Fractionation & Absorbtion M19
Fractionation & Absorbtion M19
Fractionation & Absorbtion M19
19-1
FIG. 19-1 (Cont’d)
Nomenclature
Yn + 1 = moles of any component in the entering rich gas B = bottoms
per mole of rich gas BP = bubble point feed stream
Yo = moles of any component in the gas in equilibrium bottom = bottom of the column
with the entering lean oil, per mole of rich gas calc = calculated value
Z = static head, m corr = corrected value
Greek D = distillate (overhead)
α = relative volatility F = feed
βij = volatility factor defined in Eq 19-5 G = gas
θ = correlating parameter in Eq 19-7, 19-8 HK = heavy key
σ = surface tension, dyne/cm i = any component
ρ = density, kg/m3 L = liquid
ε = efficiency LK = light key
µ = viscosity, Pa • s m = minimum
Subscripts n = tray number
avg = average value top = top of the column
Virtually all gas processing plants producing natural gas The liquid phase will be heated which results in some vapori-
liquids require at least one fractionator to produce a liquid zation of the lighter components. Thus, the heavier compo-
product which will meet sales specifications. The schematic of nents are concentrated in the liquid phase and eventually
an example fractionator in Fig. 19-2 shows the various com- become the bottom product. The vapor phase is continually
ponents of the system. Heat is introduced to the reboiler to enriched in the light components which will make up the over-
produce stripping vapors. The vapor rises through the column head product.
contacting the descending liquid. The vapor leaving the top of
The vapor leaving the top of the column may be totally or
the column enters the condenser where heat is removed by
partially condensed. In a total condenser, all vapor entering
some type of cooling medium. Liquid is returned to the column
the condenser is condensed to liquid and the reflux returned
as reflux to limit the loss of heavy components overhead.
to the column has the same composition as the distillate or
overhead product. In a partial condenser, only a portion of the
Internals such as trays or packing promote the contact be-
vapor entering the condenser is condensed to liquid. In most
tween the liquid and vapor streams in the column. Intimate
partial condensers only sufficient liquid will be condensed to
contact of the vapor and liquid phases is required for efficient
serve as reflux for the tower. In some cases, however, more
separation. Vapor entering a separation stage will be cooled
liquid will be condensed than is required for reflux and there
which results in some condensation of heavier components.
will actually be two overhead products, one a liquid having the
FIG. 19-2 same composition as the reflux and the other a vapor product
which is in equilibrium with the liquid reflux.
Fractionation Schematic Diagram
Equilibrium Stage Concept
Condenser
All calculations are performed using theoretical (equilib-
Cooling medium rium) stages. A fractionation column may be considered as a
Vapor series of equilibrium flashes with two feeds and two product
streams (Fig. 19-3). The vapor enters the flash from the stage
below at a higher temperature and the liquid stream enters
Reflux drum
Reflux from the stage above at a lower temperature. Heat and mass
transfer occur in this stage such that the exiting streams are
a bubble point liquid and dew point vapor at the same tem-
Overhead
Rectifying product perature and pressure. The compositions of these phases are
section related by the equilibrium relationship of yi = Kixi (See Sec-
Internals of various
kinds promote transfer tion 25). This relationship, along with heat and material bal-
between countercurrent
liquid and vapor ance considerations, is the basis for all fractionator design.
Feed
Types of Fractionators
Stripping The number and type of fractionators required depend on
section
the number of products to be made and the feed composition.
Reboiler
Typical NGL products from a fractionation process include:
Vapor • Demethanized Product (C2+)
Steam or other
heat source • Deethanized Product (C3+)
• Ethane/Propane mixtures (EP)
• Commercial Propane
Bottom
product
• Propane/Butane mixture (LPG)
• Butane(s)
19-2
FIG. 19-3 • Butane/Gasoline mixtures
Basic Fractionation Model • Natural Gasoline
• Mixtures with a vapor pressure specification
Overhead Product See Section 1 for definitions and Section 2 for product specifi-
Heat cations.
Removed
An example fractionation train used to produce three prod-
ucts is illustrated in Fig. 19-4. The feed stream contains too
much ethane to be included in the products; thus, the first
column is a deethanizer. The overhead stream is recycled to
Equilibrium Stage
the upstream processing plant or sent to a fuel system. The
Equilibrium Liquid from bottom product from this column could be marketed as a
Liquid Vapor Stage Above
Feed deethanized product. The second column, a depropanizer, pro-
duces a specification propane product overhead. The bottom
product, a butane-gasoline mixture, is often sold to a pipeline
without further processing. The third column, a debutanizer,
Vapor from Equilibrium
separates the butane and gasoline products. This separation
Stage Below Liquid is controlled to limit the vapor pressure of the gasoline. The
overhead butane product can be sold as a mixture or an addi-
tional column can be used to separate the iso-butane and nor-
Heat mal-butane.
Input Bottom
Product
Another class of fractionators uses no external reflux con-
denser to produce liquid for contact with the fractionator va-
por. One such tower is a demethanizer as is found in cryogenic
FIG. 19-4
Fractionation Train
Moles/hr
◊1
◊ 2
◊3
◊
4
◊
5
◊
6
◊
7
C1 1.5 1.5
C2 24.6 22.2 2.4 2.4
C3 170.3 7.5 162.8 161.9 0.9 0.9
iC4 31.0 31.0 0.9 30.1 30.1
nC4 76.7 76.7 76.7 72.1 4.6
C5+ 76.5 76.5 76.5 0.9 75.6
Total 380.6 31.2 349.4 165.2 184.2 104.0 80.2
m3/day 156.48 117.95 110.87
19-3
plants (Fig. 19-5). The top feed being 12 mol % liquid at low tions are used indirectly. For instance if vapor pressure is a
temperature provides the reflux. This liquid along with the desired specification of a product, a material balance is per-
other feeds provides the liquid loading for this tower. The re- formed with an assumed component split. The calculated va-
boiler is the control point for the bottom product purity. The por pressure of the resulting stream is then compared with the
overhead composition is a function of the upstream process desired value and the material balance redone until reason-
units. able agreement is reached.
In a multicomponent mixture, there are typically two com-
FIG. 19-5 ponents which are the "keys" to the separation. The light key
component is defined as the lightest component in the bottom
Demethanizer Example product in a significant amount. The heavy key component is
the heaviest component in the overhead product in a signifi-
cant amount. Normally, these two components are adjacent to
each other in the volatility listing of the components. For hand
calculations, it is normally assumed for material balance pur-
poses that all components lighter than the light key are pro-
duced overhead and all components heavier than the heavy
key are produced with the bottom product. By definition, the
key components will be distributed between the product
streams.
Example 19-1 — For the given feed stream, estimate the prod-
uct stream compositions for 98% propane recovered in the
overhead product with a maximum iso-butane content of the
overhead stream of 1%.
Feed: C2 2.4
C3 162.8
iC4 31.0
nC4 76.7
C5 76.5
349.4 moles
Solution Steps
For Propane (light key):
Moles in overhead = (0.98) 162.8 = 159.5
Moles in bottoms = 162.8 – 159.5 = 3.3
For Ethane:
Moles in overhead = 2.4 (100% to overhead)
Applications also exist for a fractionator with a top liquid Since the isobutane (the heavy key) is 1% of the overhead
feed. These are commonly used for crude stabilizers or stream, the sum of propane and ethane must be 99% (all n-C4
deethanizers. As with the demethanizer, this column produces and C5+ are in the bottoms). Thus:
a specification bottom product and an overhead stream whose
composition is determined by upstream process units. This is 159.5 + 2.4 161.9
Total Overhead Moles = = = 163.5
an economical approach to producing a single product but is 0.99 0.99
limited in separation efficiency. Better recovery or sharper
separation can be achieved by adding a reflux condenser and Moles of iC4 = 163.5 – 161.9 = 1.6
rectifying section. The overall balance is:
Product Specifications Feed Overhead Bottoms
Comp. Moles Moles Mole % Moles Mole %
A material balance around the column is the first step in
fractionation calculations. In order to perform this balance, C2 2.4 2.4 1.5 —
assumption of the product stream compositions must be made. C3 162.8 159.5 97.5 3.3 1.8
There are three ways of specifying a desired product from a
fractionator: iC4 31.0 1.6 1.0 29.4 15.8
• A percentage recovery of a component in the overhead or nC4 76.7 — — 76.7 41.2
bottom stream. C5 76.5 — — 76.5 41.2
• A composition of one component in either product. Total 349.4 163.5 100.0 185.9 100.0
• A specific physical property, such as vapor pressure, for In actual operation, the lighter than light key components
either product. and heavier than heavy key components will not be perfectly
The recovery and composition specifications can be used di- separated. For estimation purposes and hand calculations,
rectly in the material balance. However, property specifica- perfect non-key separation is a useful simplifying assumption.
19-4
Key Parameters perature of the bottom product may be exceeded and the de-
sired separation cannot be achieved. Additionally, the pres-
Two important considerations which affect the size and cost sure cannot exceed the critical pressure of the desired
of a fractionation column are degree of separation and compo- overhead product.
nent volatility.
The selection of a partial or total condenser is fixed by the
The degree of separation or product purity has a direct im- disposition of the overhead product. A total condenser is used
pact on the size of the column and the required utilities. for a liquid product and a partial condenser for a vapor prod-
Higher purity will require more trays, more reflux, larger di- uct. However, a liquid product can be produced as a vapor and
ameter, and/or a reduced product quantity. One quantitative subsequently cooled and/or compressed to produce a liquid
measure of the difficulty of a separation is the separation fac- product. There may be cases where this downstream liquefac-
tor, SF, defined as: tion is economically attractive. In most cases, the fractionation
XD XB system for a partial condenser will be cheaper and will have
SF = Eq 19-1 to be balanced against the cost of additional downstream
XB LK XD HK equipment. Before a reliable economic comparison can be
Note that Eq 19-1 defines the specification for the tower made, the column design must be made for each type con-
design. denser for a number of reflux ratios and operating pressures.
Typically, for most fractionation problems this factor ranges Reflux Ratio and Number of Stages
from around 500 to 2000. However, for sharp separations, it
can be in the 10,000 range. The number of trays will be roughly The design of a fractionation column is a capital cost versus
proportional to the log of the separation factor for a given sys- energy cost trade-off problem. The primary parameters are
tem. the number of stages and the reflux ratio. Reflux ratio may be
defined in several ways. For most calculations, reflux ratio is
The volatility of the components is usually expressed as defined as the ratio of the molar rate of reflux liquid divided
relative volatility, α. This quantity is computed as the ratio of by the molar rate of net overhead product. The reboiler duty
the equilibrium K-values of two components at a given tem- is a direct function of the reflux ratio as the fractionating col-
perature and pressure. For fractionation calculations the α of umn must maintain an overall heat and material balance for
the key components is important. Therefore: a given separation.
α = KLK/KHK Eq 19-2 A fractionation column can only produce a desired separa-
This is a measure of the ease of separation. The larger α is, tion between the limits of minimum reflux and minimum
the easier is the separation. stages. Fig. 19-6 illustrates the relationship between reflux
ratio and number of stages for a given separation. At minimum
reflux an infinite number of stages is required. At total reflux
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS a minimum number of stages is required. Neither of these situ-
ations represents actual operation but are the extreme limits
Operating Pressure
FIG. 19-6
Before any design calculations can be made on a fractiona-
tion problem, a tower operating pressure must be determined. Relationship Between Reflux Ratio and Number of Stages
One of the primary considerations for operating pressure is
the cooling medium available for the reflux condenser. The
overhead product will be at bubble point conditions for a liquid
product or at dew point conditions for a vapor product. The
bubble point (or dew point) pressure is fixed by a desired com-
ponent separation and the temperature of the cooling medium.
∞ Stages
The cooling media typically used are air, water, and refrig-
erant. Air cooling is normally the least expensive cooling
method. Practical exchanger design limits the process to a
Number of Stages
In some cases, the overhead from the column must be com- Total Reflux
pressed to sales or another process unit. In this case a higher
operating pressure may be desired to reduce compression Reflux Ratio
horsepower. Minimum
Reflux
Other items must be considered which will limit pressure
selection. If an operating pressure is too high, the critical tem-
19-5
of possible design configurations. Methods have been devel- Fig. 19-7 can be used to determine an operating reflux for a
oped to calculate both these cases in a rigorous manner.1, 2 given number of stages by entering the figure at the value of
However, these methods require a computer solution of tray- Sm/S, moving up to the line representing the value of
by-tray calculations. In order to begin a detailed design, esti- Rm/(Rm + 1) and reading a value of R/(R + 1). The optimum
mates of minimum reflux ratio and minimum trays should be operating reflux ratio has been found to be near the minimum
generated from simple methods using a binary key component reflux ratio. Values of 1.2 to 1.3 times the minimum are com-
analysis. mon.7 Thus for a given R, a value of S can be determined from
Fig. 19-7.
Minimum Stages
This correlation is generated on the basis of bubble point
The minimum stages can be calculated for most multicom-
feed. If the feed is between the bubble point and dew point
ponent systems by the Fenske equation.3
then the operating reflux should be corrected. Erbar and Mad-
lo g SF dox6 proposed the following relationship to adjust the vapor
Sm = Eq 19-3
log (αavg) rate from the top tray for non-bubble point feed:
D
Sm in this equation includes a partial reboiler and a partial 1 − F [F(HVF − HBP)]
condenser if these items are used.
Vcorr = Vcalc + Eq 19-9
The αavg is the column average relative volatility of the key
components in the separation. Various averaging techniques QC
L
have been proposed such as square root averaging of the α at o calc
the top and bottom of the column. The most common approach
is to use an arithmetic average: The reflux rate can then be adjusted by material balance
since:
αtop + αbottom
αavg = Eq 19-4 Lo = V1 − D Eq 19-10
2
If volatility varies widely, the approach of Winn4 is suggested, Computation Method
in which a modified volatility is used: In order to determine the design parameters for a fractiona-
tion problem, the following method is recommended:
βij = K LK / K H
b
K Eq 19-5
1. Establish feed composition, flow rate, temperature, and
where the exponent b is obtained from K-value plots over the pressure.
range of interest.
2. Make product splits for the column and establish con-
The minimum stage calculation is: denser temperature and column pressure. From column
pressure, calculate the reboiler temperature.
b 1−b
XD XB B 3. Calculate minimum number of theoretical stages from
log
X X D the Fenske equation (Eq 19-3).
B LK D HK
Sm = Eq 19-6 4. Calculate minimum reflux rate from the Underwood
log βij equations (Eq 19-7 and 19-8).
Note that Sm includes the partial condenser and partial re- 5. Obtain theoretical stages/operating reflux relation from
boiler if they exist. Fig. 19-7.
Minimum Reflux Ratio 6. Adjust actual reflux for feed vaporization if necessary
The Underwood method5 is the most widely used of the (Eq 19-9, 19-10).
methods for calculating minimum reflux ratio. Underwood as- Example 19-2 — For the given feed stream, 1102 m3/day (bub-
sumed constant relative volatility and constant molal overflow ble point feed).
in the development of this method. The first step is to evaluate
θ by trial and error: Desire: 98% C3 in the overhead (relative to the feed)
n
1% iC4 in the overhead
XFi
1−q = ∑ (αi − θ)/αi
Eq 19-7 Air cooling (49°C Condensing Temperature)
i=1 Feed
Once θ is determined, the minimum reflux ratio is: Composition Mol % Moles/hr
n
C2 2.07 21.5
X
(Lo/D)m + 1 = Rm + 1 = ∑ (αi − Diθ)/αi Eq 19-8 C3 48.67 505.6
i=1 iC4 10.11 105.0
nC4 24.08 250.1
Number of Stages
iC5 5.41 56.2
The number of theoretical stages required for a given sepa-
ration at a reflux ratio between minimum and total reflux can nC5 4.81 50.0
be determined from empirical relationships. Erbar and Mad- C6 4.85 50.4
dox6 made an extensive investigation of tray-by-tray frac- 100.00 1038.8
tionator calculations and developed the correlation in
Fig. 19-7. This correlation relates the ratio of minimum stages
to theoretical stages to the minimum reflux ratio, Rm, and the
operating reflux ratio, R (where R = Lo/D).
19-6
FIG. 19-7
Erbar-Maddox Correlation of Stages vs Reflux6
Find the: Get tower pressure at 49°C (bubble point calculation). Using
• Minimum trays required K-values from Section 25:
• Minimum reflux ratio K α
• Actual trays at 1.3 times the minimum reflux ratio C2 2.80
Solution Steps C3 0.93 2.067
iC4 0.45 bubble point pressure = 1930 kPa
Estimate Product Splits from Material Balance:
Estimate the bottom temperature using K-values at
Overhead Bottoms 280 psia (bubble point calculation) assuming negligible pres-
Moles Mol % Moles Mol % sure drop:
C2 21.5 4.1 — — K α
C3 495.4 94.9 10.2 2.0 C3 2.30 1.643
iC4 5.2 1.0 99.8 19.3 iC4 1.40 bubble point temperature = 121°C
nC4 — — 250.1 48.4 nC4 1.15
iC5 — — 56.2 10.9 iC5 0.68
nC5 — — 50.0 9.7 nC5 0.62
C6 — — 50.4 9.7 C6 0.15
Totals 522.1 100 516.7 100 αavg = 1.855
19-7
Determine the minimum number of trays (Eq 19-3): TRAYED COLUMNS
94.9 19.3
SF = = 915.8 Internals
2.0 1.0
Various types of trays are used in fractionation columns.
log (915.8) Fig. 19-8 presents an isometric sketch of the top two trays in
Sm = = 11 trays a fractionation column with bubble caps. The bubble caps,
log (1.855)
along with the weirs and downcomers, maintain a liquid level
Correct for change in relative volatility by using Eq 19-6: on the trays. The liquid flows across the tray, into the down-
comer, and across the next tray in the opposite direction. The
KLK = 0.93 = βij (0.45)b (condenser) vapor flows up through the caps and through the slots mixing
with the liquid.
KLK = 2.30 = βij (1.4)b (reboiler) Fig. 19-9 shows the vapor flow through bubble cap trays,
sieve trays, and valve trays. Due to the riser in the bubble cap,
dividing gives 2.473 = (3.111)b it is the only tray which can be designed to prevent liquid from
"weeping" through the vapor passage. Sieve or valve trays con-
b = 0.798; βij = 1.759 trol weeping by vapor velocity. The bubble cap tray has the
0.798 1 − 0.798
highest turndown ratio, with designs of 8:1 to 10:1 ratio being
495.4 99.8 516.7 common. Bubble cap trays are almost always used in glycol
log 522.1 dehydration columns.
10.2 5.2
Sm = Valve and sieve trays are popular due to the lower cost and
log (1.759) increased capacity over bubble cap trays for a given tower di-
ameter. Fig. 19-10 shows two valve designs. The upper draw-
log (512.1)
Sm = = 11.05 ing shows a floating valve free to open and close with varying
log (1.759) vapor flow rates. The lower drawing shows a "caged" valve
which prevents valve loss due to erosion of the tray. Various
Thus correcting for changing α did not affect the minimum other designs are common such as using multiple disks and
tray calculation in this example. rectangular valves. Valves of assorted weights have also been
used to increase flexibility.
Find the minimum reflux, Rm (Eq 19-7, 8):
FIG. 19-8
αavg αxF/(a – θ)
relative Top Two Trays of a Bubble-cap Column28
xF to C6+ θ = 16 θ = 15 θ = 15.8
Overhead Vapor Nozzle
C2 0.0207 68.33 0.0270 0.0265 0.0269
C3 0.4867 26.67 1.2165 1.1123 1.1941
Downcomer
iC4 0.1011 13.83 -0.6443 -1.1951 -0.7098 Outlet
Weir
nC4 0.2408 11.00 -0.4506 -0.6622 -0.5518
Inlet Weir
iC5 0.0541 5.83 -0.0310 -0.0344 -0.0316 and
Seal Plate
nC5 0.0481 5.00 -0.0219 -0.0241 -0.0223
C6 0.0485 1.00 -0.0032 -0.0035 -0.0033
Reflux
Total 0.0925 -0.7805 -0.0978 Nozzle
θ = 15.9
Rm + 1 = 2.336
Rm = 1.336
Deflector Bubble
Theoretical trays at R = (1.3) Rm = 1.737 Insert Cap
R 1.737
Lo/V1 = = = 0.635
R+1 (1.737 + 1.0)
Rm 1.336 Vapor
(Lo/V1)m = = = 0.572 Riser
Rm + 1 (1.336 + 1.0) Hold-Down
Bolt Slots
Deflector
Sm/S = 0.54 (Fig. 19-7) Lug
19-8
FIG. 19-9 The sieve or perforated tray is the simplest construction of
28 the three general types and thus is the least expensive option.
Flow Through Vapor Passages
The sieve tray is simply a plate with holes for vapor passage.
Although the sieve tray generally has higher capacity, its main
disadvantage is that sieve trays will be susceptible to "weep-
ing" or "dumping" of the liquid through the holes at low vapor
rates and its turndown capacity is limited.
Trayed columns generally provide satisfactory operation
over a wide range of vapor and liquid loadings. Fig. 19-11
shows operating characteristics for a representative system.
The vapor and liquid rates can vary independently over a
broad range and the column will operate satisfactorily. At low
vapor rates unsatisfactory tray dynamics may be charac-
terized by vapor pulsation, dumping of liquid, or uneven dis-
tribution. At high vapor rates, the tower will eventually flood
as liquid is backed-up in the downcomers. At low liquid rates,
poor vapor-liquid contact can result. High liquid rates can
cause flooding and dumping as the liquid capacity of the down-
comers is exceeded.
In order to handle higher liquid rates, more downcomer area
is required. This is often achieved by using multiple pass
(a) Vapor flow through bubble cap (b) Vapor flow through perforations
trays. Multipass trays increase liquid handling capacity for a
given diameter due to reductions in the flow path length and
weir crest. Fig. 19-12 shows various configurations beyond a
one pass tray where the liquid phase is split into two to four
flow paths to increase liquid handling capacity.
Sizing
"C" Factor Method — Many design methods for sizing
(c) Vapor flow through valves trayed fractionators have been used. Generally these methods
are oriented toward liquid entrainment limitations or correla-
tions for flooding limits. A simple method called the Souders
and Brown equation8 involves using a Stokes’ Law type formula:
FIG. 19-10
ρL − ρv
Valve Types28 vmax = (0.3048) C
√ ρ v
Eq 19-11
FIG. 19-11
Limits of Satisfactory Tray Operation for a Specific Set of
Tray Fluid Properties8
19-9
FIG. 19-12 The value of C can be found from Fig. 19-13 based on tray
spacing and liquid surface tension. The column diameter is:
Alternative Liquid Flow Paths
√
Vmax
DT = Eq 19-12
vmax (0.7854)
This method was originally developed for bubble cap trays and
gives a conservative diameter, especially for other types of
trays.
√
ρv
Vload = CFS Eq 19-13
(ρL − ρv)
FIG. 19-13
Souders-Brown Correlation for Approximate Tower Sizing8
19-10
FIG. 19-14
Valve Tray Diameter10
19-11
FIG. 19-15 The downcomer velocity VD∗dsg is found from Fig. 19-16.
VD∗dsg is corrected by the System Factor:
System Factors9
VDdsg = VD∗dsg (System Factor) Eq 19-14
Systems with foaming tendencies are taken into account by using The other factor required for this design method is the vapor
a factor to derate the capacity of a given tray design. A list of the capacity factor CAF.
more common foaming systems and their recommended factor is
below. CAF = CAFo (System Factor) Eq 19-15
System Factor CAFo is read from Fig. 19-17. In order to compute the column
Absorbers (over -18°C) 0.85 cross sectional area, three quantities are needed.
Absorbers (below -18°C) 0.80 The flow path length, FPL:
Amine Contactor 0.80
FPL = 9 DT/NP Eq 19-16
Vacuum Towers 0.85
Amine Stills (Amine Regenerator) 0.85 DT and NP are found from Fig. 19-14.
H2S Stripper 0.85 The active area, AAM:
Furfural Fractionator 0.85
Vload + [(GPM(FPL/530)]
Top Section of Absorbing Type Demethanizer/ AAM = Eq 19-17
Deethanizer 0.85 CAF • FF
Glycol Contactors 0.50 FF, the flooding factor commonly used is 0.82 for most systems.
Glycol Stills 0.65 The downcomer area, ADM:
CO2 Absorber 0.80
ADM = GPM/(VDdsg • FF) Eq 19-18
CO2 Regenerator 0.85
Caustic Wash 0.65 If ADM is less than 11% of AAM, use 11% of AAM or double
Caustic Regenerator, Foul Water, Sour Water ADM, whichever is smaller.
Stripper 0.60 The tower cross sectional area is then:
Alcohol Synthesis Absorber 0.35
ATM = AAM + 2 (ADM) Eq 19-19
Hot Carbonate Contactor 0.85
Hot Carbonate Regenerator 0.90 or
Oil Reclaimer 0.70 Vload
ATM = Eq 19-20
The capacity of a given tray design used in high pressure fractiona- 0.78 • CAF • FF
tion service with a vapor density of 28.8 kg/m3 and higher should
be derated by a system factor calculated by the following formula: The larger of these two values is used. Then:
System factor =
2.93 DT = √
ATM / 0.7854 Eq 19-21
(ρv)0.32
Example 19-3 — Determine the diameter of a depropanizer
with the following data:
FIG. 19-16
Downcomer Design Velocity10
19-12
FIG. 19-17
Approximate Flood Capacity of Valve Trays10
liquid surface tension: 0.0033 η/m then from Fig. 19-14 @ GPM = 4.5 m3/s
tray spacing: 61cm
DT ≅ 290 cm for a 1 pass tray = 2900 mm
"C" Factor Method 229 cm for a 2 pass tray = 2290 mm
√
461−48
vmax = 430 (0.3048) = 384.4 m/h
48 2.93
System Factor = 0.32
= 0.85 (Fig. 19-15)
from Eq 19-11 413
48
DT =
√ 1944
384.4 (0.7854)
= 2.54 m = 2540 mm VDdsg = 7.6 (0.85)
= 6.46 m3/min/m2
from Eq 19-12
From Fig. 19-17:
CAFo = 0.126 m/s
CAF = (0.126) (0.85) = 0.107 m/s
19-13
9(2.29) The determination of tray efficiencies from theoretical pa-
FPL = = 10.3 m from Eq 19-16 rameters is the topic of numerous technical articles.12, 13, 14 A
2
detailed discussion of this subject is beyond the scope of this
0.1889 + [4.5 (10.3/530)] book.
AAM =
(0.107) (0.82) O’Connell15 correlated the tray efficiencies of fractionators
and absorbers. For fractionators, this correlation considered
= 3.15 m2 from Eq 19-17 thirty-eight systems of which 27 are hydrocarbon fractiona-
4.5 tors. The correlation, shown in Fig. 19-18, relates overall tray
ADM = = 0.85 m2 from Eq 19-18 efficiency to relative volatility computed at average column
(6.46) (0.82)
conditions and the feed viscosity at average column conditions.
ATM = 3.15 + 2(0.849) = 4.85 m2 from Eq 19-19 Example 19-4 — Evaluate the tray efficiency for the system
in Example 19-2.
0.1889
ATM = = 2.76 m2 from Eq 19-20 Average column temperature = 85°C
(0.78) (0.107) (0.82)
Feed viscosity @ 85°C = 0.076 mPa • s
√
4.85
DT = = 2.48 m = 2480 mm from Eq 19-21 Average α = 1.854
0.7854
Solution Steps
A comparison of the methods (rounded to the nearest 50 mm)
(α)(µ) = 0.141
C Factor 2550 mm
Nomograph 2300 mm (2900 mm for single pass) From Fig. 19-18, ε ≅ 80%
Detailed Method* 2500 mm The system in Example 19-2 required 21 theoretical stages
including the reboiler. The total actual trays is:
*At tray spacing different than 600 mm or for a different flood-
ing factor, the diameter could change considerably. 21 − 1
≅ 25 trays
0.80
Tray Efficiency
All column design work is performed using theoretical trays. Typically an extra tray is added to the tray count for each
An actual tray will not achieve equilibrium due to limitations feed tray and each side exchanger. Using this criteria, this
of vapor-liquid contact time. In an actual column, more trays column should have 26 trays.
are required to obtain the desired separation. This determina-
Typical operating pressures, tray counts, reflux ratio, and
tion is usually accomplished by the use of an overall tray effi-
tray efficiencies for various gas processing systems are shown
ciency defined as:
in Fig. 19-19. These are not design values; rather guidelines
theoretical trays for typical values in previous applications. The actual selec-
ε = Eq 19-22
actual trays tion depends on many factors such as feed composition, energy
cost, and capital cost.
FIG. 19-18
Effect of Relative Volatility and Viscosity on Plate Efficiency of Fractionating Columns
19-14
FIG. 19-19
Typical Fractionator Parameters
19-15
FIG. 19-21
√
√
√
Lp ρv ML ρv 124 470 48
Structured Packing = = = 0.42
Gp ρL M G ρL 95 712 461
L Fp (ρw / ρL)
G2p µ0.1 0.1
= 0.024
ρv (ρL − ρv)
From Fig. 19-23, Fp = 26, then:
(0.024) (461 − 48) (48)
G2p = = 43.73
(0.000076)0.1 (26) (1000/461)0.1
Gp = 6.61 kg ⁄(m2 • s)
95 712
Ac = = 4.02 m2
(6.61) (3600)
DT = 2.26 m
Packing Height
In order to determine the height of a packed column bed, the
height of a theoretical plate, HETP, is required. HETP times
the number of theoretical stages gives the height of the pack-
ing. Generally HETPs range from 300 to 900 mm but can be
as high as 1500 mm. Packed columns have found wide usage
in cryogenic plant demethanizers where HETPs run from 450
to 600 mm.
The prediction of the HETP from theory or empirical rela-
tions is a complex subject.17 Recent research by Fractionation
Research Inc. has underscored the sensitivity of HETP with a
number of variables. HETP is a function of the system as well
as the specific geometric and mechanical factors. In order to
determine packing requirements, a packing manufacturer
should be consulted.
Fig. 19-24 provides some example HETPs for hydrocarbon
systems in the gas processing industry.18
Packed Column Internals
A critical consideration in packed columns is the control of
the vapor and liquid phases. Fig. 19-25 shows a cross section
of a packed tower with various internals. Each section of pack-
Courtesy of Koch Engineering Co.
ing is supported by a support plate or grid whose function is
to carry the weight of the bed with minimum pressure drop.
Hold-down grids are used at the top to prevent lifting of the
are intended for towers 300 mm or smaller in diameter, pack-
bed by the vapor phase.
ings 25 mm or 38 mm in size for towers over 300 mm to 900 mm
in diameters, and 50 or 75 mm inch packings are used for Liquid distribution is a critical consideration in packed col-
towers three or more feet in diameter. The designer should umns. Poor liquid distribution causes dramatic loss of effi-
select the proper size of packing, and therefore the proper ciency. Various designs have been used to distribute liquid
packing factor for calculations. feeds and to collect and redistribute the liquid at various
points in the tower. Generally the liquid should be redistrib-
Example 19-5 — Determine the packed column diameter for
uted every 6 m of packing height or every 10 column diame-
example 19-3 using 50 mm plastic Pall rings.
ters, whichever is smaller.
Given: µ = 7.6 (10-5) Pa • s Dumped Packing Versus Trays
Packed columns have been used extensively in the chemical
∆P = 42 mm water / m of packing industry for many years. Packings are selected instead of trays
for several reasons:
Solution Steps
• Pressure drop—Packed towers usually yield a lower
pressure drop per theoretical stage. This can be impor-
ML = (4.5) (60) (461) = 124 470 kg/h tant for low pressure operations. At the elevated pres-
sures encountered in natural gas processing, column
MG = (1994) (48) = 95 712 kg/h pressure drop is usually not a major issue.
19-16
FIG. 19-22
Packed Column Pressure Drop Correlation
FIG. 19-23
Packing Factors (Fp)
(Dumped Packing)
19-17
FIG. 19-24
Typical Packing Depths18
Packing
Bed System ∆P, in %
L/G, Diam. depth, HETP, HTU, press., mm Overhead
System
kg/(h • m2) cm Type Size, in. Size, mm m m H2O/m
m kPa (abs)
pkg
Absorber 350 / 470 91 Pall rings 2 50 7 0.85 – 5964 46 –
L.O.-Top fractionator 150 / 200 91 Pall rings 2 50 5 0.76 – 1082 10 –
L.O.-Bottom fractionator 450 / 240 122 Pall rings 2 50 5 0.85 – 1082 25 –
Deethanizer top 470 / 190 46 Pall rings 11⁄2 37 6 0.88 – 2068 17 –
Deethanizer bottom 800 / 190 76 Pall rings 2 50 5.5 1.00 – 2068 25 –
Depropanizer top 240 / 175 59 Pall rings 11⁄2 37 4.9 0.98 – 1862 25 –
Depropanizer bottom 240 / 175 59 Pall rings 11⁄2 37 7.3 0.73 – 1862 25 –
Debutanizer top 80 / 130 50 Pall rings 11⁄2 37 3.7 0.73 – 621 10 –
Debutanizer bottom 80 / 130 50 Pall rings 11⁄2 37 5.5 0.61 – 621 10 –
Pentane-iso-pentane 90 / 80 46 Pall rings 1 25 2.7/2.3 0.46 – Atmos. 33 –
Light and heavy 30 / 50 38 Pall rings 1 25 3 0.61 0.62 100 mm. Hg 92 95.0
naphtha 13 / 25 38 Pall rings 1 25 3 0.99 0.76 100 mm. Hg 17 95.0
26 / 60 38 Pall rings 1 25 3 0.44 0.38 100 mm. Hg 146 97.5
10 / 27 38 Pall rings 1 25 3 0.44 0.40 100 mm. Hg 17 97.5
16 / 36 38 Intalox 1 25 3 0.70 0.60 100 mm. Hg 67 93.0
9 / 21 38 Intalox 1 25 3 0.82 0.64 100 mm. Hg 18 99.0
14 / 34 38 Raschig rings 1 25 3 0.59 0.43 100 mm. Hg 92 91.6
9 / 21 38 Raschig rings 1 25 3 0.82 0.60 100 mm. Hg 33 96.5
Gas plant absorber 200 / 250 122 Pall rings 2 50 7 0.88 – 6205 9 92.0
propane
absorbed
• High liquid loading—for high liquid-to-vapor ratio sys- • Plugging—Packed towers will be more susceptible to
tems, a packed column will have more capacity for a plugging from dirt and other foreign materials.
given diameter. Some fractionation applications are • Packing Height—The HETP for a packed column is an
characterized by low liquid/vapor ratios and packing has uncertain matter. Often they must be determined by
less of an advantage for these designs. testing or field applications. HETP’s can vary from a few
• Corrosion—for corrosive systems, packing can be fabri- inches to several feet.
cated from ceramics or plastics. Trays may have to be
fabricated from expensive alloy materials.
MECHANICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Packed columns also have several disadvantages which
must be taken into account in a fractionation design: Once the diameter and height of a fractionator have been
determined, consideration must be given to the column inter-
• Turndown—Packed columns usually have limited turn-
nals and heat exchanger arrangements. There are many op-
down capabilities. Whereas trays can be operated as low
tions in each of these areas and a sound design must consider
as 10-15% of full load, packings are limited to about a
many details to ensure proper operation. For additional infor-
50% turndown. This can be important in situations
mation on heat exchangers see Section 9.
where gas production is phased in and throughput rates
build up over time. Reboiler Arrangements19
• Liquid distribution—In trayed columns, the liquid phase is There are several reboiler configurations which have been
forced to flow across a tray surface. With gas bubbling through used in fractionation service.20 The most common types are:
the liquid, contact is assured. In packed towers, the liquid and
vapor are free to seek their own flow paths, and channeling • Forced circulation
can occur. It is critical that the liquid phase be properly dis- • Once-through natural circulation
tributed at the top of the column and be redistributed at 6 m • Vertical thermosyphon
intervals or every 10 column diameters, whichever is smaller. • Horizontal thermosyphon
19-18
• Flooded bundle (kettle type) tom tray is carried by a downcomer to below the liquid level
These types of reboilers are shown in Fig. 19-26 through in the bottom of the column. The liquid can be circulated
Fig. 19-31. Modifications of these types are also used; for ex- through the reboiler as many times as is economically feasible
ample, forced circulation reboilers are not necessarily in ver- to control the percent vaporization. The bottom product is
tical orientation. Also, internal "stab-in" type reboilers have drawn off the line to the reboiler. This type arrangement is
been used but are not common. usually used in installations where piping pressure drop is so
high that natural circulation is not practical. Remotely located
Each type of reboiler has its special advantages and disad- reboilers or installations where the reboiler heat is provided
vantages. Selection criteria of a reboiler configuration should by several sources may require forced circulation. The main
include: advantages of forced circulation are the abilities to closely con-
• Heat transfer surface required trol circulation rate and to handle viscous or solid containing
• Space and piping requirements fluids. The continuous operating cost of the pump makes natu-
• Ease of maintenance ral circulation designs more desirable.
• Fouling tendency Natural Circulation — By far the greater number of re-
• Operating stability boiler installations employ natural circulation. This can be
• Operating cost achieved in either of two ways as shown on Fig. 19-27a and b.
• Column and skirt elevation requirements In Fig. 19-27a all the liquid on the bottom tray is circulated
directly to the reboiler, where it is partially vaporized. The
Forced Circulation — A typical arrangement for forced unvaporized portion, on being disengaged under the bottom
circulation reboilers is shown in Fig. 19-26. This type is also tray, is withdrawn as bottom product. In Fig. 19-27b the liquid
called a pumped-through reboiler. All the liquid from the bot- passes through the downcomer below the liquid level of the
column as in forced circulation. The bottom liquid is free to
FIG. 19-25
recirculate through the reboiler as many times as the hydro-
Example Packed Column Internals29 static pressure difference between Z1 and Z3 will permit. Be-
cause there is no opportunity for recirculation in the
Vapor Outlet arrangement in Fig. 19-27a, it is called a once-through re-
to Condenser
boiler arrangement. Fig. 19-27b is referred to as a recirculat-
ing reboiler.
Support Plate
Manway
FIG. 19-27
ed
o r Fe Natural-Circulation Reboiler Arrangements
Vap
Liquid Distributor
Vapor + Liquid
Vapor + Liquid
Structured Grid
Vapors Vapors
n Z3 Z3
etur Z1
oiler R Liquid Steam Liquid Steam
Reb Z1
Circulation Pipe Z2 Z2
Skirt to Reboiler
Liquid
Bottoms Bottoms
Bottom
Product
(a) One-through Reboiler (b) Recirculating Reboiler
19-19
Vertical Thermosyphon — The vertical thermo- Weight of a Column of Mixed Liquid and Vapor— This
syphon reboiler shown in Fig. 19-28 is usually a one tube pass- is difficult to evaluate if precision is required, since the expan-
one shell pass exchanger with the channel end up. The upper sion of the vapor is a function of the recirculation ratio, aver-
tube sheet is placed close to the liquid level in the bottom of age specific volume of the vapor, coefficient of expansion of the
the fractionation column. This type exchanger is capable of liquid, etc. For nearly all practical cases it may be assumed
high heat transfer rates (minimum area) and requires simple that the variation of the density is linear between the inlet and
piping. It is not easily fouled and has generally good control- the outlet. If v is the specific volume at any height, h, in the
lability. Because of the vertical orientation, additional column vertical tube whose total length is Lt and whose inlet and out-
skirt is required and maintenance can be awkward. let specific volumes are vi and vo:
Recirculation Ratios — The recirculation ratio is deter- (vo − vi )h
v = vi + Eq 19-24
mined from the difference between hydrostatic head in the Lt
column corresponding to the tube length of the reboiler and
the weight of the vapor-liquid mixture. If the weight of the column of mixture is m, the change in
weight with height is dm, and if a is the cross-section flow area,
Recirculation ratios of 4:1 or greater are usually employed. a
Referring to the vertical thermosyphon in Fig. 19-28, there are dm = dh Eq 19-25
five principal resistances: v
• Frictional pressure drop through the inlet piping If the static pressure of the column of liquid and vapor is des-
ignated by Z3ρavg and the cross-section area, a, is unity, then:
• Frictional pressure drop through the reboiler
Lt
• Expansion or acceleration loss due to vaporization in the dx dx
reboiler Z3ρavg = ∫ v
= ∫ vi + (vo − vi) x/Lt
Eq 19-26
19-20
Steam = 4.160(10)6/2019 = 2060 kg/h Vapor (18 507)(0.0275) = 508.9 m3
Isothermal boiling, ∆T = LMTD = 178 - 109 = 69°C Total = 681.4 m3
Trial 1: 681.4 m3
vo = = 0.00736
When establishing reboiler surface the first trial should al- (18 507 + 74 028) kg
ways be taken for the maximum allowable flux (136 000 Static pressure of leg, (Eq 19-27)
kJ/m2 • h):
Z3 ρavg 2.3 (4.88) 0.00736
Q 4.16(106) = log
A = = = 30.59 m2 100 (0.00736−0.00233) 0.00233
Q/At 136 000
= 10.92 kPa
Assume 4877 mm long tubes to reduce the shell diameter
and provide the cheapest reboiler. However, the long tubes will Frictional resistance:
also require the greatest elevation of the column. Flow area:
30.59 (1000 )
Number of tubes = = 105 a′t 1.948
(4877) (0.0598) at = Nt = (105) = 0.02045 m2
10 000 10 000
Static pressure of reboiler leg (Eq 19-27):
74 028 + 18 507
Vapor density, Gt = = 4.525 (106) kg/(h • m2)
0.02045
ρv = 36.36 kg/m3
At 109°C, µ = (0.10) 3.60 = 0.360 kg/m • h)
1 m3
vv = = .0275 D′ =
1.57
= 0.0157 m
36.36 kg 100
1 m3 D′ Gt (0.0157) (4.525) (106)
v6 = vi = = 0.00233 Re = = = 197 340
429.8 kg µ 0.360
Weight flow of recirculated
liquid = 4 (18 507) = 74 028 kg/h f = 0.000127 (144) = 0.01829 m2/m2
2.00
1.0
0.0
Driving Force Minus Resistance, kPa
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0˜
-5.0
-6.0
-7.0
3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Tube Length, mm
19-21
f G2t L (0.01944) [3.39 (106)] 2 3.66
∆Pt = ∆Pt = = 7.10 kPa
(2.592) (10 ) (D)(ρavg)
10
(2.592) (1010) (0.0157) (282.83)
Liquid
Bottoms Condensate
19-22
FIG. 19-32
Example Top Feed Nozzles21
FIG. 19-33
Design Parameters for Top Feed Nozzles21
19-23
FIG. 19-34
Example Intermediate Feed Nozzle Arrangements21
Channel
Baffle
a. b. c.
Impingement
Baffle
Insulation
Plate
d. e. f.
FIG. 19-35
Intermediate Feed Nozzle Applications21
Fig. 19-34
a b c d e f
Cold-liquid feed Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vapor/liquid feed No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vapor feed No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Hot feed No Yes Yes Yes Yes* Yes*
High-velocity feed No No No Yes No Yes
High-pressure application No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Downcomer capacity critical No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
*Assuming insulation plate is provided.
19-24
FIG. 19-36 FIG. 19-37
22
Bottom Vapor Inlet Residence Time for Liquid in the Sump21
Minimum
Operating condition residence
time, min
Liquid is withdrawn by level control and
feeds another column directly by pres- 2
sure
Liquid is withdrawn by level control and
pumped away. Spare pump starts manu- 3
ally.
Liquid is withdrawn by level control and
pumped away. Spare pump starts auto- 1
matically.
Liquid is withdrawn by level control anf
feeds a unit that is some distance away 5-7
or that has its instruments on a differ-
nozzles and other internal considerations must be addressed ent control board.
to eliminate problems. Kister21 presented a series of articles Liquid is withdrawn by flow control. 3-5
which discussed these areas in detail.
Liquid flows through a thermosyphon re-
Top Feed Nozzles — Fig. 19-32 illustrates various ar- boiler without a level controller, to main- 1
tain a level in the sump.
rangements used for top-tray feed and reflux nozzles. Fig.
19-33 lists factors and restrictions in each design. For cost
reasons, arrangements of Fig. 19-32a, b, c, e, and f are pre-
ferred. However, for a two-phase stream only b, d, e, and h are Intermediate Feed Nozzles — Fig. 19-34 shows vari-
suitable. Most installations use arrangement a or c for all-liq- ous methods for introducing intermediate column feeds.
uid feed while b and e are popular for a two-phase feed. Fig. 19-35 summarizes the application area for each design.
Fig. 19-34a is only suitable for subcooled liquids. Vapor con-
Tray sections and baffles that are contacted by an entering taining or hot feeds would cause flashing in the downcomer
feed should be strengthened and feed nozzles should be an- and loss of capacity. Fig. 19-34b is only suitable for low-veloc-
chored to the tower shell. Feed lines containing two phase flow ity liquid feeds and is seldom recommended. Fig. 19-34c and
should be designed to minimize slugging which causes column d show a similar nozzle location with a baffle to direct the feed
instability and possible tray damage. For liquid feeds, the noz- stream. These are both designed for two-phase streams with
zle velocity should not exceed 0.9 m/s. d being the preferred arrangement. Fig. 19-34c can be used for
FIG. 19-38
Example Baffle Arrangements for Bottom Sumps for Recirculating Reboilers21
Reboiler Reboiler
Return Return Reboiler
Return
Auxiliary
Baffle
Preferential Reboiler
Baffle Return
19-25
FIG. 19-39
Example Total Draw-off22
virtually any feed except for high velocity feeds where a baffle inlet nozzle, causing impingement of the vapor stream against
plate is added as in Fig. 19-34f. the downcomer and/or liquid overflow as shown by location B,
should be provided with vapor inlet baffle or piping. The vapor
Bottom Vapor Inlet22 — The optimum vapor inlet be- velocity can be controlled by the hood outlet area. For multi-
low the bottom tray is shown at location A in Fig. 19-36. The pass trays, it is very important to feed each compartment
vapor is introduced parallel to the bottom downcomer at a rec- equally and allow for vapor equalization between sections.
ommended spacing of 61 cm below the bottom tray. A vapor Liquid Outlet — Sufficient residence time must be pro-
FIG. 19-40 vided in the liquid draw-off sump. Fig. 19-37 presents recom-
mended residence times for various situations. These
Example Chimney Tray with a Sealed-Inlet Downcomer 21 guidelines are intended to provide sufficient times for vapor
disengagement, to smooth out column upsets, and to give op-
erating personnel time to correct operating problems. For
large residence time requirements, an external vessel should
be considered in lieu of a large sump volume.
19-26
FIG. 19-41
Example Partial Draw-off22
FIG. 19-42 15% of tower area. The chimneys should be located or hooded
to prevent liquid flow downward through the chimney. Elevat-
Example Water Draw-off22 ing the draw nozzles flush with the draw tray in many cases
eliminates the need for weep holes. A spill-over baffle can be
provided for the draw pan to maintain tower circulation for
cases where a draw-off may not be required during operation.
A vortex breaker is suggested for outlet nozzles.
An alternate chimney tray design is shown in Fig. 19-40. In
this case the downcomer is extended to below the liquid level
on the chimney tray. This reduces the amount of frothing and
splashing produced by the entering liquid, and assists the ac-
Weld-In Draw
tion of the level controller. It is particularly important if two
Pan Perforated liquid phases are separated on the chimney tray by an inter-
Plate phase-level controller.
If the liquid on the chimney tray seals the downcomer from
the tray above, particular care must be taken with the design
of this downcomer. The liquid in the downcomer is aerated,
while most of the liquid on the tray is degasified. The degasi-
Flush fied liquid on the tray produces a greater hydrostatic head
than the column of aerated liquid in the downcomer. This ef-
fect is aggravated if two phases are separated. If these effects
ter mass-transfer characteristics; however, it is somewhat are not allowed for, and sufficient height is not provided, down-
more complicated than that of Fig. 19-38a. A baffle similar to comer backup may exceed the spacing between the liquid level
that on the left-hand side of Fig. 19-38b can also be incorpo- and the tray above, and lead to premature flooding.
rated in arrangements such as shown in Fig. 19-38c and d.
Fig. 19-41 shows two types of partial draw-off arrange-
The arrangement of Fig. 19-38d is preferable to that of Fig. ments. When a chimney tray is used, a partition (sometimes
19-38c for two-pass trays. The latter forces the vapor to flow insulated by application of two plates) can be provided to allow
through a curtain of liquid while ascending to the first tray, a draw-off and return on the same tray. Elevating the partition
which may cause entrainment or premature flooding. will determine total separation or recycling. The return nozzle
should be located above the liquid level if vapor content is ex-
Draw-off Arrangements—Total draw-off is normally pected.
accomplished with a chimney tray or draw pan as indicated in
Fig. 19-39. The chimney tray has an advantage over the draw Partial draw from a recessed pan is frequently used. The
pan because it catches tray weepage during startup and at low draw pan saves shell length at the sacrifice of surge capacity.
vapor rates. Chimneys are normally sized for approximately It is advisable to provide a positive downcomer seal.
19-27
FIG. 19-43 FIG. 19-44
Example Feed/Product Exchanger Example Side Heater
Side Heater
Draw off
Tray
Secondary
Heat Source
Reboiler
Primary Heat
Medium
Bottom
Product To Next Process Unit
or to Side Heater
Feed
19-28
FIG. 19-45 FIG. 19-47
Heat Pumping Absorption Nomenclature
Vn+1Y1
Lean Gas
L0Xo
Lean Oil
Feed Overhead
Column
Compressor
Bottoms
Vn+1Yn+1
Rich Gas
FIG. 19-46
Vapor Recompression L0Xn
Rich Oil
19-29
Absorption
Absorption is one of the oldest unit operations used in the Fig. 19-48 provides a graphical solution of Eq 19-30.
gas processing industry. Rich gas enters the bottom of the ab-
sorber and flows upward contacting the countercurrent lean Example 19-7 — Oil absorption is to be used to recover 75 per-
oil stream. The lean oil preferentially absorbs the heavier com- cent of the propane from 100 moles of the rich gas stream
ponents from the gas and is then termed "rich oil". The rich oil shown below. The absorber is to have six theoretical plates.
is sent to a stripper (or still) where the absorbed components What oil circulation rate is to be used if the average tempera-
are removed by heating and/or stripping with steam. The lean ture and pressure of the absorber are 40°C and 6895 kPa? The
oil is recycled to the absorber to complete the process loop. entering lean oil is assumed to be completely stripped or de-
nuded of rich gas components. What will be the composition
For a given gas, the fraction of each component in the gas of the residue gas leaving the absorber?
that is absorbed by the oil is a function of the equilibrium
phase relationship of the components and lean oil, the relative Solution Steps
flow rates, and the contact stages. The phase relation is a func- Using the equilibrium ratio charts (Section 25), obtain the
tion of pressure, temperature, and the composition of the lean K-value for each component at 40°C and 6895 kPa.
oil. Nomenclature for an absorber is shown in Fig. 19-47. From Fig. 19-48 at Ea = 0.75, A = 0.80
As components are absorbed, the temperature of the gas and Using Eq 19-29:
oil phases will increase due to heat of absorption. The heat
released is proportional to the amount of gas absorbed. In Lo = (0.8) (0.37) (100) = 29.6 moles/hr
many cases, side coolers are used on the absorber to limit the
(based on 100 moles of gas)
temperature rise and aid in absorption.
Using Eq 19-28, the oil rate calculated and the component
Lean oil will have a molecular weight in the 100 to 200 K-values determine the absorption factor "A" for the remain-
range. For ambient temperature absorbers, a heavy lean oil of ing components.
180 to 200 molecular weight will normally be used. For refrig-
erated absorbers, a lighter lean oil of 120 to 140 molecular For example, for methane:
weight is used. A lower molecular weight lean oil will contain 29.6
A = = 0.091
more moles per gallon resulting in a lower circulation rate. 3.25 (100)
However, lower molecular weight lean oil will have higher va-
porization losses. Using the absorption-factor values read values of Ea for each
component (Fig. 19-48).
The stripping column is operated at low pressure and high
temperatures. In older plants, "live" steam is injected into the Solve Eq. 19-30 for each component to determine the moles
bottom of the column to strip the NGL components. The steam of components in the residue gas, Y1.
lowers the partial pressure of the light hydrocarbons which is For example, for methane:
equivalent to lowering the effective operating pressure. Yn + 1 − Y2 90.6 − Y1
= = 0.091
Refrigerated lean oil plants normally use direct fired heat- Yn + 1 − Yo 90.6 − 0
ers to vaporize a portion of the rich oil in the stripper (still) to
provide the necessary stripping vapor. Y1 = 82.36
Note: For this example, Yo = 0 since entering lean oil is
assumed completely stripped of rich gas components. This as-
ABSORBER CALCULATIONS sumption will not be true for all cases.
Absorber and stripper calculations, like fractionation col- Calculate the moles of each component in the rich oil. For
umn calculations, can be accomplished with tray-by-tray com- example, for methane:
puter models. However, hand calculations can be performed λ = Yn + 1 − Y1 + Yo = 90.6 − 82.36 + 0 = 8.24
to estimate the absorption of components in a lean oil absorber.
The stripping operation is essentially the reverse of absorption Comp Mol % K A Ea Y1 λ
and can be handled in a similar fashion. C1 90.6 3.25 0.091 0.091 82.36 8.24
Many attempts have been made to define an "average" ab- C2 4.3 0.9 0.329 0.329 2.89 1.41
sorption factor method to short-cut the time consuming rigor- C3 3.2 0.37 0.80 0.75 0.80 2.40
ous calculation procedures. The sole restriction of such a iC4 0.5 0.21 1.41 0.96 0.02 0.48
method is how well the average factor, as it is defined, will
represent the absorption that actually occurs. One of the sim- nC4 1.0 0.17 1.74 0.985 0.015 0.985
plest definitions of an average absorption factor was by Krem- C6 0.4 0.035 8.46 1.0 0.0 0.40
ser and Brown.23, 24 They defined it as: Total 100.0 86.085 13.915
A = Lo/(KavgVn + 1) Eq 19-28
The use of an average absorption factor, as defined in Eq
or Lo = A (Kavg) (Vn + 1) Eq 19-29 19-28, ignores the change in gas volume from inlet to outlet.
Also, the assumptions of average temperature and K-values
Using an average absorption factor, the extraction of any com- can cause significant errors in the preceding calculation
ponent from a rich gas can be described by: method.
Yn + 1 − Y1 An + 1 − A Fig. 19-48 can also be used to determine the trays required
= = Ea Eq 19-30 for a given lean oil rate or to calculate recoveries with a given
Yn + 1 − Yo An + 1 − 1
19-30
FIG. 19-48
Absorption and Stripping Factor Correlation
19-31
oil rate and tray count. Fig. 19-48 shows that oil rate declines The required number of theoretical trays and stripping va-
with increasing number of trays and that beyond about eight por quantity can be calculated as shown in the following ex-
theoretical trays little increase in efficiency is achieved. ample. However, the results of such calculations must be used
only as a guide to the relative effects of changing vapor rates
Since higher oil rates require more energy for heating, cool-
and trays. This is because tray efficiencies or packing HETPs
ing, and pumping, the optimum design is usually one that uses
are not known accurately and the effects of other components
the minimum possible oil rate with a reasonable size absorber.
in the sour water change the apparent solubility of hydrogen
The lowest molecular weight lean oil should be used. This sulfide. Ammonia, which is common in refinery sour waters,
will be fixed by oil vapor pressure and absorber operating tem- can increase the hydrogen sulfide solubility by a factor of 10
perature. Most problems in absorber operation center around or more. A more detailed design procedure is then required for
oil quality and rates. Proper stripping of the oil is necessary refining sour water strippers than that given in the following
to minimize lean oil losses to the gas and to maximize absorp- example.26
tion capacity. Example 19-8 — Sour water containing 2500 ppmw of hydro-
gen sulfide is to be stripped to 1.5 ppmw. Enough indirect re-
boiler heat is provided to allow 90 kg of steam to leave the top
STRIPPER CALCULATIONS tray for each cubic meter of feed. The feed rate is 0.038 m3 /min
and the tower top is to operate at 145 kPa. Determine the
In a calculation sense, a stripper is simply an upside-down number of theoretical trays required.
absorber. For hand calculations, a stripping factor is defined
as Set desired overall material balance:
KV
ST = Eq 19-31 Feed = (0.038) (1000) (60 min/h) = 2280 kg/h
L
then: Overhead steam = (90) (60) (0.038) = 205 kg/h
+1
Xm + 1 − X1 Sm − ST
=
T Feed Bottoms Overhead
m+1
= Es Eq 19-32
Xm + 1 − Yo ST −1 kg/h kg/h kg/h
Fig. 19-48 can be used to perform stripper calculations in a H2S 5.7 0.003 5.697
similar manner to absorber calculations. Water 2274.3 2069.300 205.0
2280.0 2069.303 210.697
Sour water is a term used for water containing dissolved 5.697/5.7 = 0.99945
hydrogen sulfide. Facilities for processing sour gas may have Estimate top temperature:
several sources of sour water. These include water from inlet
separators, water from compressor discharge scrubbers, Fraction water vapor in overhead
quench water from certain Claus unit tail-gas cleanup proc-
esses, and water from the regeneration of solid bed product 205/210.697 = 0.973
treaters or dehydrators. In some plants it is possible to dispose
of this water by using it for makeup to the gas treating solu- Partial pressure water in overhead
tion. However, most sour gas plants have an excess of water 0.973 (145) = 141 kPa
and the hydrogen sulfide must be removed to a level of 1 to
2 ppmw before disposing of the water. Sour water strippers Temperature (from steam table, Fig. 24-35)
are used for this purpose. at 141 kPa = 109°C
Sour water strippers commonly have 10 to 15 trays or 6 to Estimate the K-value for H2S at top conditions:
9 m of packing. The feed enters at the top and heat is supplied
either by a reboiler or by steam injection directly below the K = Henry’s Constant/Total pressure
bottom tray. Typical operating conditions are:
Henry’s Constant for H2S at 109°C = 1.41 (105) kPa
Pressure, kPa 69 - 103 (Fig. 19-49)
Feed Temperature, °C 93 - 110
Bottom Temperature, °C 115 - 121 K = 1.41 (105)/145 = 976.2
Reboil Heat, kW 223 - 446 V = mols vapor leaving top tray
Residual H2S, mg/kg 0.5 - 2.0
FIG. 19-49
Overhead vapors from sour water strippers contain hydrogen
sulfide, steam, trace amounts of hydrocarbons and, in some Henry’s Constants for H2S in Water
plants, carbon dioxide. These vapors are usually sent to the
regenerator (still) condenser in plants using aqueous treating
Temp, °C H (H2S), kPa(abs)
solutions. Alternatively, the vapors may be sent directly to the
sulfur recovery unit, or incinerated if emission standards are 38 7.58 (104)
not exceeded. 93 12.55 (104)
Foaming occurs in sour water strippers and the tower di- 149 17.93 (104)
ameter should be based on operation at 50 to 70 percent of the
flooding loads for a non-foaming system.25
19-32
5.697 205 8. Katz, D. L., et al., "Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering",
= + = 11.556
34 18 McGraw-Hill, 1959.
9. Koch Engineering Co., "Flexitray Design Manual", 1982.
L = mols liquid to top tray
10. Glitsch, Inc., "Ballast Tray Design Manual", Third Edition.
5.7 2274.3
= + = 126.518 11. Nutter Engineering, "Float Valve Design Manual", Aug., 1981.
34 18 12. AIChE, "Bubble-Tray Design Manual", New York, 1958.
Use Eq 19-31 to calculate fraction H2S stripped: 13. Smith, B. D., "Design of Equilibrium Stage Processes", McGraw-
Hill, 1963.
(976) (11.556)
ST = = 89.2 14. Vital, T. J., et al., "Estimating Separation Efficiency", Hyd. Proc.
126.518 63, 147-153 Nov., 1984.
S(m
T
+ 1)
− ST 15. O’Connell, H. E., "Plate Efficiency of Fractionating Columns and
Es = + 1) Absorbers", Trans. AIChE 42, 741-755, 1946.
S(m
T −1
16. Eckert, J. S., "Selecting the Proper Distillation Column Packing",
Assume various values for "m" and calculate "Es": Chem. Eng. Prog. 66(3), 39, 1970.
Results are: 17. Vital, T. J., et al., "Estimating Separation Efficiency", Hyd. Proc.
63, 75-78 Dec., 1984.
m Es 18. Eckert, J. S., "Tower Packings . . . Comparative Performance",
1 0.98891 Chem. Eng. Prog. 59(5), 76-82, 1963.
2 0.99988 19. Kern, D. Q., "Process Heat Transfer", McGraw-Hill, p. 453-491,
1950.
3 0.99999
20. Fair, J. R., "What You Need to Design Thermosiphon Reboilers",
Two theoretical trays would be required for the stated condi- Petr. Refin. 39(2), 105-123, 1960.
tions. Since tray efficiencies or packing HETPs are not pre- 21. Kister, H. Z., "C. E. Refresher: Column Internals", Chem, Engr.,
dictable, 10 actual trays or 6 m of packing would be used. May 19, 1980, p. 138-142; July 28, 1980, p. 79-83; Sept. 8, 1980,
The relative effect of various operating pressures and re- p. 119-123; Nov. 17, 1980, p. 283-285; Dec. 29, 1980, p. 55-60; Feb.
boiler heat rates can be estimated by the above method. 9, 1981, p. 107-109; Apr. 6, 1981, p. 97-100.
22. Jamison, R. H., "Internal Design Techniques", Chem, Eng. Prog.
65(3), 46-51, 1969.
REFERENCES
23. Kremser, A., "Theoretical Analysis of Absorption Process", Na-
1. Chien, H. H. Y., "A Rigorous Method for Calculating Minimum tional Petro. News, 22(21), 48, 1930.
Reflux Rates in Distillation", AIChE Jour. 24, July, 1978. 24. Brown, G. G., and Souders, M., "Fundamental Design of Absorb-
2. Chien, H. H. Y., "A Rigorous Calculation Method for the Mini- ing and Stripping Columns for Complex Vapors", Ind. Eng. Chem.
mum Stages in Multicomponent Distillation", Chem. Eng. Sci. 24, 519, 1932.
28, 1967-74, 1973. 25. Walker, G. J., "Design Sour Water Strippers Quickly", Hyd. Proc.,
3. Fenske, M. R., "Fractionation of Straight-Run Pennsylvania June 1969, pp. 121-124.
Gasoline", Ind. Eng. Chem. 24, 482-5, 1932. 26. Beychok, M. R., "Aqueous Wastes from Petroleum and Petro-
4. Winn, F. W., "New Relative Volatility Method for Distillation Cal- chemical Plants", John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 1967.
culations", Pet. Refiner. 37(5), 216-218, 1958. 27. Gillespie, P. C., and Wilson, G. M., "Vapor-Liquid and Liquid-Liq-
5. Underwood, A. J. V., "Fractional Distillation of Multicomponent uid Equilibria", GPA-RR-48, 1982.
Mixtures", Chem. Eng. Prog. 44, 603-14, 1948. 28. Van Winkle, M., "Distillation", McGraw-Hill, p. 480-645, 1967.
6. Erbar, J. H., and Maddox, R. N., "Latest Score: Reflux vs. Trays", 29. Chen, G. K., "Packed Column Internals", Chem. Engr., March 5,
Petr. Refiner 40(5), 183-188, 1961. 1984, p. 40-51.
7. Fair, J. R., and Bolles, W. L., "Modern Design of Distillation Col- 30. Campbell, J. M., "Gas Conditioning and Processing Vol. 2",
umns", Chem. Engr. 75(9), 156-178, April 22, 1968. Campbell Petroleum Series, p. 4, 1978.
19-33