Comparing Trays And Packings

Most separations can be performed either with trays or with packings. The factors below represent economic pros and cons that favor each and may be overridden. For instance, column complexity is a factor favoring trays, but gas plant demethanizers that often use one or more interreboilers are traditionally packed.

Factors Favoring Packings

Vacuum systems. Packing pressure drop is much lower than that of trays because the packing open area approaches the tower cross-sectional area, while the tray's open area is only 8 to 15 percent of the tower cross-sectional area. Also, the tray liquid head, which incurs substantial pressure drop (typically about 50 mm of the liquid per tray), is absent in packing. Typically, tray pressure drop is of the order of 10 mbar per theoretical stage, compared to 3 to 4 mbar per theoretical stage with random packings and about one-half of that with structured packings.

Consider a vacuum column with 10 theoretical stages, operating at 70-mbar top pressure. The bottom pressure will be 170 mbar with trays, but only 90 to 110 mbar with packings. The packed tower will have a much better relative volatility in the lower parts, thus reducing reflux and reboil requirements and bottom temperature. These translate to less product degradation, greater capacity, and smaller energy consumption, giving packings a major advantage.

Lower-pressure-drop applications. When the gas is moved by a fan through the tower, or when the tower is in the suction of a compressor, the smaller packing pressure drop is often a controlling consideration. This is particularly true for towers operating close to atmospheric pressure. Here excessive pressure drop in the tower increases the size of the fan or compressor (new plant), bottlenecks them (existing plant), and largely increases power consumption. Due to the compression ratio, pressure drop at the compressor discharge is far less important and seldom a controlling consideration.

Revamps. The pressure drop advantage is invaluable in vacuum column revamps, can be translated to a capacity gain, an energy gain, a separation improvement, or various combinations of these benefits. Likewise, for towers in the suction of compressors, replacing trays by packings reduces the compression ratio and helps debottleneck the compressor.

Packings also offer an easy tradeoff between capacity and separation. In the loaded sections of the tower, larger packings can overcome capacity bottlenecks at the expense of loss in separation. The separation loss can often be regained by retrofitting with smaller packings in sections of the tower that are not highly loaded. In tray towers, changing tray spacing gives similar results, but is more difficult to do.

Foaming (and emulsion). The low gas and liquid velocities in packing suppress foam formation. The large open area of the larger random packing promotes foam dispersal. Both attributes make random packing excellent for handling foams. In many cases recurrent foaming was alleviated by replacing trays by random packing, especially when tray downcomers were poorly designed.

Switching from trays to structured packing can aggravate foaming. While the low gas and liquid velocities help, the solid walls restrict lateral movement of foams and give support to the foams.

Small-diameter columns. Columns with diameter less than 1 m (3 ft) are difficult to access from inside to install and maintain the trays. "Cartridge" trays or an oversized diameter are often used. Either option is expensive. Cartridge trays also run into problems with sealing to the tower wall and matching tower to tray hardware [Sands, Chem. Eng., p. 86 (April 2006)]. Packing is normally a cheaper and more desirable alternative.

Corrosive systems. The practical range of packing materials is wider. Ceramic and plastic packings are cheap and effective. Trays can be manufactured in nonmetals, but packing is usually a cheaper and more desirable alternative.

Low liquid holdup. Packings have lower liquid holdup than do trays. This is often advantageous for reducing polymerization, degradation, or the inventory of hazardous materials.

Batch distillation. Because of the smaller liquid holdup of packing, a higher percentage of the liquid can be recovered as top product.

Factors Favoring Trays

Solids. Trays handle solids much more easily than packing. Both gas and liquid velocities on trays are often an order of magnitude higher than through packing, providing a sweeping action that keeps tray openings clear. Solids tend to accumulate in packing voids. There are fewer locations on trays where solids can be deposited. Plugging in liquid distributors has been a common trouble spot. Cleaning trays is much easier than cleaning packings.

Not all trays are fouling-resistant. Floats on moving valve trays tend to "stick" to deposits on the tray deck. Fouling-resistant trays have large sieve holes or large fixed valves, and these should be used when plugging and fouling are the primary considerations.

There is much that can be done to alleviate plugging with random packing. Large, open packing with minimal pockets offers good plugging resistance. Distributors that resist plugging have large holes (> 13-mm diameter). Such large holes are readily applied with high liquid flow rates, but often not practical for small liquid flow rates.

Maldistribution. The sensitivity of packing to liquid and gas maldistribution has been a common cause of failures in packed towers. Maldistribution issues are most severe in large-diameter towers, long beds, small liquid flow rates, and smaller packing. Structured packing is generally more prone to maldistribution than random packing. While good distributor design, water testing, and inspection can eliminate most maldistribution issues, it only takes a few small details that fall through the cracks to turn success into failure. Due to maldistribution, there are far more failures experienced with packing than in trays, and it takes more trials "to get it right" than with trays. This makes trays more robust.

Complex towers. Interreboilers, intercondensers, cooling coils, and side drawoffs are more easily incorporated in trays than in packed towers. In packed towers, every complexity requires additional distribution and/or liquid collection equipment.

Feed composition variation. One way of allowing for design uncertainties and feedstock variation is by installing alternate feed points. In packed towers, every alternate feed point requires expensive distribution equipment.

Performance prediction. Due to their sensitivity to maldistribution there is greater uncertainty in predicting packed column performance.

Chemical reaction, absorption. Here the much higher liquid holdup on trays provides greater residence time for absorption or chemical reaction than does packing.

Turndown. Moving valve and bubble-cap trays normally give better turndown than packings. Unless very expensive distributors are used, packed tower turndown is usually limited by distributor turndown.

Weight. Tray towers usually weigh less than packed towers, saving on the cost of foundations, supports, and column shell.

Trays vs. Random Packings The following factors generally favor trays compared to random packings, but not compared to structured packings.

Low liquid rates. With the aid of serrated weirs, splash baffles, reverse-flow trays, and bubble-cap trays, low liquid rates can be handled better in trays. Random packings suffer from liquid dewetting and maldistribution sensitivity at low liquid rates.

Process surges. Random packings are usually more troublesome than trays in services prone to process surges (e.g., those caused by slugs of water entering a hot oil tower, relief valve lifting, compressor surges, or instability of liquid seal loops). Structured packings are usually less troublesome than trays in such services.

Trays vs. Structured Packings The following factors generally favor trays compared to structured packings, but not compared to random packings.

Packing fires. The thin sheets of structured packing (typically 0.1 mm) poorly dissipate heat away from hot spots. Also, cleaning, cooling, and washing can be difficult, especially when distributors or packing plug up. Many incidents of packing fires during turnarounds (while towers with structured packings were open to atmosphere) have been reported. Most of these fires were initiated by pyrophoric deposits, hot work (e.g., welding) above the packing, opening the tower while hot organics were still present, and packing metallurgy that was not fire-resistant. Detailed discussion can be found in Fractionation Research Inc. (FRI) Design Practices Committee, "Causes and Prevention of Packing Fires," Chem. Eng., July 2007.

Materials of construction. Due to the thin sheets of structured packings, their materials of construction need to have better resistance to oxidation or corrosion. For a service in which carbon steel is usually satisfactory with trays, stainless steel is usually required with structured packings.

Column wall inspection. Due to their snug fit, structured packings are easily damaged during removal. This makes it difficult to inspect the column wall (e.g., for corrosion).

Washing and purging. Thorough removal of residual liquid, wash water, air, or process gas trapped in structured packings at startup and shutdown is more difficult than with trays. Inadequate removal of these fluids may be hazardous.

High liquid rates. Multipass trays effectively lower the liquid load "seen" by each part of the tray. A similar trick cannot be applied with packings. The capacity of structured packings tends to rapidly fall off at high liquid rates.

Capacity and Efficiency Comparison Kister et al. [Chem. Eng. Progr., 90(2), 23 (1994)] reported a study of the relative capacity and efficiency of conventional trays, modern random packings, and conventional structured packings. They found that, for each device optimally designed for the design requirements, a rough guide could be developed on the basis of flow parameter L/G (pc/pL)0'5 (abcissa in

Figs. 14-31, 14-55, and 14-56) and the following tentative conclusions could be drawn:

Flow Parameter 0.02-0.1

1. Trays and random packings have much the same efficiency and capacity.

2. Structured packing efficiency is about 1.5 times that of trays or random packing.

3. At a parameter of 0.02, the structured packing has a 1.3-1.4 capacity advantage over random packing and trays. This advantage disappears as the parameter approaches 0.1.

Flow Parameter 0.1-0.3

1. Trays and random packings have about the same efficiency and capacity.

2. Structured packing has about the same capacity as trays and random packings.

3. The efficiency advantage of structured packing over random packings and trays decreases from 1.5 to 1.2 as the parameter increases from 0.1 to 0.3.

Flow Parameter 0.3-0.5

1. The loss of capacity of structured packing is greatest in this range.

2. The random packing appears to have the highest capacity and efficiency with conventional trays just slightly behind. Structured packing has the least capacity and efficiency.

Experience indicates that use of structured packings has capacity/ efficiency disadvantages in the higher-pressure (higher-flow-parameter) region.

Zuiderweg and Nutter [IChemE Symp. Ser. 128, A481 (1992)] explain the loss of capacity/efficiency by a large degree of backmixing and vapor recycle at high flow parameters, promoted by the solid walls of the corrugated packing layers.

0 0

Responses

  • Jordan
    Is random packing cheaper than trays?
    3 years ago

Post a comment