Flood trays effect

The preceding discussion on reflux assumes that the condenser is not limiting when the reflux is raised. For a severely limited condenser, an evaluation must first be made of the condenser heat transfer before analyzing the effect of a reflux increase with Smith-Brinkley. Likewise, a limiting reboiler or trays close to flood would have to be evaluated prior to Smith-Brinkley calculations. 

Kister and Haas [184] recommend using 25 dynes/cm in Equation 8-286 when the actual surface tension is a 25 dynes/cm. This correlation is reported [94, 184] to give better effects of physical properties, and predicts most sieve and valve tray entrainment flood data to 15 to 20%, respectively. 

Figure 9-17 plots flood capacity versus flow parameter. The FP values of 0.4-0.7 are estimated by Kister, el al. [136] in absence of data. The plots show that for low and moderate pressures the flood capacity factor versus FP correlates the effects of liquid rate and pressure on the optimized tray capacity [136]. At higher pressures an additional effect of pressure on capacity shows a decline of optimized tray capacity. 

Hole Sizes Small holes slightly enhance tray capacity when limited by entrainment flood. Reducing sieve hole diameters from 13 to 5 mm ( to in) at a fixed hole area typically enhances capacity by 3 to 8 percent, more at low liquid loads. Small holes are effective for reducing entrainment and enhancing capacity in the spray regime (Ql < 20 m3/hm of weir). Hole diameter has only a small effect on pressure drop, tray efficiency, and turndown. 

Vapor-Liquid Loads and Reflux Ratio Vapor and liquid loads, as well as the reflux ratio, have a small effect on tray efficiency (Fig. 14-43) as long as no capacity or hydraulic limits (flood, weep, channeling, etc.) are violated. 

As the liquid holdup increases, the effective orifice diameter may become so small that the liquid surface becomes continuous across the cross section of the column. Column instability occurs concomitantly with a rising continuous-phase liquid body in the column. Pressure drop shoots up with only a slight change in gas rate (condition C or C ). The phenomenon is called flooding and is analogous to entrainment flooding in a tray column. 

Figure 6.9 Factors affecting the flood capacity factor. FRI sieve tray test data, DT 4 ft, S = 24 in, hw = 2 in, dH = 0,5 in, straight downcomers, AJAT = 0.13. (a) Effect of liquid rate, Af = 0,08, (i>) Effect of fractional hole area. Cydohexane-Af-heptane, 24 psia.

When Fair s correlation was developed, little was known about the difference between spray and froth entrainment flooding, and the data base used was small and included both types. The author compared predictions from Fair s correlation to a much wider data bank available at present. The correlation predicted most of these data well, perhaps somewhat on the conservative side. However, the correlation has been less successful ii. reliably predicting some of the effects (described above) of physical properties, operating variables, and tray geometry on entrainment flooding. 

It gives a close approximation to the effects of physical properties, operating variables, and tray geometry on the flood point. This is a major improvement compared to the previous correlations above. 

The factors affecting froth entrainment flooding differ from those effecting spray entrainment flooding. The critical variable is the distance between the top of the froth and the tray above (20,39,41), This... 

Effect of column diameter (at constant UV and percent of flood). As column diameter increases, both the liquid and vapor flow rates increase as the square of the diameter. The area for vapor flow also increases as the square of the diameter, so the vapor load remains unaffected. On the other hand, the area available for liquid flow only increases in proportion to the diameter. Therefore, the liquid rate per unit of weir length increases, the increase being proportional to the column diameter. The operating point on Fig. 6.29 will therefore shift horizontally to the right, toward the emulsion regime. Increasing the number of liquid passes on the tray reverses the above action, and shifts the operating point back to the left. 

Figure T.10 Some factors affecting sieve tray efficiency. FRI data, total reflux, DT = 4 It, S = 24 in, hu, = 2 in, dH = 0.5 in. Both parts show a small efficiency rise with pressure. Both parts show little effect of vapor and liquid loads above about 40 percent of flood, (a) Showing efficiency reduction when fractional hole area is increased from 8 to 14 per-cent of the bubbling area (6) emphasizing little effect of vapor and liquid loads, and an efficiency increase with pressure. Af 0.14 (Both parts repeated with permission from T. Yanagi and If. Sakata, lad. Eng. Chan. Proc. Use. Dev. 21, p. 712, copyright 19S2, American Chemical Society.)...

Similar to tray columns, packed columns operated at high gas velocities causes backmixing, and low gas velocities reduce the mass transfer rate. If the gas velocity is too high, the column will flood. In addition, at low liquid flow rates the packing will not wet completely, resulting in a reduction in mass-transfer. Another problem is the tendency for the liquid to channel. To minimize this effect, redistributors have to be installed every 5 to 10 m (16.4 to 30.5 ft) [23] to even out the liquid flow. 

---