Packed Bed flooding.pdf - Youngstown State University's Personal ...
Packed Bed flooding.pdf - Youngstown State University's Personal ...
Packed Bed flooding.pdf - Youngstown State University's Personal ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
14-80 EQUIPMENT FOR DISTILLATION, GAS ABSORPTION, PHASE DISPERSION, AND PHASE SEPARATION<br />
component was soluble in both liquid phases, and HETP was about 50<br />
percent above normal. Harrison argued that a second liquid phase<br />
leads to lower efficiency only when it impairs diffusion of the key<br />
species. On this basis, Harrison expects efficiency loss also when an<br />
“inert” liquid or vapor represents a large fraction of the liquid or vapor<br />
phase. Meier et al. recommend obtaining efficiencies by scaling up<br />
laboratory-scale data using a similar type of packing.<br />
Both Harrison and Meier et al. emphasize adequately distributing<br />
each liquid phase to the packing. Harrison noted that a well-designed<br />
ladder pipe distributor can maintain high velocities and low residence<br />
times that provide good mixing. With trough distributors that separate<br />
the phases and then distribute each to the packing, a light-to-heavy<br />
phase maldistribution may occur, especially when the phase ratio and<br />
separation vary. Meier et al. noted the existence of a cloudy two-liquid<br />
layer between the clear light and heavy liquid and recommend an<br />
additional middle distribution point for this layer. They also noticed<br />
that phase separation unevenness can have a large influence on the<br />
phase ratio irrigated to the packing.<br />
High Viscosity and Surface Tension Bravo (Paper presented<br />
at the AIChE Spring National Meeting, Houston, Tex., 1995) studied<br />
a system that had 425-cP viscosity, 350 mN/m surface tension, and a<br />
high foaming tendency. He found that efficiencies were liquid-phasecontrolled<br />
and could be estimated from theoretical HTU models.<br />
Capacity was less than predicted by conventional methods which do<br />
not account for the high viscosity. Design equations for orifice distributors<br />
extended well to the system once the orifice coefficient was calculated<br />
as a function of the low Reynolds number and the surface<br />
tension head was taken into account.<br />
OTHER TOPICS FOR DISTILLATION AND GAS ABSORPTION EQUIPMENT<br />
COMPARING TRAYS AND PACKINGS<br />
Most separations can be performed either with trays or with packings.<br />
The factors below represent economic pros and cons that favor each<br />
and may be overridden. For instance, column complexity is a factor<br />
favoring trays, but gas plant demethanizers that often use one or more<br />
interreboilers are traditionally packed.<br />
Factors Favoring Packings<br />
Vacuum systems. Packing pressure drop is much lower than that of<br />
trays because the packing open area approaches the tower crosssectional<br />
area, while the tray’s open area is only 8 to 15 percent of<br />
the tower cross-sectional area. Also, the tray liquid head, which<br />
incurs substantial pressure drop (typically about 50 mm of the<br />
liquid per tray), is absent in packing. Typically, tray pressure drop<br />
is of the order of 10 mbar per theoretical stage, compared to 3 to<br />
4 mbar per theoretical stage with random packings and about<br />
one-half of that with structured packings.<br />
Consider a vacuum column with 10 theoretical stages, operating at<br />
70-mbar top pressure. The bottom pressure will be 170 mbar with<br />
trays, but only 90 to 110 mbar with packings. The packed tower will<br />
have a much better relative volatility in the lower parts, thus reducing<br />
reflux and reboil requirements and bottom temperature. These<br />
translate to less product degradation, greater capacity, and smaller<br />
energy consumption, giving packings a major advantage.<br />
Lower-pressure-drop applications. When the gas is moved by a fan<br />
through the tower, or when the tower is in the suction of a compressor,<br />
the smaller packing pressure drop is often a controlling<br />
consideration. This is particularly true for towers operating close to<br />
atmospheric pressure. Here excessive pressure drop in the tower<br />
increases the size of the fan or compressor (new plant), bottlenecks<br />
them (existing plant), and largely increases power consumption.<br />
Due to the compression ratio, pressure drop at the compressor discharge<br />
is far less important and seldom a controlling consideration.<br />
Revamps. The pressure drop advantage is invaluable in vacuum column<br />
revamps, can be translated to a capacity gain, an energy<br />
gain, a separation improvement, or various combinations of these<br />
benefits. Likewise, for towers in the suction of compressors,<br />
replacing trays by packings reduces the compression ratio and<br />
helps debottleneck the compressor.<br />
Packings also offer an easy tradeoff between capacity and separation.<br />
In the loaded sections of the tower, larger packings can<br />
overcome capacity bottlenecks at the expense of loss in separation.<br />
The separation loss can often be regained by retrofitting<br />
with smaller packings in sections of the tower that are not highly<br />
loaded. In tray towers, changing tray spacing gives similar results,<br />
but is more difficult to do.<br />
Foaming (and emulsion). The low gas and liquid velocities in packing<br />
suppress foam formation. The large open area of the larger<br />
random packing promotes foam dispersal. Both attributes make<br />
random packing excellent for handling foams. In many cases<br />
recurrent foaming was alleviated by replacing trays by random<br />
packing, especially when tray downcomers were poorly designed.<br />
Switching from trays to structured packing can aggravate foaming.<br />
While the low gas and liquid velocities help, the solid walls<br />
restrict lateral movement of foams and give support to the foams.<br />
Small-diameter columns. Columns with diameter less than 1 m<br />
(3 ft) are difficult to access from inside to install and maintain the<br />
trays. “Cartridge” trays or an oversized diameter are often used.<br />
Either option is expensive. Cartridge trays also run into problems<br />
with sealing to the tower wall and matching tower to tray hardware<br />
[Sands, Chem. Eng., p. 86 (April 2006)]. Packing is normally<br />
a cheaper and more desirable alternative.<br />
Corrosive systems. The practical range of packing materials is<br />
wider. Ceramic and plastic packings are cheap and effective.<br />
Trays can be manufactured in nonmetals, but packing is usually a<br />
cheaper and more desirable alternative.<br />
Low liquid holdup. Packings have lower liquid holdup than do<br />
trays. This is often advantageous for reducing polymerization,<br />
degradation, or the inventory of hazardous materials.<br />
Batch distillation. Because of the smaller liquid holdup of packing, a<br />
higher percentage of the liquid can be recovered as top product.<br />
Factors Favoring Trays<br />
Solids. Trays handle solids much more easily than packing. Both gas<br />
and liquid velocities on trays are often an order of magnitude<br />
higher than through packing, providing a sweeping action that<br />
keeps tray openings clear. Solids tend to accumulate in packing<br />
voids. There are fewer locations on trays where solids can be<br />
deposited. Plugging in liquid distributors has been a common trouble<br />
spot. Cleaning trays is much easier than cleaning packings.<br />
Not all trays are fouling-resistant. Floats on moving valve trays<br />
tend to “stick” to deposits on the tray deck. Fouling-resistant trays<br />
have large sieve holes or large fixed valves, and these should be<br />
used when plugging and fouling are the primary considerations.<br />
There is much that can be done to alleviate plugging with random<br />
packing. Large, open packing with minimal pockets offers<br />
good plugging resistance. Distributors that resist plugging have<br />
large holes (> 13-mm diameter). Such large holes are readily<br />
applied with high liquid flow rates, but often not practical for<br />
small liquid flow rates.<br />
Maldistribution. The sensitivity of packing to liquid and gas maldistribution<br />
has been a common cause of failures in packed towers.<br />
Maldistribution issues are most severe in large-diameter towers,<br />
long beds, small liquid flow rates, and smaller packing. Structured<br />
packing is generally more prone to maldistribution than random<br />
packing. While good distributor design, water testing, and inspection<br />
can eliminate most maldistribution issues, it only takes a few<br />
small details that fall through the cracks to turn success into failure.<br />
Due to maldistribution, there are far more failures experienced