PROPRIETARY INFORMATION For autorued Compony Us On EXON EXXON ENGINEERING FRACTIONATING TOWERS ‘SUBSECTION B SIEVE TRAYS ‘CONTENTS SCoPE [REFERENCES BACKGROUND DEFINITIONS APPLICATION BASIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Tray Spacing ‘Tower Diameter Ultimate Capacity Number of Liquid Passes Downcomer Sizing Downcamier Clearance Downcomer Sealing Tay Layout and Hole Area Hole Size and Layout ‘Tray Hydra ‘Tray Efficiency Heat Transfer Startup Considerations DETAILED DESIGN PROCEDURE ‘Vapor and Liquid Loadings (Step 1) ‘Trial Tray Spacing, Size and Layout (Step 2) Final Tray Spacing, Siz and Layout (Step 3) (Checking Process Limitations (Step 4) ‘Tray Hydraulics and Downcomer Filing (Step 5) ‘Tray Efficiency (Step 6) NOMENCLATURE COMPUTER PROGRAMS APPENDIX Table 1 ~ Sieve Tray Design Principles ‘Table 2 = Design Criteria for Specifi Towers Figure |= Ky, Factors for Jet Flood Equations igure 2 * Standard Surface Tension Figure 3. - Kg, Factor for Jet Flo6d Conelation Figure 4 ~ Eflct of Vapor Momentum on Tray Efficiency [EXTON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANT ERQE (Hern) DESIGN PRACTICES Sect 5.y [Poe Dato Marsh, 1981 B 15 "7 18 18 19 FLORMAM PARK, KA.Seon 38 [Pew ii_| pnornierany ironmarion | ERGE ee a POST MTN DESIGN PRACTICES CONTENTS (Continued) Page inure § - Approximate Overall ficiency Debits for Conditions Relow the Weep Point 20 Figur 6a Ky Factor for Weep Point Equrton a Figur 6b = Ky Pactor fr Weep Point uation Fr Figure 7" Alowable Downcomer Int Veloaty n Figure" Allowable Downcomer Filing Io Sie Tay (Al Systems Not Covered in Title) 2 Figure - ittve iy Tay Presse Drop Pactrs 3 Figure 10 Pressure Balan fora Two Pale Tray 8 Faure 11 Relationship Among Hole Diameter, Hol Spacing and Percent Open Aes for ulate Trango ite See Trays, 25 Figure 12 Relationship Between Hot Spacing and Hole Density for Equlsterl Teangar itch Slee Tays 25 Figure 13- Tray Nomenclature s Figure 14 Pres Area Dstiniions 28 Sieve Tay Catton Fon 2 EXWON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY ~ FLORMAM PARK, 11.Fae aD Catnany ton ERGE GERD EXON FRACTIONATING TOWERS DESIGN PRACTICES SUBSECTION B scion Pe EXXON SIEVE TRAYS ENGINEERING Date september, 1978 SCOPE ‘This subsection covers the techniques for specifying the process design features of sieve trays. Detailed mechanical design and hole arrangement are normally handled by the tray fabricator. {A calculation form, showing the step-by-step calculation procedure, s given In the Appendix. For the ‘design of tray-telated tower internals, sich as nozzles, drawoft boxes and reboiler connections, efer to Subsection H, Tower Internals, For the design of heat transfer trays, sce Subsection F. REFERENCES Some of the following literature has been used in the preparation of this subsection. The rest i listed for convenient reference. Dasic Practices BPS.2-1, Intemas for Towers and Drums Other Literature 1. Report, “Sieve Tray Capacity Correlations Have Been Improved,” BE.76E.72, June, 1972. 2. Computer Information Memorandum “Sieve Tray Design - Deck 1133,” Memo No. 50936, February 23, 1976. 3. Computer Information Memorandum “Multipass Sieve Tray Design - Deck 1143,” BE.21E.T77. BACKGROUND ‘The equations siven in this subsection for predicting sieve tray capacity and efficiency have ‘been derived largsly from Fractionation Research, Inc. (FRI) data, supplemented by data from air- ‘water and commercial tests. These equations represent the data more accurately than does the correla- tion prepared by FRI. The hydraulic equations given in this subsection are based on both the FRI design procedures and those of Subsections C and D for bubble cap trays and jet trays, respectively. ‘The numbered equations referred to herein are those on the calculation form, DEFINITIONS For a discussion of such concepts as weeping, dumping, blowing, jet flooding, exibility, ete, see Subsection A, Tray Selection. APPLICATION Sieve trays can be used in almost all services, including heat transfer, and can be designed t0 ‘operate satisfactorily over a wide variety of operating conditions. The maximum capacity of a sieve ‘ray is at least equal to that of a well-designed bubble cap tray and can be even higher, because en- ‘rainment does not become significant until the vapor rate approaches 90% of the flood point. Also, plant tests have shown thatthe efficiency of sieve trays appears to be at Feast as high es that of other types of trays used commercially. Flexibility ranges up to a maximum of about 3 t0 1 Slove trays are not recommended for services requiring unusually high Mexiblity (greater than 3 to 1). For such services, positive sealing devices, such as bubble cap trays or float valve trays, are a better choice in spite oftheir somewhat higher cost Sieve trays may be used in fouling services, provided that large holes (19 to 25 mm) are used. EXOCOW RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.([oxo_o6 [2] momen wromaron ERBE [Pate Soptonbe, 1978 y Authored Compony Use Only. fuerac) DESIGN PRACTICES BASIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ‘The design procedure outlined in this subsection requires the selection ofa tial diameter and tray layout, which are then checked against several performance limitations. These tray limitations include blowing, entrainment or “et flooding,” excessive downcomer filling, ultimate capacity, and weeping. These limitations, which are common to all types of trays, are discussed in detail in Subsection A. ‘Tray Spacing ‘The optimum combination of tray spacing and tower diameter isthe one which minimizes total investment, subject to the limitations ouilined under “Detaled Design Procedure" as a function of tower diameter, service, and maintenance considerations. See also the discussion of dowacomer filing, under “Tray Hydraulies" and Table I in the Appendix. Tower Diameter In addition to the eriteria discussed below under *Downcomer Sizing,” “Downcomer Clearanos* and ‘Downcomer Sealing,” the tower diameter must provide enough cross-sectional area to avoid ental ‘ment per the equations given below. (Equation numbers are those of equations in the calculation form in the Appendix.) For hydrocerbon systems: at v: Gaz) 0.088 Kin Kon a, (20) me For aqueous stems ie oe fa. 00 7% wire: "YL mt "Yap alc hed ent ha esr fas ras mle Ga Fit bs weRelion Ku Tay sacing- qui rate capacity fico, dimensions (Figure 1a fore. 36 gu Tb fea 30), Koy = Surfce tension - vost capaci factor, dimensiones (Figures 2 and 3). by = Vapor density at conditions, ka/m? a Liquid density at conditions, ke/m® Equation (3c) should be used for all hydrocarbon systems and for other systems when the sur- face tension < 40 mN/m. Equation (3d) should be used for aqueous systems and wherever surface tension |s> 40 mN/m. These two equations replace the old Kyy correlation and Koy, correlation previously in use. Ifa predominantly aqueous system has a surface tension = 40 (ez, alebhol/water) Equation (3c) should be used. The following list outlines which equation to use for various systems. In case of doubt, the Fractionation/Thermodynamics Section of Exxon Enginesting,- Technology Dept. (EETD) should be consulted, [EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY — FLORHAM PARK, NiER&E pESiGN PRACTICES | :ROrTUTANY,wromysrion [Sern a0 [Pom 3 Fer Autre! Comeary Uw Oo Toate September, 1978 Equation (32) Equation (34) ‘Atmospheric and vacuum pipestils Amine absorbers and regenerators Steam cracker, coker, and cat feac- Caustic scrubbers tionators Sour water strippers {Al hydrocarbon light ends towers Ammonia Fractionators Hydrocarbon absorbers Sulfuric acid contactors and reseneratars Prefractionators Absorption of HCI, Hy SO,, ete. in water ‘Aromatics Separations Particulate serubbers Catacarb absorbers and regenerators ‘Aqueous systems containing ‘Water wash sections alcohols, ketones, aldehydes, ot if surface tension < 40 mN/m In addition, the above equations must be used in conjunction with the appropriate percentage of the jet flood velocity’permitted by Table 2. Ultimate Capacity Equation (2c) on the calculation form gives the limiting vapor load for ultimate capacity. If this load is exceeded, the iqud is broken up into such small droplets that increasing the tray spacing will not reduce the amount of liguid entrained to the tray above. The ratio of design vapor load V, to the vapor load for ultimate capacity Vi qq) must be kept below 90%, If necessary, the tower diameter must bb increased, even though Equation (Se or 3d) on entrainment has already been satisfied. However, the Sauter calculation from Equation (Se of 3d) usually plovides sufficient fie atea to satisfy the ultimate capacity limitation. [Number of Liquid Passes ‘The vepor capacity of towers with high liquid rates can usually be increased by the use of mul tiplepass tmys. Such tmy’s have a lower cleus liquid height, compared to single-pass trays; hence, a larger prt of the distance to the tray above is avalable for vapor disengaging. Since multiple-pass trays are ‘more expensive than single-pass trays, multiple-pass trays can be justified only if their use reduces the ‘overall tower cost. Generally, this means that e capacity advantage of at least to 10% for multipass trays is required. However, each case must be studied on its own merits, since overall tower cost depends on ‘many factors, including height, diameter, pressure level and materials of construction ‘The liquid gradient on a sieve tray is usually negligible, because of two factors. Fist, the tray deck is fee of obstructions and therefore offers minimal resistance to liguid flow. Secand, the’ liquid leaving the downcomer and entering the tray has a velocity head which, in most cases, exceeds the hydrau- Tie gradient which would otherwise be required to move the liquid across the tray. On trays with recessed inlet boxes or inlet weirs, most of thie velocity head is dissipated. However, recesed inlet boxes or inlet ‘yeirs are normally used only to assure downcomer sealing at low liquid flow rates, in which case the aradient is usually not significant. Downcomer Sizing ‘The required downcomer inlet area is set by froth disengaging limitations, I insufficient area is provided, froth may back up onto the tray and cause premature flooding. Also, as the operating tempera ture of a system approaches the critical temperature, the densities of the vapor and liquid phases approach ‘each other, making vapor disengaging (and prediction of the area required for disengaging) inereasingly ilficult, This is most likely to happen in high-pressure distillation systems. bikel 4RdBINER ew RISER ERM & nba ics‘Seaion 3B [Paw 4 ‘PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Date September, 1978 Far Authored Camgony Un Oely ER&E SESE DESIGN PRACTICES For a given system, Figure 7 provides the maximum allowable dowacomer entrance velocity, based on the terminal velocity of rise of the entrained vapor bubbles as they disengage in the downcomer. ‘This caleulated velocity i a function of the physical properties ofthe system and therefore varies from system to system, FRI tests indicate that Figure 7 predicts the maximum allowable downcomer entrance ‘locity reasonably wll, even for high-pressure systems. It can therefore be used for all systems. For design criteria, see Step 2, “Detailed Design Procedure” ofthis subsection Downcomer sloping criteria are discussed undar “Detailed Design Procedure » Step 2 - Down- ‘comer Area.” ‘See Subsection K for geometrical relationships of chords and cireles. Downcomer Clearance ‘The downcomer clearance isthe vertical distance between the bottom edge of the downeomer and the tray deck, This clearance should be no smaller than 25 mm and is based on @ normal head loss (pressure drop) of 13 to 38 mm of hot liquid, according to the submerged weir formula, Equation (Sd), ‘on the calculation form. In Ghote cases where igh liquid rates would require use of either a large dovn- ‘comer clearance (over 75 mm) or s deep recessed inlet box (See sketch in Subsection D), «shaped down- ‘comer lip (See sketch in Subsection H) may be used insted. For these shaped lip downcomers, the coefficient in Eq. (Sd) is reduced from 160 to $3. How= ever, a shaped downcomer lip must not be used when either a recessed inlet box or an inlet weir has been ‘Specified. This is because the obstruction presented by the vertical face of the recessed inlet box, or by the inlet weir, would eause turbulence and defeat the purpose of the shaped downcomer lip Downcomer Sealing ‘To prevent some of the vapor from bypassing a tray by traveling up to the downcomer, the downcomer must be sealed at design rates by the liquid on the tray below. Therefore, itis necessary to Check the sum of tho lege liguld height by athe flat to the tray and the head loge Buy tinder the down ‘omer at the maximum liguid flow rate. This sim mus? atleast equal the downcomer clearance, and ‘Should preferably exceed it by 6 mm of hot liquid If sealing is not obtained, consider adding an inlet welr ‘ee Figure 14 in this section for sketch) or using a recessed inlet box, in that order of preference Reducing the downcomer clearance (down to a minimum of 25 mm) will also help, provided that downcomer fling does not become excessive at design rates. The downcomer should also be sealed st minimum rats, if at all possible. However, an unsealed downcomer at minimum rates will rarely be detrimental and ean usually be accepted. Recesie inlet boxes should be avoided at liquid rates greater than 28 dis per meter of diameter por pass. At auch high liquid rates, the reversal in drestion of flow under the downcomer lip ‘causes & high tiquid buildup just downstream of the downcomer. This high inlet head, in turn, promotes ‘amping through the fat rows of holes. Under these conditions, a better solution is to use the shaped downcemer lip discussed below. ‘Tho use of a shaped downcomer lip should be considered if a very wide range of liquid rates must be handled. Tae shaped dowacomer gives a lower head loss for a given clearance than does the stand~ td, sharpedged downcomer. As mentioned earlier, however, it should not be used if a recessed box or an inlet weir has been specified ‘Tray Layout and Hole Area ‘Two important features of the tray layout are the bubble area As (Figure 13) and the free area ‘Ac (Figure 14), These, in turn, depend on the liquid handling areas (downcomers) and waste area Ay » ‘fined as any unperforeted area farther than 75 mm away from the nearest perforation. Normally, there {sno waste area on @ seve tray, unless a very low hole ara is required (part of the tray left unperforated). EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY — FLORHAM PARK, NtERE PaoenieraRy inronmaTion [Seton a.m [Pam 5 GBRG DESIGN PRACTICES | FERRETS cabo oS ae ‘Due _ Septembs ‘The hole area on the tray should be large enough to ensure that blowing docs not occur (Equation 4a) and small enough to ensure that weeping is avoided (Equation 4b), if posible, ‘The weeping correlation given by Equation (4b) of the calculation sheet predicts the vapor hole ‘momentum at whieh leakage starts. As shown in Figure 4, where overall efficiency it plotted against vapor hhole momentum for atypical FRI systom, design tray efficiency is maintained until the weep point is reached. This desi efficiency is what would be predicted by our current sieve tray efficiency correlation, (Gubsection 1. Thus, to ensure design efficiency between minimum and maximum operating loads, the ‘vapor hole momentum should be equal to or greater than that calculated from Equation (4b). ‘Turndown is the ratio of maximum to minimum intemal vapor loadings between which the tray efficiency is maintained at the design value. For a specific set of design maximum and minimum tower loadings, a maintmum tray spacing design with « low ratio of hole area to bubble area will provide max- ‘num turndovn. This s due to the lower weep point obtained at reduced tray spacings and low hole erea to bubble area ratios. (The effect of the hole area to bubble area ratio je shown in Figure 4), However, ‘ray spacing is usually set by downcomer and jet flood considerations, and cannot usually be reduced further to minimize weeping. Other tray design changes have a small effect on reducing the predicted weep point ‘Thus, about the only practical way to mest the weep criteria isto increase the “uctual”yapor 4rote momentum, rather than to attempt to lower the predicted value, This i achieved by reducing the hole area on the tray until (a) the actual vapor momentum through the holes at minimum tower rates Is equal to that calelated from Equation (4b), or (b) another design restriction that involves hole area is, reached. These are: a minimum of 5% hole area to bubble area ratio, a maximum 75-mm ory tray pressure ‘drop, of 90% of tray blowing. Ifthe desired turndown cannat be obtained and a lower ratio cannot be accepted, the guidelines outlined below should be applied. Figures (5a) and (Sb) provide a method for estimating how far below the weep point a tray can bbe operated while maintaining 85 and 90% of the design efficiency. The figures were developed from a limited analysis of FRI data on distillation systems operating at total reflux. The efficiency debit must be ‘accounted for during the design stage as discussed subsequently. As shown on thes figures, the vapor Toad allowed as a percent of the weep vapor [oad isa function of vapor to liquid volumetric ratio (Vz/L.) and hole area to bubble area ratio (Ao/A). Fora given efficiency debit, a lower percent of the weep ‘vapor load is allowed with a low Vi/Ty, system and a high Ag/Ay design For a given percent of the weep vapor rate, volumetric leakage rate is constant. Thus, fora low Vly, system, ie, high volumetric Liquid rate, ractional weepage isles than with a high Vi, /L, system. ‘Therefore, a ow Vi /Ly system can be operated at a lower percent of the predicted weep point, because the effect of weepage or efficiency is determined by fractional weepage. This is depleted in Figures (Sa) and (Sb). Figures (Sa) and (Sb) can be used in revamp evahustions to meet turndowa requirements, An existing tower may have more trays than required for the new service and separation. On the other hand, the existing tray Hole area may be such that operation at minimum tower loadings would be calculated to, be below the weep point. Using Figures (Sa) and (Sb), the designer can determina if enough excets trays ate available to compensate for the efficiency dabit when the tower is operating below the veep point. In some instances, the fact that the tray is weeping may have a negligible effect on efficiency Figures (5a) and (Sb) ean also be used for an economic comparison of alternate design. IF the ‘tray cannot be designed to operate at, or above the weep point for minimum tower loadings the designer 1. Design for the capability 10 operate at higher reflux ratios at minimum tower loadings and/or, 2. Install additional trays (as required from Figure S) to compensate for reduced efficiency be low the weep point or, 3. Specify valve trays, which have higher flexibility, but are also more expensive than sieve trays ERIN TRCN euDDaLNOnee‘Section 3B [Pa 6 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Dawe September, 1978 For Aetorind Company Us Only BESS DESIGN PRACTICES If energy costs are not excessive and adoquate heat integration facilities exist, method (1) above provides the quickest means of reaching adequate minimum operations. The higher reflux ratio (4) i= ‘resses tower internal loadings, thus getting the vapor load close to the weep point, and (b) reduces the number of theoretical trays required. The final choice among these three alternatives should be based on ‘minimizing both investment and energy costs. Hole Size and Layout For most casts, a hole ize of 13 mm should be used. The allowable range of hole sizes is out lined in Table I. While recent R&D studies have indicated that smaller hole sizes (3 mm) do have better ‘weeping and entrainment characteristics for some systems, their tendency to plug prohibits thei use. Furthermor, if alloy trays ae used t0 minimize plugging due to corrosion, the higher tray cost more than offsets any capacity credit. For fouling services, hole sizes of 19 to 25 mm are recommended. For cases in which the designer i specifying the tray layout himself, the hole pitch to diameter ratio should be checked against the eriteria given in Table 1. However, itis usually not necessary to spec. ily the pitch in the final process drawings that are given to the tay fabricator. Hole dlameter and area ‘are sufficient forthe fabricator to prepare the mechanical design and layout for the try. See Subsection H for a typical tray layout and preface sheet ‘Tray Hydraulics ‘The optimum dry tray pressure drop will generally fallin the range of 25 t0 75 mm of hot liquid. The effect of increasing dry tray pressure drop (reducing hole area) on tray hydraulics and down- ‘comer filling ean be calculated from Equation ($1) on the calculation form. Downcomer filing, asa percent of try spacing, should not exceed the values given as a function of pressure in Figure 8. In addition, special downcomer fling criteria for aqueous towers are given in ‘Table 2, Otherwiv, the tray spacing endjor the tower damster should be increese. If two-pass trays are used, antijump baffles must be provided on inboard downeomers if the liquid rate exceeds 10 cim®/s per meter of diameter/pas. Thi i to prevent liquid from jumping across (bridging) the downcomer, with consequent premature flooding. (See Subsection H.) ‘Tray Etficieney See Subsection I Heat Transfer ‘The heat transfor coefficient for sive trays should be calculated by the method given in Sub- section F. Startup Considerations At very low vapor velocities (such as during startup), sieve trays may dump, with the result that no liquid level & maintained oa the tray. Hence, when thermosyphon reboilers are used on sieve tray towers, specal provision may be necessary to ensure that the reboler wil have liguid feed during startup. ‘This can be done by’ «© Installing a jumpover line from the tower bottoms drawofT line to the reboiler inlet. This jumpover must have 2 valve, so that it can be closed off when the reboiler is generating enaugh vapor to support the iquid on the drawoff tray. « Providing a chimney tray as the drawoff tray (See Subsection H). For design of dravofls and tower internals, see Subsection H. OKON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY — FLORHAM PARK, fd.F sromaniany iromnavon [estes 3 [Pe [aaa besien practices | feormeranywrongarioy [Rete 282 DETAILED DESIGN PROCEDURE ‘The step-by-step procedure for designing a sieve tray is given on the “Sieve Tray Calculation Form? in the Appendix. Basically, the procedure involves assuming a trial design with the help of the principles given above, checking if against various potential operating imitations, and then modifying it as required to arrive at the optimum tray design. Deciding how to modify the tral design (changing diameter, spacing, layout, etc.) wil require judgment and application of the basic design considerations already dis- cussed.'The calculation step numbers and equation numbers refered to below are those on the calculation form. ‘Vapor and Liquid Loadings (Step 1) ‘This information is normally calculated as part of the heat and material balances forthe tower. 1 minimum tiquid and vapor loadings have not been specified, arsume 50% of the design loadings. Vapor loadings are co the tray in question; liquid loadings are from the tray in question Inthe design of heavy hydrocarbon/steam strippers (e2., pipestillsidestream and bottoms strippers), the tray hydraulies are normally checked for an assumed vapor rato to the top tray equal to the stripping steam rate plus 60 mole percent (for 4-ray strippers) of the total hydrocarbon vapor stripped ‘out. Once the top tay is designed, lower trays may require modified designs due to the reduction in vapor rate, The optimum design of trays for these strippers is described in Subsection I ‘rial Tray Spacing, Size and Layout (Step 2) Downcomer Areas - The maximum velocity of the vaporfee liquid entering the downcomers should bbe determined from Figure 7 or Table 1, whichever gives the lower value. Figure 7 can be used on all systems except those for which values are given in Table 2. For known foaming systems, a very low down: comer inlet velocity (about 0.06 ms) should be used. There s no lower limit on the allowable dowacomer Inet velocity. However, if long liquid residence time in the downcomer prometes fouling, consider either the use of segmental downcomers or the use of castable material, baffle, etc, to reduce dawncomer Yo lume, (Consult with EETD on final design of such trays). The velocity of the vaporree liquid leaving the downcomer should be not more than twice the inlet velocity as obtained by Figure 7, or 0.18 mjs, whichever is less. To ensure good liguid distribution to the tray below, however, the downcomer outlet area must be at least 0.068 Ay. This assures that the chord length is at last 65% of the tower diameter for chordal downcomers. If the tower diameter excoeds 1800 mm and the liquid rate requires a downcomer stea << 0.058 A,, consider the use of segmental downcomers. (See Subsection K for sizing segmental downcomers).If's segmental downcomer is used, it ‘must be at Ioest 150 mm wide, ‘This sets the downcomer areas to be used for the first tral. However, tower diameter considers- tons may require the downcomer areas to be increased. ‘Tray Spacing - A low tray spacing (between 450 to 600 mm) is often the most economical. For the first trial, tray spacing of 450 mm or that shown bolow (whichover is larger) should be used, The values aiven below are the minima for most applications, as determined by considerations of maintenance and depth of support beams. In special cases, however, een smaller spacings may be justified (especially if the required nuun- ber of trays ean be constructed in one shell vs two), but this makes maintenance more difficult. On the other hand, downcomer filing requirements may require the use of tray spacings larger than the minimum, ‘Spacings up to 900 mm may be used to permit a higher superficial vapor velocity. EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY ~ FLORHAM PARK, N4‘Section 3B [Pow 8 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION | ER&E fresig DESIGN PRACTICES an sectenaeTISTE For Autioraed Conpiny Un Orly Minimam Tray Spacing, mm ‘Tower Diameter, mm ‘Clean Service "Fouling Service [Pass 2 or more passes < 1500 300" 450" : > 1500, < 2300, 300" s2se 450° > 2300, < 3100 315 500 s2s* > 3100, < 6000, 450" 61s 600, > 6000 sos 750 615 * If there is no manhead between trays. Minimum tray spacing with a manheed ‘resent is 600 mm or 150 mm more than the manhead diameter, whichever Is greater. ** For towers langer than 6000 mm in diameter, “lattice™ type trusses must be used to facilitate maintenance and good vapor distribution. (See Subsection H for & picture ofa lattice truss.) ‘Tower Diameter - The trial diameter D, is caleulated from Equation (28). It may need to be adjusted cither upward or downward when the tral design is checked against the performance imitations. Equation (Qa) is 2 simplified sieve tray capacity equation which was derived from FRI and commercial seve tray ata, ‘Trial Tray Size «The trial superficial area A, is calculated from the trial diameter D,. At this point, ‘Aa and gy (Step 2) should be checked to make sure that A> 0.068 As. If, Aq > 0.12 Aq for single- pass trays or if Aq (outboard) > 0.10 A, on 2 pass trays, use sloped of stepped downcomer. If the sum of Aa; + Ady excreds 60% of A,, the tower diameter should be inervastd. If necessary. increase tower iameter and correct Ky, Ar and Dy. Remember that Kya is based on the liquid rate per meter of out- board weir length and wil change ifthe diameter changes. In addition, for segmental downconers, use the projected weir length, not the total weir length. Number of Liquid Passes - The number of pasos should be selected on the basis of the criteria given in Table 1. The number isnot likely to change when the tual design i finalized, unless the tower diameter is changed substantially Weirs- Criteria for selecting weir heights and downcomer clearances are given in Table 1. The clear liguid height om the tray must be checked at the maximum liquid flow rates, to make sare that the ‘owncomer is sealed (see earlier discussion under Dowacomer Sealing), Ifa seal is not obtained, consider the us of a higher outlet weir, a recessed inlot box, a smaller dowacomer clearance, or a shaped down- comer ip. For tray geometry relationships, see Subsection K and Figures 11 to 14 of this subsection. ‘Tray Spacing, Size and Layout (Step 3) ‘Tower area - To permit the trial design to be checked against the jet flooding limitation, the quan= tities listed under Step 3a must frst be calculated, based on the tral design, Ultimate Capacity ~ The vapor load factor corresponding to vltimate capacity is calculated from Equation (3b). The ratio of design to ultimate capacity vapor rates must be kept below 90%. Jet Flooding - The vapor load factor for jet flooding is caleulated from Equations (3c) or (3d). The ratio of the design vapor load factor to that for jet flooding should not exceed the percentages recommend- cf in Table 2. For systems not covered by Table 2, ETD should be consulted for the proper value. Probability of Successful Operation - The capacity comelation given in this subsection is the most ‘accurate one currently available for sieve trays, in both hydrocarbon and non-hydrocarbon services, How- ‘ever, it must be used with care, Because no safety factor has been built into this naw correlation. To il lustrate, as the percent of predicted jet flood is incressed from 8S to 50 to 100 to 110%, the percent of cases in which the tower will perforin well oes from 96 to 91 t0 57 to 15%, respectively (ext RENAN anos tbe etaeaNT 2 PitinNidas ped’,