Trays turndown

Using low fractional hole areas A fractional hole area reduction to about 5 percent of the bubbling area typically boosts sieve tray turndown to about 3 to 4 1 at the expense of a lower maximum capacity, i.e., of a larger column diameter. This technique is not recommended because traying the column with valve trays is normally a cheaper alternative. 

Valve tray turndown is normally about 4 to 5 1. The minimum operating rate in valve trays is usually restricted by excessive weeping, but it may also be restricted by the onset of vapor channeling (Sec. 6.2,13). 

The following is extracted by permission from ACS Bulletin B-129 (Apr. 1992). Typical HETP is 3 in. compared to ACS product ST-100 of 7 in. Approximate comparison data are AP as low as 0.1-in. water/theoretical tray turndown ratio about 20 1. Special series S construction recommended for smaller columns, and transverse Series X for larger ones. The suggested preliminary sizing procedure is ... 

A munber of useful techniques are successful for overcoming valve tray turndown problems. 

FIGURE R-10 A dual-weight cap for a valve tray enhances tray turndown ratio. 

A wide range of loadabihty (turndown ratio) is required. Valve trays are particiilarly desirable in this case. 

At low vapor rates, valve trays will weep. Bubble cap trays cannot weep (unless they are damaged). For this reason, it is generally assumed that bubble cap trays have nearly an infinite turndown ratio. This is true in absorption processes (e.g., glycol dehydration), in which it is more important to contact the vapor with liquid than the liquid with vapor. However, this is not true of distillation processes (e.g., stabilization), in which it is more important to contact the liquid with the vapor. 

Random packing has traditionally been used in small diameter ( t in.) towers. This is because it is easier and le.ss expensive to pack t small diameter towers. However, random packed beds are prone to c neling and have poor turndown characteristics when compared i trays. For these reasons, trays were preferred for tower diameters greater than 20 in. In recent years an improved understanding of the impact of... 

Figure 8-71 A. Nutter MVO high performance fixed valve tray with 4 1 turndown ratio. Used in new installations and to replace sieve trays. Used by permission, Nutter Engineering, Harsco Corp., Bui. CN-4.

The A, Aq, T and Tq valves can be supplied either with a flat periphery for tightest shutoff against liquid weepage at turndown rates or with a three-dimpled periphery to minimize contact with the tray deck for fouling or corrosive conditions. 

Turndown can be applied to all types/styles of tray columns however, it is more relevant to sieve and valve trays. The generally accepted explanation of turndown is as follows [199] (also see Figure 8-101) ... 

Turndown on a PAN type tray should be limited to 2 1 (ratio of high to low flow rates), which results in a reasonable design. Bonilla [131] points out that it is cosdy to design for short-term high turndown rates such as start-up, shutdown, or for other short term periods, because it is better to increase reflux ratio to increase internal loads for such periods rather than design the distributor for large turndown. 

Trays are usually designed with F-factor from 0.25 to 2.0 for a turndown of 8 1. Pressure drop per theoretical stage falls between 3 and 8 mm Hg. Note that bubble cap trays are on the high side and sieve trays are on the lower end of the range. Varying tray spacing and system efficiency, the HETP for trays are usually between 24 in. and 48 in. [133]. The C-factor is the familiar Souders and Brown capacity equation. 

Bubblecap trays are used only when a liquid ievei must be maintained at iow turndown ratio they can be designed for lower pressure drop than either sieve or valve trays. 

Packed beds also seem to have a better turndown capability than valve or sieve trays, at low vapor flows. On the other hand, many packed fractionators seem quite intolerant of reduced liquid or reflux flow rates. This is typically a sign of an improperly designed distributor in the packed fractionator. 

In comparison with tray towers, packed towers are suited to small diameters (24 in. or less), whenever low pressure is desirable, whenever low holdup is necessary, and whenever plastic or ceramic construction is required. Applications unfavorable to packings are large diameter towers, especially those with low liquid and high vapor rates, because of problems with liquid distribution, and whenever high turndown is required. In large towers, random packing may cost more than twice as much as sieve or valve trays. 

Sieve trays (Fig. 14-18a) are perforated plates. The velocity of upflowing gas keeps the liquid from descending through the perforations (weeping). At low gas velocities, liquid weeps through the perforations, bypassing part of the tray and reducing tray efficiency. Because of this, sieve trays have relatively poor turndown. 

Fixed valve and sieve trays prevail when fouling or corrosion is expected, or if turndown is unimportant. Valve trays prevail when high turndown is required. The energy saved, even during short turndown periods, usually justifies the small additional cost of the moving valve trays. 

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. 

Typical open-slot areas for moving valve trays are 14 to 15 percent of tfie bubbling area. Here the higher hole areas can be afforded due to the high turndown of the valves. 

High-capacity trays evolved from conventional trays by including one or more capacity enhancement features such as those discussed below. These features enhance not only the capacity but usually also the complexity and cost. These features have varying impact on the efficiency turndown, plugging resistance, pressure drop, and reliability of the trays. 

Dual-Flow Trays These are sieve trays with no downcomers (Fig. 14-27b). Liquid continuously weeps through the holes, hence their low efficiency. At peak loads they are typically 5 to 10 percent less efficient than sieve or valve trays, but as the gas rate is reduced, the efficiency gap rapidly widens, giving poor turndown. The absence of downcomers gives dual-flow trays more area, and therefore greater capacity, less entrainment, and less pressure drop, than conventional trays. Their pressure drop is further reduced by their large fractional hole area (typically 18 to 30 percent of the tower area). However, this low pressure drop also renders dual-flow trays prone to gas and liquid maldistribution. 

Turndown. Moving valve and bubble-cap trays normally give better turndown than packings. Unless very expensive distributors are used, packed tower turndown is usually limited by distributor turndown. 

The turndown of valve trays is much better than sieve trays, but not as good as bubble-cap trays. Bubble-cap trays are the moBt suitable to handle extremely low liquid rate applications (less than 2 gpm per foot of average flow width (10)]. 

Turndown About 2 1. Not generally suitable for operation under variable loads About 4-5 1. Some special designs achieve (or claim) 10 1 or more Excellent, better than valve trays. Good at extremely low liquid rates Low, even lower than sieve trays (10). Unsuitable for variable load operation... 

For most other services, either sieve or valve trays are the best choice, Sieve trays are at an advantage when the service is fouling, or corrosive, or when turndown is unimportant, while valve trays are preferred when turndown is important. With high energy costs, the energy saved during even short turndown periods usually justifies the relatively low cost difference between valve and sieve trays. This has made valve trays most popular. 

Several experiences of severe weeping from valve trays have been reported (1,71,75). A well-designed valve tray is unlikely to have too many valves, but trays with light valves are common in an effort to reduce pressure drop. To avoid the turndown problems, manufacturers often specify a valve tray with two valve weights (Fig. 6.19e). When the light valves open, the heavy ones are still shut, which reduces the ratio of slot to active area and avoids weeping. This practice is discussed in detail elsewhere (1,71). 

---