Article

pubs.acs.org/IECR

Experimental Evaluation of Distributor Technologies for Trickle-Bed

Reactors
Frédéric Bazer-Bachi,* Yacine Haroun, Frédéric Augier, and Christophe Boyer
IFP Énergies Nouvelles, Rond point de l’échangeur de Solaize, BP 3, 69360 Solaize, France

ABSTRACT: In this paper, different technologies of distributors for trickle bed reactors were compared, in terms of intrinsic
performance of distribution and resistance to tray unlevelness. γ-ray tomography has first been used, in a large column unit, to
visualize gas−liquid distribution just below several tray technologies. Results obtained show a better distribution performance
under multiaperture chimney trays, in comparison with gas-lift and bubble cap systems. Then, a specific cold mock-up was
designed in order to mimic tray tilt between two tray elements. Sensitivities to tray unlevelness of both gas-lift and multiaperture
systems are comparable, far better than the one for the bubble cap system. Multiaperture chimneys have indeed excellent
behavior at nominal conditions, while gas-lift technology is interesting for its ability to behave similarly over a large flow range.
Considering those results, some guidelines are finally given for the choice of the distribution technology.

1. INTRODUCTION
Fixed-bed reactors operated under trickle-flow condition
(TBRs) are one of the important classes of three-phase gas−
liquid−solid reaction systems encountered in industrial
practice. They are currently employed in hydrotreatments
and in chemical and biochemical processes for the petroleum,
petrochemical, and chemical industries. TBRs consist of a fixed
bed of solid catalyst particles contacted by a cocurrent gas−
liquid downflow. The reaction occurs between the dissolved gas
and the liquid phase at the catalyst surface or inside the catalyst
pellet. For its part, the trickling regime is characterized by small
liquid flow rates and low to moderate gas flow rates. Liquid
trickles over the catalyst bed, with the gas being a continuous
phase.
Recently, increasing environmental standards of fuels have
led to the development of high performance units with
improved catalyst activities. However, TBR efficiency relies
also on a good distribution of liquid feed over the catalyst bed
cross section, which means both an effective liquid inlet
distributor and a perfect bed loading. Otherwise, channeling
may appear, causing a significant loss in catalyst activity1 and an
earlier catalyst deactivation. When coupled with highly
exothermal reactions, gas and liquid maldistribution may be
amplified by the fast drying of the catalyst and may possibly
lead to local hot spots.2,3
Poor flow distribution generated by distributor technologies
can be partially corrected by optimized layers of grading
materials, with specific packing particles being able to enhance
phase radial distribution.4−6 Unfortunately, this corrective
approach is often not sufficient, with the catalyst bed having
in any case few transverse mixing properties.7
All these facts have motivated recent developments of new
distributors in order to enhance their general performance.
Some specifications are indeed required: very good perform-
ance at design conditions, the flexibility to operate over a broad
range of gas/liquid flow rates (numerous industrial operating
conditions possible for a single reactor, difference in degree of
feed vaporization from start of run to end of run, etc.), and a
low sensitivity to tray unlevelness. These tray improvements
have been the subject of recent reviews.8,9 Both reviews, mainly
based on industrial advertising and communications such as
Patel et al.,10 have highlighted promising performances of the
recent gas-lift technology. The objective of this work is to
complete these reviews, by experimentally comparing different
distributor tray types (chimney trays, bubble cap trays, and gas
assisted lift tube trays), in terms of both distribution
performance and resistance to unlevelness.
As a first step, distribution performances of different
distributors have to be qualified and compared in a large cold
flow experimental unit. To this end, several techniques can
potentially be used to map spatial distribution of liquid and gas
at the top of the catalyst bed: wire mesh tomography11−13 or
imaging techniques such as nuclear magnetic resonance
(NMR) imaging,3,14 electrical tomography,13 X-ray tomogra-
phy,15 and γ-ray computed tomography.12,16 γ-ray tomography
was chosen for this benchmark because of its excellent spatial
resolution, its noninvasiveness, and its potential use on large
reactors contrary to NMR imaging.
As a second step, the impact of tray unlevelness on the global
distribution has to be quantified. Tray tilt is industrially due to
its own bending and to a potential angle deviation from the
horizontal plane during installation. For large reactor diameters,
the height difference between two points of the tray may reach
10 mm. A small scale mock-up was specifically implemented so
as to compare gas and liquid flows coming out of two tray
elements placed with a definite height difference. In order to
posttreat in the best way the experiments results achieved, the
impact of the maldistribution measured with this experimental
setup has also been quantified in terms of changes in reactor
performance.
Received: February 15, 2013
Revised: July 4, 2013
Accepted: July 18, 2013
Published: July 18, 2013

© 2013 American Chemical Society 11189 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie400504p | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 11189−11197
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1. Distributor Trays. Recent reviews8,9 listed types of
distributor trays classically found in industrial trickle-bed
reactors. Maiti and Nigam9 suggested a classification for
vapor−liquid distributors, with four categories (Figure 1):
perforated plate or sieve trays, chimney trays, bubble cap trays,
and gas assisted lift tube trays.
Figure 1. Different types of distributors: (a) perforated trays, (b)
multiport chimney, (c) bubble cap, and (d) gas-lift tube.8
Multiaperture chimneys are generally composed of lateral
openings (holes or slots/notches spaced vertically up the axis of
the chimney) for liquid and superior apertures for gas, allowing
vapor−liquid contacting of both phases in the conduit. As a
consequence, gravity is the main driving force for the liquid
flow.
Good distribution under the tray is generally achieved by
minimizing the distance between two chimneys, with a
triangular rather than square pitch preferred. Cost and
fabrication constraints practically limit this center-to-center
spacing to about 100 mm. Some enhancements are proposed
by adding a dispersive system under the chimneys. The Shell
HD tray may be designed with nozzles under the conduits,5
generating an overlapping of the created sprays, thus
eliminating any grading material under the tray. IFPEN
EquiFlow technology17 is characterized by several dispersive
devices with rims, such as grids (Figure 2). Both solutions
allow, theoretically, having an excellent liquid and gas
distribution, avoiding any disk-type discharge pattern under
the chimneys.
As detailed by Maiti and Nigam,9 the surface area of lateral
openings is determined to ensure a certain liquid level on the
tray. The pressure balance establishes that the liquid velocity in
the holes is directly correlated to the liquid height above the
hole, with a 0.5 power dependence. As a result, when the liquid
level is close to holes, this class of tray is also sensitive to
unlevelness. Nevertheless, by keeping a minimum liquid head
over the holes, this sensitivity is drastically reduced.
To describe this sensitivity, an indicator IQ is defined18
between two chimneys submitted to an elevation difference (10
mm being generally considered):
11190
Article
Figure 2. Adding grid dispersive system under tray distributor.17
Flow − Fhigh
IQ =
Faverage (1)
where Flow and Fhigh are respectively phase flows through the
low and high distributors and Faverage represents the average
phase flow. The IQ criterion can be calculated for both gas and
liquid phases, with the liquid (L) being preferentially used to
characterize the maldistribution. A low value of IQL indicates a
low sensitivity of distributor to tray tilt. By contrast, a high
value of IQL points to a strong imbalance of distribution.
Figure 3 shows a typical evolution of IQL for various
distributors. Concerning results with multiaperture chimneys,
the evolution of IQL exhibits alternatively higher and lower
values corresponding respectively to liquid levels close to and
far from apertures. As a consequence, careful design must be
done to minimize these high value zones for IQL.
Bubble cap trays are significantly different, with chimneys
consisting of a cap centered concentrically over a standpipe
(Figure 1). Vapor passes through slotted lateral openings,
lifting liquid into the upflow channel and then downflow into
an internal conduit. As a consequence, this technology operates
on a gas assist principle compared to the liquid weight principle
employed by multiaperture chimneys. Operation with a wider
liquid flow range is believed possible. Yet sensitivity to tray
unlevelness seems not reduced, in spite of this gas driving force
(Figure 3). Moreover, because of their large diameters, center-
to-center spacing for bubble cap trays is limited (fewer drip
points).
Gamborg and Jensen19 proposed a modified bubble cap
system, named “vapor lift”, with only one upflow tube leg
elevated above the tray. The operational principle is the same as
for bubble caps: gas flows through the nozzles and then by
gravity falls onto the catalyst bed. Following the authors,
because liquid flow is not sensitive to the local liquid level at the
nozzle, this gas-lift tray a priori exhibits an excellent sensitivity
to unlevelness (Figure 3). Due to its rectangular configuration
and smaller/fewer slots, center-to-center spacing is close to the
one of the chimney tray, with a square pitch, allowing much
better catalyst utilization than bubble cap trays. Lastly,
according to the inventors, this design allows wide liquid flow
ranges.
The main dimensions of trays evaluated during this study,
i.e., two chimney trays with/without dispersion devices, a
classical bubble cap tray, and a gas-lift tray, are given in Table 1.
The distribution performance of the bubble cap tray was not
studied. Several types of gas-lift configurations, based on
different geometric characteristics, were compared during
maldistribution measurements.
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie400504p | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 11189−11197
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

Figure 3. Sensitivity to tray tilt for different technologies, with a 10 mm elevation difference.18

Table 1. Main Dimension Characteristics of Distributor

Trays Used during This Study
A, chimney B, chimney
tray with tray with C, bubble
grid deflector cap tray D, gas-lift tray
center-to- 200 100 100 100
center
spacing
(mm)
pitch triangular triangular triangular square
chimney 50 50 105 50
diameter
(mm)
chimney 250 250 190 280 → 500
height (mm)
dispersive grid deflector − −
element

2.2. Experimental Setup for Intrinsic Distribution

Measurements. Experiments were conducted in a 0.6 m
inner diameter column in order to evaluate the influence of tray
type on distribution uniformity (Figure 4). All distributor trays
were put at the top of the cylindrical column, after a feed
diffuser: the behaviors of the gas and liquid on and just under
the tray were visualized thanks to a local part of the column
made of Plexiglas.
Several successive solid layers followed: two grading layers
(3/4 and 1/4 in. spherical particles), one catalyst layer (Axens
HMC841), and one last grading layer (1/4 in. spherical
particles). The number and height of these layers were chosen
to mimic an industrial configuration.
The mock-up was operated with hydrocarbon (heptane) and
nitrogen, at low pressure (100−400 mbar gauge) and room
temperature (about 25 °C). The liquid velocity vsl and gas
velocity vsg were varied respectively between 0.2 and 0.8 cm·s−1
and between 2 and 20 cm·s−1, so as to test a maximum of
industrial conditions for the trickling regime.
γ-ray tomography was implemented at the top of the catalyst
layer to provide a two-dimensional map of the liquid retention
across the catalyst bed section. This choice of tomography
position is deliberate in order to take into account the possible
effect of grading on the gas/liquid distribution at the top of the
catalyst layer.
This tomographic system is composed of a 137Cs γ source
(300 mCi in activity) and 32 detectors with BgO crystals). The
whole system, γ-ray source and detectors, rotates around the
fixed bed column. Attenuation of γ radiation between the
11191
Figure 4. Experimental setup for distribution performance study.
source and detectors depends directly on the material crossed
densities. These attenuation data are analyzed to reconstruct 64
× 64 pixel images and thus a resolution of 6.25 × 6.25 mm2.
The uncertainty of liquid retention measurements is less than
±3%.16 A special algorithm based on algebraic reconstruction
had to be used for image reconstruction, in order to
characterize sharp liquid retention gradients.5,20
2.3. Experimental Setup for Maldistribution Measure-
ments. A schematic diagram of the setup used for the
maldistribution experiments is shown in Figure 5. The
experiment setup is a transparent Plexiglas column of 400
mm internal diameter, composed of two partitioned sections.
The upper domain contains two half-trays, each supporting a
distributing element. The general level distance between two
half-trays is 10 mm. Thus, one of the distribution elements is
slightly higher than the other. The lower domain is placed
below both of the half-trays. It is divided into two collector
chambers by a tight vertical separation passing by the median.
The outlet liquid and gas flow rates are independently
measured at the exit of each collector chamber to exactly
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie400504p | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 11189−11197
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

et al.21 Whatever distributor tray is implemented, the liquid

retention points are close to each other, falling into the
anticipated uncertainty margin (±3%). Moreover, experimental
data follow the same trend as the model curve. The relatively
good agreement between experimental results and the model of
Boyer et al. validates the technology of γ-tomography for the
comparison between distributor trays.
About 100 two-dimensional (2D) images of spatial
distribution of liquid and gas were achieved at the top of the
catalyst, depending on the tray distributor and operating
conditions (liquid and gas superficial velocities). As an example,
Figure 7 shows 2D maps of liquid retention distributions for
two different operating conditions. Different kinds of
distributions are observed depending on the distributor tray.
Qualitatively, distribution is better for tray A with grids and tray
B with deflectors, because of a better wall coverage and fewer
Figure 5. Schematic diagram of experimental setup for the microheterogeneities between two drip points. The presence of
maldistribution evaluation study. a grid (tray A) enables an excellent distribution, even for a far
larger step between chimneys (200 mm). The absence of
deflectors for tray B worsens distribution: a disk-type discharge
quantify the maldistribution generated by the height difference, pattern under chimneys is clearly emphasized, particularly at
for the liquid and gas phases. high superficial liquid velocity. The importance of spray
Inlets of the liquid and gas phases are made at the upper induced by the deflector under the chimney is proved;
level. Experiments were operated with a water/air system at nevertheless, this solution is limited for low and medium tray
atmospheric pressure conditions. spacing (≤100 mm). The worst distribution is obtained for the
During the tests, the liquid and gas flow rates were varied in a gas-lift distributor (tray D): square-type discharge patterns
range corresponding to the operating conditions of hydrotreat- under the drip points are visible for all operating conditions,
ment and hydrodesulfurization operations: vsl [0.3, 1.5] cm·s−1; and liquid wall coverage is poor compared to other distributors
vsg [2, 20] cm·s−1 (large liquid and gas flow ranges were (important gas channelling near wall). This situation has not
knowingly chosen). The holes/slots of each distributor were been improved even at very high superficial gas velocities (vsg =
designed for a liquid superficial velocity close to 1 cm·s−1 20 cm·s−1). One may finally add that those spatial distributions
(chosen design condition). with nonnegligible heterogeneities are obtained after 200 mm
The liquid and gas flow rates measured at the exits of both of grading materials, which, as discussed previously, generally
collector chambers were used to calculate the maldistribution improves slightly radial dispersion.
sensitivity of each distributor type (indicator IQ). Qualitative tendencies have been converted into distribution
The following distribution elements were tested: multi- efficiencies η. This efficiencies are defined by the surface
aperture chimney, conventional bubble cap chimney, and fraction of the image where the liquid retention β is within a
different configurations of gas-lift chimneys. The geometric range of 20% compared to mean liquid retention:
parameters of all distributors are listed in Tables 1 and 2.
|β − β ̅ | < 0.2β ̅ (2)
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Parts a and b of Figure 8 show distribution efficiencies
3.1. Distribution Performance of Several Tray Distrib- calculated for all distributor trays, at superficial gas velocities of
utor Technologies. Figure 6 presents, on the same graph, all 2 and 10 cm·s−1, respectively. They confirm quantitatively that
liquid retentions measured at the top of the catalyst bed, for the distribution performance of a multiaperture chimney tray
each distributor tray studied, with regard to the model of Boyer with a grid (tray A) and a tray with a deflector (tray B) are of
the same magnitude, contrary to that of the gas-lift system (tray
Table 2. Hole/Slot Characteristics of Distributor Used for D).
the Maldistribution Study Thus, these experimental results have demonstrated a clear
advantage for the multiaperture chimney trays tested in terms
gas-lift trays of the intrinsic performance of the distribution. Two facts may
A, chimney tray C, bubble mitigate this conclusion: the effect of pressure can slightly
with grid cap tray D1 D2 D3 modify the gas/liquid distribution under the tray, and the
chimney height 250 190 300 500 280 relative importance of gas channeling near the wall is reduced
(mm) for large reactor diameters. By the way, the commonly accepted
hole rows 3 − − − − conclusion about the excellent performance of a recent gas-lift
hole number per 3 − − − − tray compared to a chimney tray, exposed by recent reviews,8,9
row
seems highly exaggerated.
hole diameter 7 − − − −
(mm) 3.2. Effect of Tray Unlevelness on Distribution
slot number − 3 1 1 2 Performance, For Several Distributor Technologies. In
slot height − 65 150 150 85 this section, we discuss the effect of tray unlevelness on the
(mm) deterioration in the maldistribution indicator IQL, for all the
slot thickness − 22 2 2 4 distributors studied (Table 2). As a checking procedure,
(mm) preliminary studies with two identical chimneys at the same
11192 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie400504p | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 11189−11197
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Figure 6. Liquid retentions at the top of the catalyst bed for different distributors trays, for a superficial gas velocity of 2 cm·s−1, in comparison with
the model of Boyer et al.21
Figure 7. Two-dimensional maps of liquid retention distribution at the
top of the catalyst bed for different distributor trays, depending on
gas/liquid superficial velocities.
height have given IQL values close to 0% for both phases, with
an absolute uncertainty of 4%, proving the equilibrium of the
mock-up configuration.
Before going on with the analysis of experimental data, an
attempt has been made to link liquid maldistribution and drop
in performance of trickle bed reactors, using a simple numerical
model of a diesel fuel hydrodesulfurization (see the Appendix).
The main result obtained is that, below an ideal equilibrium
index IQL of 15−20%, the effect of maldistribution remains
under control. These figures of course have to be taken with
11193
Article
caution, but it gives a first order of magnitude for the impact of
a possible maldistribution. This ideal IQ value of 20% will be
reported on Figure 9a−c.
First, Figure 9a shows the effect of the liquid flow rate on the
percentage difference of liquid flow (IQL) between two
multiaperture chimneys A, at low superficial gas velocity (vsg
= 2 cm·s−1). The experimental points obtained confirm the
general behavior admitted for this type of distributor: low
sensitivity to unlevelness, particularly at design conditions (IQL
< 5%), except when the liquid level on the tray is close to hole
rows (IQL,max → 40%) or when very low liquid velocities are
used. An excellent agreement was obtained comparing mock-up
results with those of a model established considering the
pressure balance between gas and liquid phases, still high-
lighting the reliability of the tests. Finally, this model was
adapted to another configuration of this chimney type, with a
height of 500 mm and only two hole rows. It demonstrates the
very important impact of this geometric parameter (IQL,max
now always under 20%), showing that chimney height is the
main lever to reduce multiaperture chimney sensitivity to
unlevelness.
Parts b and c of Figure 9 compared the effect of liquid flow
rate on IQL values for all various technologies of distribution
tested, respectively, at low (vsg = 2 cm·s−1) and high (vsg = 15
cm·s−1) gas flow rates.
Bubble cap distributor C is found to be by far the more
sensitive technology to the tray tilt, for both conditions of the
gas flow rate. The measured maldistribution exceeds 100% at
high gas load. At low gas velocity, the rate of maldistribution is
about 80% at the design condition.
For all its arrangements, the recent gas-lift system exhibits an
intermediate maldistribution. At high gas velocity (vsg = 15 cm
s−1), maldistribution is of the same order of magnitude as for
the multiaperture chimney A: IQL values are generally higher,
particularly at design conditions, but without the local peaks
encountered at low liquid flow rates for the multiaperture
system. At low gas velocity (vsg = 2 cm s−1), IQL values are in
general bigger. Exception was found for the D2 gas-lift
configuration for which interesting IQL values were obtained,
but only at high gas velocity: the impact of the distributor
height is suspected (in this case, 50 cm). In conclusion, gas-lift
systems D have a sensitivity to tray tilt comparable to or more
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie400504p | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 11189−11197
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Figure 8. (a) Distribution efficiencies at the top of the catalyst bed for different distributor trays, for superficial gas velocities of (a) 2 and (b) 10
cm·s−1.
important than the one of the multiaperture system A, contrary
to what was exposed by several authors.8,9,18,19
An explanation for these results below expectations for gas-
lift distributors can be found in Figure 9d (effect of liquid flow
rate on gas maldistribution IQG values). While there is no gas
maldistribution for the multiaperture chimney A, it is
catastrophic for the bubble cap distributor C, and significant
for all the gas-lift configurations D (IQG ∼ 15−30%). It is
believed that bubble caps and gas-lift distributors are less
dependent on the liquid flow rate in comparison with classical
chimneys. However, there exists a dependence on the gas flow
rate due to the gas assisted principle. It is then likely that the
gas maldistribution observed in Figure 9d caused the liquid
imbalance established in Figure 9b,c. Besides, this gas
maldistribution can have a dramatic impact for processes with
hydrodynamic operating conditions close to the bubble flow
regime (higher gas flow rates).
3.3. Discussion. Results previously exposed, for both
distribution performance and resistance to tray unlevelness,
have shown that no clear direction exists for the choice of the
distribution technology. The sole certain fact established is that
the bubble cap distributor C must be avoided because of its
catastrophic resistance to tray tilt. Multiaperture chimney trays
11194
Article
A and B have good distribution capabilities and a correct
resistance to nonhorizontality, except at some points of the
liquid flow range (turndown regime, the case when the liquid
level approaches hole rows). Distribution obtained under gas-
lift trays D is less interesting (more heterogeneities). Their
resistance to tray tilt is comparable with those of trays A and B,
lower at nominal conditions but with the advantage of being
relatively constant over the liquid flow range.
It is clear that few current distributor technologies respect
this ideal IQL criterion of 15−20%, particularly when the design
is done for a large liquid flow range. Considering all the facts,
the authors propose the choice of multiaperture chimney trays
for the classical liquid flow range, with the gas assisted system
being interesting only for the high liquid flow range.
Motivations for this choice of multiaperture chimney trays
are a better distribution under this tray, an excellent resistance
to unlevelness at nominal conditions (i.e., presumable unit
operating conditions), and a correct resistance for all liquid
velocities encountered. To support these guidelines, Table 3
presents several examples of design of multiaperture chimney
trays, submitted to different liquid flow ranges. This gives some
indications for the selection between classical chimney and gas-
lift technologies (here for a classical chimney height of 300
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie400504p | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 11189−11197
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

Figure 9. (a) Effect of liquid load on the liquid distribution for A multiaperture chimneys, with a tray tilt of 10 mm, at low superficial gas velocity (vsg
= 2 cm·s−1). Experimental results (□). Theoretical prediction: 250 mm height chimney (); 500 mm height chimney (---). (b) Effect of liquid load
on the liquid distribution for different trays, with a tray tilt of 10 mm, at low superficial gas velocity (vsg = 2 cm·s−1). Experimental results: A,
multiaperture chimney (□); C, bubble cap chimney (×); D1, gas-lift chimney (▲); D2, gas-lift chimney (●); D3, gas-lift chimney (◆). Theoretical
predication: A, multiaperture chimney (). (c) Effect of liquid load on the liquid distribution for different trays, with a tray tilt of 10 mm, at high
superficial gas velocity (vsg = 15 cm·s−1). Experimental results: A, multiaperture chimney (□); C, bubble cap chimney (×); D1, gas-lift chimney (▲);
D2, gas-lift chimney (●); D3, gas-lift chimney (◆). Theoretical predication: A, multiaperture chimney (). (d) Effect of liquid load on the gas
distribution for different trays, with a tray tilt of 10 mm, at high superficial gas velocity (vsg = 15 cm·s−1). Experimental results: A, multiaperture
chimney (□); C, bubble cap chimney (×); D1, gas-lift chimney (▲); D2, gas-lift chimney (●); D3, gas-lift chimney (◆).

Table 3. Effect of Liquid Flow Range on the Design of a contrary to what is exposed in recent reviews mainly based
Multiaperture Chimney and Impact on Maldistribution on industrial communications, other tests show that gas-lift
Criterion IQL for the Liquid Phasea systems do not outclass multiaperture trays in terms of
resistance to nonhorizontality.
liquid flow range 2 3 4 5 6
(vsl,max/vsl,min) Thus, some guidelines were finally proposed, based on
chimney height (mm) 300 experimental conclusions and modeling, favoring the choice of
chimney diameter (mm) 50 multiaperture chimneys for current operating conditions of
hole rows 1 2 3 3 3 trickle-bed reactors (i.e., classical liquid flow ranges), with gas-
hole number 3 3+2 3+3+3 3+3+3 3+3+3 lift systems being competitive only in the case of very large
hole diameter (mm) 10 9+4 7+4+4 7+5+5 6+6+6 liquid flow ranges (because of their constant acceptable
IQmean (%) 6.5 5.6 7.0 8.2 9.0 performances vs liquid velocity).
IQmax (%) 14.0 15.2 17.1 24.3 30.9 By the way, developments are still required in terms of
IQnominal (%) 3.5 2.3 2.9 3.2 3.4 distributor internals so as to propose an ideal technology:
a
ρL = 600 kg·m−3, ρG = 30 kg·m−3, and vsl,nominal = 0.8 cm·s−1.
excellent distribution under the tray and perfect resistance to a
potential unlevelness, for all operating conditions.
Incontestably, more work should be done with cold flow
mm): up to a liquid flow range of 5, the performance of testing. Priority will be given to two experimental axes: (1)
multiaperture chimney trays is good enough at turndown experiments at high pressure and/or with high density gases
conditions (IQL,max < 20%) and excellent at design conditions. and (2) evolution of initial liquid maldistribution over the
4. CONCLUSION catalytic bed. Developments of computational fluid dynamics
modeling are also required, particularly for gas assisted systems.

Current state-of-art trickle bed reactor distributors were tested
and compared in terms of distribution performance and
resistance of this performance when the tray is submitted to
a nonhorizontality.
Experiments quantifying the intrinsic performance of
distribution have revealed an advantage for the technology of
multiaperture chimneys with grids/deflectors. Moreover,
11195
■
APPENDIX: “TWO PARALLEL PLUG REACTORS”
MODEL OF MALDISTRIBUTION
The impact of large scale maldistributions on the performances
of fixed bed reactors is estimated by using a simple numerical
model. Liquid and gas flow rates are considered as constant
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie400504p | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 11189−11197
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
along the axis of the reactor. Only the case of liquid
maldistribution is discussed; the gas phase is supposed to
flow homogeneously in the reactor at constant superficial gas
velocity.
Heterogeneities of flow rates at the outlets of chimneys or
distributing devices are modeled by dividing the section of the
reactor into two equal areas, fed by two different liquid flow
rates. The spatial scale of maldistribution between high and low
flow rates is supposed to be sufficiently high to avoid
attenuation of maldistribution along the vertical axis, and the
reactor is assumed to behave like two parallel plug reactors, as
presented in Figure 10.
Figure 10. Modeling maldistribution by two parallel plug reactors. The
gray scale schematizes the sulfur content in the liquid phase.
Each side of the reactor is modeled as an adiabatic one-
dimensional reactor. Heat and mass diffusion phenomena are
also neglected as convection by the liquid flow rate is
predominant in the evolution of concentration and temperature
in the vertical direction.
The case of diesel fuel hydrodesulfurization is considered,
inside a single bed reactor of 6 m height. The liquid phase
properties are those of hexadecane C16H34 (ρ = 800 kg·m−3, Cp
= 1800 J·kg−1·K−1). The only reactant is benzothiophene
(C8H6S) present in the liquid phase only at 2% weight
regarding atomic sulfur. Sulfur specification at the reactor outlet
is 10 ppm. A first order apparent kinetics on benzothiophene is
Figure 11. (a, left) Loss of conversion induced by maldistribution and maximal temperature difference between both plug reactors. (b, right)
Increase of inlet temperature necessary to reach the target [S]out = 10 ppm.
11196
Article
considered, assuming no mass transfer limitation and a zero
order kinetics on hydrogen. Following Varga et al.,22 the energy
of activation Ea is taken as 80−120 kJ·mol−1. The enthalpy of
reaction ΔHr is taken as 75 kJ·mol−1, a value in the range of
magnitude reported by Murali et al.23 The pre-exponential
factor is fitted in order to process the reaction at T = 650 K, a
realistic temperature in comparison with industrial operating
conditions. The liquid superficial velocity U is 0.01 m·s−1 in the
reactor.
The assumptions listed above simplify the model which can
be easily solved by using a simple first order numerical method.
Solved equations are
∂C
Ui = −K exp( −Ea /RT )
∂z (3)
∂T
UiρCp = ΔHrK exp( − Ea /RT )
∂z (4)
where Ui is the liquid superficial velocity in the reactor i (i = 1
or 2). Ui is calculated as follows:
⎡ ⎛ 3 ⎞⎤
Ui = ⎢1 ± ⎜i − ⎟⎥U̅ IQ L
⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎦ (5)
As the liquid velocity is different in each side of the reactor,
the conversion is not equal between the two parallel plug
reactors, and the resulting mean conversion is calculated at the
outlet of the reactor. When the maldistribution indicator IQL is
not null, a difference appears between temperature and
concentration profiles of the two parallel reactors. The global
sulfur content at the outlet of the whole reactor is also
increased, as reported in Figure 11a. In Figure 11 is also
reported the maximal difference of temperature in the
transversal direction, between reactors, and obtained at
approximately 1.3 m from the inlet.
In spite of its simplicity, this example shows how
maldistribution can induce radial temperature gradients and
impact performances of fixed bed reactors. As a content of 10
ppm atomic sulfur is required in the diesel fuel, the loss of
conversion due to maldistribution is thwarted by an increase of
the temperature at the inlet of the reactor, ΔT0. The
temperature adjustment depends on operating conditions of
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie400504p | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 11189−11197
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

the reactors and kinetics. The energy of activation has obviously
an important impact on the temperature increase linked to the
maldistribution, as shown in Figure 11b.
An important result obtained with the simple model “two
parallel plug reactors” is that, below an equilibrium index IQL of
15−20%, the effect of maldistribution remains under control
with inlet temperature adjustments below 1 °C. Higher inlet
temperature adjustments are not desired as they could
accelerate catalyst deactivation and finally shorten run cycle
lengths.
(14) Sederman, A. J.; Gladden, L. F. Magnetic resonance imaging as a
quantitative probe of gas-liquid distribution and wetting efficiency in
trickle-bed reactors. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2001, 56, 2615.
(15) Marchot, P.; Toye, D.; Crine, M.; Pelsser, A.-M.; L’Homme, G.
Investigation of liquid maldistribution in packed columns by X-ray
tomography. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 1999, 77, 511.
(16) Boyer, C.; Fanget, B. Measurement of liquid flow distribution in
trickle bed reactor of large diameter with a new gamma-ray
tomographic system. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2002, 57, 1079.
(17) Harter, I.; Agoero, R. Device for distributing a polyphase
mixture on a granular solid bed comprising a porous antisplash nozzle

■
element with flanges. U.S. Patent 2005/0062178, 2005.
(18) Haldor Topsoe. Reactor internalsoptimizing catalyst perform-
AUTHOR INFORMATION ance; 2000.
Corresponding Author (19) Gamborg, M. M.; Jensen, B. N. Two-phase downflow liquid
distribution device. U.S. Patent 5,942,162, 1999.
*E-mail: frederic.bazer-bachi@ifpen.fr.
(20) Koudil, A.; Boyer, C.; Bentolila, Y. Measuring of liquid and gas
Notes flow distribution in a fixed bed reactor using a gamma-ray tomographic
The authors declare no competing financial interest. system. Proceedings of the Third World Congress on Industrial Process

■
Tomography; Virtual Centre for Industrial Process Tomography:
Glossop, U.K., 2003.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (21) Boyer, C.; Volpi, C.; Ferschneider, G. Hydrodynamics of trickle
This work was financially supported by IFP Énergies Nouvelles, bed reactors at high pressure: two-phase flow model for pressure drop
to whom the authors wish to express their gratitude. and liquid holdup, formulation and experimental validation. Chem.

■
Eng. Sci. 2007, 62, 7026.
(22) Varga, Z.; Hancsok, J.; Nagy, G.; Polczmann, G.; Kallo, D.
REFERENCES Upgrading of gas oils: the HDS kinetics of dibenzothiophene and its
(1) McManus, R. L.; Funk, G. A.; Harold, M. P.; Ng, K. M. derivatives in real gas oil. Top. Catal. 2007, 45, 203.
Experimental study of reaction in trickle-bed reactors with liquid (23) Murali, C.; Voolapalli, R. K.; Ravichander, N.; Gokak, D. T.;
maldistribution. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1993, 32, 570. Choudary, N. V. Trickle bed reactor model to simulate the
(2) Lopes, R. J. G.; Quinta-Ferreira, R. M. Evaluation of multiphase performance of commercial diesel hydrotreating unit. Fuel 2007, 86,
CFD models in gas−liquid packed-bed reactors for water pollution 1176.
abatement. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2010, 65, 291.
(3) Lysova, A. A.; von Garnier, A.; Hardy, E. H.; Remiert, R.;
Koptyug, I. V. The influence of an exothermic reaction on the spatial
distribution of the liquid phase in a trickle-bed reactor: direct evidence
provided by NMR imaging. Chem. Eng. J. 2011, 173, 552.
(4) Moller, L. B.; Halken, C.; Hansen, J. A.; Bartholdy, J. Liquid and
gas distribution in trickle-bed reactors. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1996, 35,
926.
(5) Ouwerkerk, C. E. D.; Bratland, E. S.; Hagan, A. P.; Kikkert, B. L.
J. P.; Zonnevylle, M. C. Performance optimization of fixed bed
processes. Pet. Technol. Q. 1999, 2, 21.
(6) Tsochatzidis, N. A.; Karabelas, A. J.; Giakoumakis, D.; Huff, G. A.
An investigation of liquid maldistribution in trickle beds. Chem. Eng.
Sci. 2002, 57, 3543.
(7) Boyer, C.; Koudil, A.; Chen, P.; Dudukovic, M. P. Study of liquid
spreading from a point source in a trickle bed via gamma-ray
tomography and CFD simulation. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2005, 60, 6279.
(8) Alvarez, A.; Ramirez, S.; Ancheyta, J.; Rodriguez, L. M. Key role
of reactor internals in hydroprocessing of oil fractions. Energy Fuels
1987, 21, 1731.
(9) Maiti, R. N.; Nigam, K. D. P. Gas-liquid distributors for trickle
bed reactors: a review. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2007, 46, 6164.
(10) Patel, R. H.; Bingham, E.; Christensen, P.; Müller, M.
Hydroprocessing reactor and process design to optimize catalyst
performance. Presented at The First Indian Refining Roundtable,
1998.
(11) Llamas, J. D.; Perat, C.; Lesage, F.; Weber, M.; D’Ortona, U.;
Wild, G. Wire mesh tomography applied to trickle beds. A new way to
study liquid maldistribution. Chem. Eng. Process. 2008, 47, 1765.
(12) Bieberle, A.; Schubert, M.; Da Silva, M. J.; Hampel, U.
Measurement of liquid distributions in particle packings using wire-
mesh sensor versus transmission tomographic imaging. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 2010, 49, 9445.
(13) Matusiak, B.; Da Silva, M. J.; Hampel, U.; Romanowski, A.
Measurement of dynamic liquid distributions in a fixed bed using
electrical capacitance tomography and capacitance wire-mesh sensor.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2010, 49, 2070.

11197 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie400504p | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 11189−11197