separates from the
uids plants have benefited from this. liquid in the space above the deck. Liq-
available Changing from normal to high capac- uid enters the tray from the downcomer
on-line
www.aiche.org
ity trays feels to a process plant like above and leaves via a downcomer to
shifting from a station wagon to a road- the tray below.

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING PROGRESS • JANUARY 1999 ©Copyright 1999 American Institute of Chemical Engineers. All rights reserved. Copying and downloading permitted with restrictions.
H I G H C A PA C I T Y T R AYS

The tray shown has three func-

tional zones: Area at Top of Downcomer from
Straight Downcomer Tray Above
1. Active area for mixing vapor
Downcomer
and liquid. This is the zone in which Manway
we consider mass transfer to occur.
2. Vapor space above the active
area. This is the zone in which the
liquid is separated from the vapor. Downcomer
3. Downcomer between trays. Clearance
This zone has two functions: first, Inlet
moving liquid from one contacting Sump
tray to another; and, second, disen-
gaging vapor from the liquid. Thus,
the downcomer comprises two sec- Inlet
tions: an inlet area at the top where Weirs
Outlet Active Area
froth enters, and an outlet area at the Weirs Holes, Valves, Caps
bottom where clear liquid leaves.
Each of these zones takes up both
vertical and horizontal space in a Sloped Downcomer to
tower. Obviously, the more space Downcomer Tray Below
available for a zone, the higher its Two-Pass Tray
capacity. Of course, the more space
committed to one zone, the less ■ Figure 1. Major sections of a conventional tray.
available for the other two. Tray de-
sign involves balancing these three
zones to achieve the desired pro- Extending the tray spacing (Fig-
cessing objectives. The most direct ure 2). This augments the capacity
tradeoff is between the active and in a number of ways. As a rule of
downcomer areas. thumb, jet-flood and entrainment
limits rise by the square root of the
Standard trays — increase in tray spacing:
what can be done?
Hitting any one of the possible C2/C1 = (S2/S1)1 (1)
tray-flooding mechanisms will limit
the capacity of any tray, standard or where C1, C2 = capacity of trays 1
high capacity. The major mecha- and 2 at a constant jet flood, and S1,
nisms include jet flood (vapor ve- S2 = tray spacing of trays 1 and 2.
locity in active area), dry-tray pres- Extended tray spacing gives in-
sure drop as a percentage of tray creased height of liquid holdup in the
spacing (vapor velocity through downcomer, raising the available liq-
deck, which is one measure of en- uid head. In gross, liquid head sets
trainment probability), blowing the pressure drop (and capacity) that
(high vapor and low liquid rates), a tray can handle. Greater tray spac-
Regular Increased
downcomer inlet choke (high inlet ing also provides more entrainment Spacing Tray Spacing
velocities), downcomer aeration tolerance by making more space
(froth disengagement), and down- available to separate liquid from high
comer backup (pressure required to vapor velocities through the tray deck ■ Figure 2. Greater tray spacing
push liquid out of the downcomer). openings. provides higher capacity.
I will not go into the details of Of course, spacing trays further
specific flooding correlations. These apart diminishes the number of
abound, and are the subject of intense trays in a given shell. Whether or capacity of the tray. Sometimes
debate in the mass-transfer communi- not this is a good idea depends this is a viable choice, other times
ty (1–10). Instead, I will concentrate upon the tradeoff between in- it’s not.
on what can be done to increase the creased reflux and boilup for con- Enlarging the hole area in the
capacity of standard trays. stant product purity vs. the higher tray. This decreases the velocity of

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING PROGRESS • JANUARY 1999

the vapor as it goes through the tray ■ Figure 3.
deck — and, thus, cuts the dry-tray Downcomer weir
arrangements.
pressure drop, reducing total-tray
pressure drop. Lower tray pressure
drop lessens the downcomer backup
required to force the liquid across
the tray. Lower dry-tray pressure
drop also reduces the amount of en- Standard Swept-Back Arc
trainment. In general, dry-tray pres- Downcomer Downcomer Downcomer
Inlet Weir Inlet Weir
sure drop decreases with the open
area (hole or equivalent hole area on
a valve tray): ■ Figure 4.
Downcomer
C2/C1 = A2/A1 (2) designs.

where C1, C2 = capacity of trays 1

and 2 at a constant dry-tray pressure
drop, and A1, A2 = hole area of trays
1 and 2.
Increasing the hole area does
have a cost. First, it tends to reduce
a tray’s efficiency (since bubbling or
frothing is less vigorous). In some
literature reports, efficiency dropped
to 76% for a 14%-open-area tray Standard Sloped Stepped
from 91% for an 8%-open-area one
(11,12). My own experience is that
the efficiency drop in most industri-
al systems usually is small. In the swept-back weirs, or arc (or segment- shows standard, sloped, and stepped
5–14% open-area range, the effi- ed) downcomers. Multiple-pass trays, downcomer designs. The downcom-
ciency generally only varies by a because of their mechanical construc- er-area reduction possible depends
few percent on well designed trays. tion, only can be installed in a tower upon the system. For nonfoaming
But, in cases where open area starts with a diameter above 3–4 ft (14). ones, the distance from the tower
to approach 25%, efficiency can fall Multiple-pass trays also use up a large shell to the downcomer lip at the bot-
as much as 15–20%. More impor- percentage of the tray area for liquid tom commonly is one-half of the dis-
tantly, higher open area reduces op- handling, and tend to have a lower tance at the top of the downcomer. In
erating flexibility by increasing the vapor-handling capacity than single- aggressive designs, it has been re-
minimum loading required to avoid pass trays in the same tower diameter. duced to as little as one-third; this
weeping or dumping from the tray. Figure 3 compares downcomer lengths only should be considered if you have
Lengthening the downcomer weir. with a standard weir, swept-back weir, extensive experience with the system.
For any given liquid rate, a longer and an arc downcomer for a conven- The benefit of making the down-
weir at the downcomer entrance cuts tional single-pass tray. The swept-back comers smaller at the bottom is that
the height of the liquid crest over the weir arrangement extends the down- more of the tray deck can serve as
downcomer by the two-thirds power, comer length at the expense of active active area. The area of a downcomer
per the Francis weir equation (13): tray area. The arc downcomer is a me- inlet or outlet panel based on a
chanically complex design that is straight edge downcomer is given by:
Hcrest = 0.4 (F/L)3 (3) rarely used in large towers.
Making the downcomers smaller Adc = R2 cos-1 [(R - D)/R]
where Hcrest = height of liquid over at the bottom than at the top. This - (R - D) (2R D - D2)1 (4)
weir, F = flow rate of liquid over preserves the space required for dis-
weir, and L = length of weir. This engaging the vapor from the liquid at where R = radius of tower, and D =
lowers tray pressure drop and raises the top of the downcomer, but re- distance from shell to downcomer lip.
tray capacity. duces the area at the bottom where In general, the vapor handling ca-
Downcomer weir length may be in- the liquid is clear and, thus, doesn’t pacity of the tray rises by the ratio
creased by using multiple-pass trays, need as large a flow area. Figure 4 of the increase in active area.

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING PROGRESS • JANUARY 1999

H I G H C A PA C I T Y T R AYS

Removing the outlet weirs. This

cuts the liquid height on the tray, re-
ducing the pressure drop across the R
tray, and dropping the liquid level in
the inlet downcomer. The tray effi-
ciency falls a little. The liquid must
be held in the downcomer by hy-
draulic head.
Shaping the downcomer outlet lip Straight Lip Shaped Lip
(see Figure 5). A shaped lip reduces Downcomer Downcomer
the pressure drop of liquid leaving
the downcomer and, thus, lowers the
liquid level in the downcomer. ■ Figure 5. Downcomer lips can be
Shaped lips, however, are difficult straight or shaped.
to fabricate and install correctly in
the field. Getting the downcomer
adjusted to the correct height in the droplets from the vapor allows for
field also is tougher with a shaped more active trays at the same level
lip. For this reason, shaped lips are of entrainment to the tray above. ■ Figure 6. Tray with hanging
used less often than some of the Boosting downcomer perfor- downcomer and restriction in the
other techniques. mance. Removing more vapor from downcomer outlet.
Standard tray designs have used the liquid allows smaller downcom-
all of these techniques for years to ers and more active area. Increasing Increasing cross-sectional area
increase vapor- or liquid-handling the length of the downcomer cuts with hanging downcomers
capacity — with the exact combina- weir load and weir crest, and lowers Two main types of high capacity
tion depending upon the system, tray pressure drop. Reducing the trays have found wide acceptance.
equipment configuration in place, outlet area (or even completely These either use the area under the
and which flooding mechanism lim- eliminating the downcomers) ex- entering downcomer as active area or
its the tray. pands the active area available. eliminate downcomers entirely. Fig-
Current industrial practice to ure 6 shows a tray with the area under
Basic high-capacity choices implement these basic strategies the downcomer converted to active
High capacity trays function by includes: area (15). The main capacity advan-
improving performance in one or 1. Increasing cross-sectional area tage of all of these trays is that they
more of the three functional zones. for mass transfer by using hanging enlarge the area on the tray deck
Basic limits for each zone are set by downcomers; available for active mixing of the
the fluid properties, as well as by 2. Using smaller deck devices; vapor and liquid. The expanded area
the absolute and relative rates of 3. Lengthening the downcomer immediately above the tray deck
each phase. Working on the capacity inlet weir; where liquid and vapor disengage
of a particular zone requires a spe- 4. Eliminating the downcomers also boosts the tray capacity. The ca-
cific mechanical design. Often, a entirely; pacity of most trays rises linearly
mechanical choice may work to ex- 5. Adding liquid de-entrainment with the increase in active area.
pand more than one limit of a tray. devices in the vapor space; and The first documented hanging-
Grouped by function, the major 6. Installing downcomer degass- downcomer tray was a modified bub-
choices are: ing aids. ble cap tray patented in 1930 by P. J.
Improving active area perfor- The first three options are most Sweeny of Standard Oil of Indiana
mance. This involves using smaller common, with number four em- (16). The stated purpose of this tray
or modified deck devices to increase ployed occasionally, and numbers was to improve efficiency by more
the amount of liquid and vapor that five and six rarely (and often of du- precisely controlling the liquid flow
can mix in the same space. Objec- bious value). Of course, many of pattern on the tray deck. The inventor
tives are to reduce pressure drop for these options can be used in combi- apparently missed the idea that the
a given load and to raise the loading nation. Each combination has spe- hanging downcomer could improve
at a constant level of entrainment. cific impacts on liquid capacity, capacity. If this had been included in
Enhancing vapor space perfor- vapor capacity, flexibility, and cost. the patent, it would have dramatically
mance. Putting something in the Every situation has a set of specific reduced the ability of future patents to
vapor space to remove liquid options that fits it best. make claims for increased capacity.

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING PROGRESS • JANUARY 1999

The next documented hanging- tray operation, now allow an experi-
downcomer design was patented in enced engineer to evaluate and pro-
1956 by Stone and Webster (17), and pose modifications to MD trays.
included nearly every element re- Lately, several variations of trays
quired for a true high-capacity tray. with increased active area from
What was lacking was the idea that hanging downcomers have been mar-
the tray could be as directly applied keted (26–32). The aggressive mar-
to vapor/liquid mass transfer as it keting of them, however, has led to a
could to liquid/liquid. significant number of tray failures
The UOP Multiple Downcomer (33). To understand the limitations
(MD) tray (Figure 7) was the first generic to high capacity trays with
commercially successful tray with ac- hanging downcomers, we need to go
tive area under the downcomers (18), into the details of how the downcomers
and still makes up a majority of high- work and what this means for tray
capacity-tray installations. It offered a operation.
standout performance change in tray
operation. The MD tray combines How hanging downcomer ■ Figure 7. Stack of MD trays in place.
hanging downcomers with an in- trays work
creased downcomer-inlet-weir length. In a hanging downcomer tray, first,
Additionally, the MD was coupled the area under the downcomer must 4. Momentum, or the speed of the
with small deck devices (holes) in be made into active area, either with moving liquid and vapor.
some cases. The tray’s disadvantage perforated holes or directional valves. A combination of some, or all, of these
comes from its relatively low effi- Second, something must ensure that is used in high capacity trays to pre-
ciency, around 75–80% for many ser- the downcomer still can pass liquid vent the downcomer from flooding.
vices, though up to 85% efficiency from a higher tray to a lower tray. The distance required between the
has been claimed in specific cases If vapor rises up the downcomer, bottom edge of the downcomer and
(19–22). In comparison, standard liquid is prevented from flowing the tray deck varies for each type of
sieve trays have an efficiency of down it. As a result, the downcomer high capacity tray. For any given de-
95–105% in the same services. floods — in turn flooding the tower. sign, however, a range of usable dis-
Tighter tray spacing (allowing for Four factors can be used to keep tances is possible. Figure 8 shows
more trays in a fixed height) and vapor out of the downcomer: trays with too little, correct, and too
higher liquid-handling capacity offset 1. Distance between the tray ac- much clearance between the down-
the lower efficiency. Tray spacings as tive area and the downcomer; comer and the active area. When the
low as 10 in. have been reported in 2. Head, that is, the pressure ex- downcomer is too close to the tray
large industrial applications (23). erted by the height of liquid in the deck (8a), the froth from the rising
Whether or not opting for more trays downcomer; vapor cannot escape sideways. The
on shorter spacings makes sense for a 3. Direction of movement of the downcomer outlet area is choked, and
particular application depends upon liquid and the vapor; and the tray will flood. If the distance is
the external limits (how much reflux
and boilup can be made by auxiliary ■ Figure 8.
a b c
equipment), as well as on the reflux Downcomer
vs. trays tradeoff for the distillation. spacing affects
Adding to the factors making the performance.
MD a success was that it is relatively
simple to manufacture and install.
While its fabrication and installation
involve many critical measurements,
the tray remains a straightforward as-
sembly of many identical or very
similar pieces.
Until recently, it was very difficult
for engineers outside of UOP to eval-
uate MD tray designs. New publica-
tions (24,25), along with the patent Too Close OK Too Far
disclosure and a sound knowledge of

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING PROGRESS • JANUARY 1999 article continues; click here