Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • HsiehMcNulty SieveValveWeeping

    Uploaded by

    mcruzuni
    25 views7 pages

    Original Title

    HsiehMcNulty_SieveValveWeeping

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    25 views7 pages

    HsiehMcNulty SieveValveWeeping

    Uploaded by

    mcruzuni

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 7
    Dea i rin yt Pte Tt eps breed © cat wl er month Sioa gs 08 Predict Weeping of Sieve and Valve Trays ,. REACTIONS AND SEPARATIONS Weeping can significantly affect tray performance. Anew correlation can be applied to estimate the weeping rate, as well as the weep point of a sieve tray. CChangliisioh and Kenneth JyMetlty Bor inpsota spe @Wibrn Te @®Mn @& US trayed tower isa vertical coun- fercurrent flow channel designed to achieve a certain process performance under some given operating constrains. The per- formance requirement is usually expressed as a mass- or heat-transfer duty or separa- tion specification, while the commonly encountered operating constraints include pressure-drop limitation, capacity, and tumndown-ratio requirements. Proper tray design ensures that these requirements and constraints are satisfied by selecting the ‘most suitable tray type and by optimizing an array of interrelated dimensional para- ‘meters that defines the tray decks, down- ccomers, outlet weirs, and tray spacings. ‘The design challenges involved provide the stimulus for research and development on various aspects of trayed-tower hhydraulic and efficiency phenomena, ‘One phenomenon that can have a sig- nificant impact on both the hydraulic and efficiency performance of a tray is weep- ing. Hydraulicaly, weeping can affect the liquid holdup on the tray deck and can influence the tray pressure drop and other wet-tray hydraulic characteristics. Weeping also represents a departure from the ideal plug flow of liquid across a tray (for which the theoretical maximum effi- ciency is achieved), In an effort t0 establish more reliable methods to predict the weeping phenome- na of sieve trays and valve trays, we con- ducted a research program to collect addi- tional weeping data, as well as to develop a new weeping model, Ithas provided useful results, which we. summarize inthis article, Theoretical background. In the open literature (J,2.3), 8 con- sensus has been reached that weeping is controlled by the two key parameters: 1. gas F-factor or gas pressure drop across the tray, hy and 2 the clear liq height on the tay, However, information on valve-tray ‘weeping performance was found to be lacking. Furthermore, published models only allow the prediction of the weep point — that is, the conditions for which weeping starts to occur — but not of the amount of weeping when a tray is operated within the weeping region. In our model development, the fun- damental two-phase countercurrent flow limitation (CCFL) theories for vertical channels, are used. The basic correlation for CCFL. in vertical tubes as used by Wallis (4) is: _ Po Jon “deze al _ =v Ser emG=c @ For a straight vertical pipe, Wallis showed that the characteristic length Z is simply equal to the pipe diameter. For complex vertical flow channel — for instance, a packed bed or an annulus — the hydraulic diameter of the flow channel should be used. For flow channels with a large characteristic length, such as a 24-in. diameter empty pipe, the Kutateladze model (5) assumes that the CCFL phenomenon should no longer be affected by any channel dimensions, and the character- istic length, Z, in Eqs. 1 and 2 should CHEMICAL ENGNEERING PROGRESS + JULY 180 « 71 REACTIONS AND SEPARATIONS be replaced by the Laplace capillary constant: (918 (p,- Pal (4) While the Kutateladze correlation would be pre~ ferred for defining a “system limit" — for example, the capacity of an empty tower or the maximum capacity that a tray tower can achieve by increasing the tray spac- ing, the Wallis correlation is preferred for defining the limits of countercurent flow through trays and packed beds where the channel dimensions have a major influence ‘The Wallis CCFL correla tion has been successfully applied to the flooding phe- nomena of both random and structured packing (6) and to weeping from perforated plates (3,7). Although most of the perforated-plate CCFL studies were conducted using small-scale plate geometries, the success in using this correlation suggests that it also should be appli~ able to the correlation of weeping data taken with large-scale sieve trays and valve trays. Experimental work ‘The weeping tests were conducted with the ait-water system in a 3-ft- dia, stainless steel tower. General information on this tower has been given by Hsieh (6) and McNulty (6). In this test configuration, the tower contains three identical trays equally spaced at 24 in, During a weeping test, liquid overflow leaving the bot- {om tray is retumed to the liquid feed tank via a sealed-bottom downcomer, while the weepage is collected on the chimney tray and measured in a ‘weepage collection tank, Fasesan (2) showed that the weeping rate mea- sured with tis technique is compara- ble to that measured with dye-injec~ tion tracing, Dene eeecoe ee For each tray configuration, weeping data were collected at five liquid flow rates: 10, 20, 40, 100, and 200 gal/min. For each, the weeping rates of the bottom tray were measured at various air flow rates, ranging from the weep point to near the dump point. Most Of the tests were conducted using an increasing gas flow rate proce- dure — that i, the gas flow rate was started at a low setting and ‘was stepped up gradually to the weep point. Certain tests also were conducted using a decreasing gas flow rate approach. Contrary to the observation of Lemieux (10), no differences were discerned in the data measured with these (wo procedures, Four sets of trays were tested: @ 7.0% open-area sieve tray, a 9.4% open-area sieve tray, a 20% maxi- ‘mum open-area Type-T valve tray , and an 18% maximum open-area ‘Type-A valve tray. Other tray para- meters are summarized in Table 1 ‘72 + lv ton + cHEncaL eNoNEERING pRocRESS Our sieve-tray weeping data, along with the data of Lockett (1) (for %-in, hole diameter, 10.2%, 15%, and 20% open area, 1~3-in. weir heights), Fasesan (9) (for ¥e- in. hole diameter, 14.2% open area, in. weir height), and Thomas (17) (for L-in. hole diameter, 12.4% ‘open area, 3.in. weir height) const tute the database for the sieve-tray weeping correlation, An additional proprietary hydrocarbon databank ‘with more than 500 data also was utilized in the subsequent model- validation efforts. For valve trays, the current data and that of Fasesan () (for a Type-T valve tray, 12 valves/f@, 2-in, weir height) were ‘used in the correlation Data analysis ‘The CCFL model defined in Bq, 3 was selected to analyze the weeping data. The flow rate pera- meters used in Eq. 3 are the super- ficial hole gas velocity, Voy, and the superficial hole liquid weeping velocity, Vp both based on the total ‘open area, Ay, of a tray. These are the same parameters adopted by Lockett (2) and Zenz (12). Because the value of Ay for a sieve tray is clearly defined, while that for a valve tray is subject to the percent opening of the valves (and therefore subject to the pact ofthe gas flow rate), the sieve tray weeping data were analyzed first. The objectives of this analysis were to verify the validity of Eq 3 in correlating the sieve-tray weeping data, to determine the empirical m and C values in Eq. 3, and to develop ‘a model forthe characteristic length Zo be used in the CCFL equation. ‘This cortelation was then modi- fied for application to valve trays, including the development of a model for calculating A, and one for Z, ieve-tray weeping performance. One fundamental assumption of the CCFL model is the linear rela- tionship implied in Fq 3 between the square 10085 ofthe gas andthe liquid flow rate parameters. To verity this assumption, the sieves data were piloted using the square roots of C, and C, (Eqs. 9-7), where the effect of the Characteristic length Z is tem porary ignored Ge velotaal © CytmC?=c om Using this “linear square root” rela- tionship, the 9.4% sieve tray data taken at I-in, and 2-in, outlet weir lhcights are shown in Figures f and 2, respectively. As demonstrated by these data, the weeping performance of sieve trays docs follow the linear square root relationship suggested by the Wallis CCFL model. The effect Of liquid flow rate on the weeping rate is also clearly demonstrated in the figures. An increase in the liquid flow rate causes the clear liquid height on the tray to increase and results ina higher rate of weeping, Figure 3 shows the effect of outlet weir height. Data for the 9.4% sieve tray operated at 20 gal/min/ft are shown for thece outlet weir heights, As the clear liquid height is increased by a higher outlet weir, the weeping rate also increases. Therefore, the clear liquid height, hg, should be incoxporated into the calculation of the characteristic length, Z ‘Two other parameters — surface tension, 6, and hole diameter, Djp were also considered in developing the current model. Based on the data cof Lockett (1), Kreis (5), and the pro- prietary weeping data obtained for hydrocarbon systems, no effect of sur- {ave tension can be discemed for trays with hole diameters larger than Yin. In the open literature, the opin- ions concerning the effect of hole diameter on weeping at a constant hole velocity are inconsistent Based on proprietary data and the data of the 9.4% sieve tray, we con- cluded that for sieve trays of indus- tial interest with a hole diameter of Yé-in, of larger an increase in hole diameter at constant hole velocity will tend to decrease the weeping rate. As a result, the effects of clear liquid height and hole diameter were combined to form an equation for the catcula- tion of characteristic length Z: Z=heDye ® ‘To calculate the clear liquid height, ‘hg. both Colwell’s model (14) and Garay's model (25) were evaluated, Colwell’ model was selected for Eg, 8. Applying Eq. 8, the weeping data taken with the 9.4% open-area sieve tray are ploted in Figure 4 using the dimensionless parameters J,” and J," (Eqs. | and 2), As shown, @ reason ably good correlation is obtained for all the data taken at three weir heights (1 in, 2 i,, and 4 in.) over a 20-fold variation in the liquid load- ing (that is, 5-100 gal/mievft weit), Based on this set of data, the regres sion values of m and C for Eq 3 are: m= 201 c=074 Using Eq. 3, the weep point can be determined by U)=C ° ‘The data for the 7.0% open-atea sieve tray are ploted using the same parameters J” and J,” in Figure 5 ‘As shown, this data set also can be correlated by the same CCFL model ‘The values of m and C are: 3.61 14 This correlation indicates thatthe ‘weep point relationship defined by we Stelter [J+ sont i anemia + Sauna 100 oan weir ¥ logan wee © wali ir Figure I. (Above) Weeping data Jor 9.15eapen-area slove ray with Fin weir height WM Figure 2. (Right) Weeping data for 2.ASeopen-area sieve tray with 2 in. weir height. acd 025 CHEMICAL ENGEIEERNIG PROGRESS © JWLY 882 © 73 REACTIONS AND SEPARATIONS Lui Rate «20 gaint ie a fied oer] oat fo Werte ‘i 2 [eaectoon S oa = Aaittoaies ia epee = 7 ae i os soe (oye © W Figure 5. (Above) Effect of outlet eight om weeping. Figure 4 (Right) Weeping data for 9.4%-open-area sieve tray. Eq. 9 is relatively independent of cluded that the vales of m = 2.01 the variation in the percent open and C = 0.74 should be applicable area. The weeping rate, as reflected to trays with a 9% or larger open in the value of m, however, should area. For trays with smaller open be correlated as a function of the areas, the weeping rate prediction percentage open area based on these equations will be ‘The data of Lockett (1) and higher than the actual weeping Fasesan (9) also were correlated by rate, and the m value of 3.61 the same model and yield m and C shout be used. values comparable to the corre. In conclusion, based on the sponding values of the 9.4% sieve weeping data taken with large-scale tray. The weep point data of sieve tays, a new weeping cortela- ‘Thomas (17) for a 12.4% open-area tion in the form of Eq. 3 has been sieve tray with L-in. dia, holes also developed. This correlation is theo- is in good agreement with that pre- _retically consistent with the CCFL dicted by the correlation (Eq. 3, model for vertical channels and can using m= 2.01 and C= 0.74). be applied to estimate the weeping Because of the agreement rate, as well as the weep point of a among the above data sets, we con- sieve tray performance Fasesan (9) has shown that the weeping rate of a 14.3% maximum ‘open area Type-T valve tray is nearly ‘an order of magnitude less than a corresponding sieve tray with the same percent open area. This low ‘weeping characteristic of the Type-T valve tray can be attributed to the throttling mechanism of the valves, which automatically reduces the available tray open area at low gas flow rates, ‘The low weep ratio of the valve trays is demonstrated in Figures 6 and 7, where the weeping data of the 20% Type-T valve tray and the 9.4% Weeping Rate, gaint af Ay ry Bas Volos, of Ay Figure 6. Valve ray has a lower weep rate than a seve Figure 5. Weeping daa for 7.0%open-area seve tay. tray at aliquid flow rate of 10 galimin(ft of weir NOTE: KisTER TA + suri + coe WcALENGREERNG PROGRESS bi KEMRTS C2019 RATHER THAN To A b.P5f Dib FERENCE © Type-Fuate ay [| 7] © e4%sievetay Weeping Rat, galimint? of Arg ae) ee o Bas Velo At Ay Figure 7. Valve tray also gives a Tower weep rate at aliquid‘ Figure 8. Weeping rate of Type-T valve tray vs. sieve tray. low rate of $0 galiminf of wei. sieve tray ate compared at liquid flow rate. The weeping rate will Type-T valve tay, the “hole” velocities flow rates of 10 and 50 gal/min/ft increase drastically once the gas flow are calculated based on the maximam weit, respectively. To facilitate the rate is reduced below the weep point. valve open area, Ajay, where comparison, both the gas flow rate At 10 and 50 gal/min/ft weir, the 7 and the weeping rate are presented measured maximum weeping rates w= CF Py Haup Ry) 144 (10) based on the total bubbling area. As are 46% and 33% of the liquid feed As shown, compared to a sieve shown in these two figures the Type- rates, respectively. Because of this tay on the basis of the same C, val- T valve tray, by the closing of the characteristic of low weeping, Type- ues, the ‘Type-T valve tray has a sub- valves at low gas flow rates, is able T and Type-A trays can be designed stantially lower weeping rate, as well to maintain a low weeping rate with- with a high density of valves (that is, asa lower weeping point C, valve. in its entire weeping region. At 10 the number of valves per unit tray ‘In Figure 9, the weeping rates of sgal/min/ft weir, the maximum weep- deck area) to achieve a high capacity the 18% maximum open area Type-A. ing rate is 11% of the total liquid while still maintaining good efficien- valve tray, taken at aliquid flow rate feed rate; while the rate reduces to cy performance over a wide turn- of 50 gal/min/f, are compared with only 5.7% of the liquid feed rate at down ratio, the corresponding data for a Type-T 50 gal/min/ft weir. Consequently, the ‘In Figure 8, the same data as pre- tray and a sieve tay. The weeping rate impact of weeping on the efficiency sented in Figures 6 and 7 are plotted of the Type-A tray is higher than that ‘ofa Type-T valve tray can be kept at using the C, and C, parameters of the Type-T tray, but sil is substan- 4 minimum On the other hand, the defined in Eqs. 5 and 6: For sieve-ray tially lower than that of the seve tay. weeping rate of the 9.4% sieve tray data, the actual hole velocities are used To correlate the weeping data for is strongly influenced by the gas in the C, and C, parameters. For the Type-T and Type-A valve trays 0160 = Sev, =50 glint 1 90", =50 gaint “ype = 10gatiintt + Type 0, =50 gat [3 ons Sms aes ; " % (utes 1 Figure 9. Weeping performance comparison Figure 10. Weeping correlation Jor Type valve tay, ——~ Vs + 3.9VP: ovo, CHEMICAL ENGINEERING PROGRESS © JULY 162) + 75 REACTIONS AND 5. ET Nomenclature Ay “ett hole ae, pen en a ay = arimam vive open ara, empires! contin in CCR. ctelton| CG, liquid phase towing tetor deinet Ing. 6, 05 = se pte loading Fctordtioed in Ba, 5,08 le dare equslet hate damete i salve diameter ia ale ay Pato defo ia Fa, 1, imalalve ave ray act at the begining fle ve openreion,unhale revatio constant, Us ee ig eight i, ry tay peta di, ciara Rito vale in vale itt he dsance etn the bottom ofa vale and the tp ofthe ray deck, mensionles go velocity imersonies weeping iid vec pits! cost in CCFL ‘onlaon += vale deny umber of valve? olmotie gs low ete oa vale, ‘innate actions opening in he isumferene of valve perfil gs veloc in canna (oat tater, is pase supe ble velocity, a ts peti veloty io chanel (ot over) fs liquid phase upertiial ale elo, Laplace cope onstint haters nin CCFL ode Pe pasdensiy, hm PL = li deny, ee © slice tens using the CCFL model, equations to calculate the percent valve opening ata given gas flow rate are required to determine the superficial gas velocity and the superficial weeping liquid velocity through the valves. Based on the weeping and pressure 76 » ouwy 92a « chevercaLenaiveenNG PROGRESS drop data taken for these trays, the percent opening of the valves can be calculated as: Hop = Hyp il Fy2 Fay (valve open region) (11) Hyp = (FI Eg)? Hegnit Py

    You might also like