Restricted Access Notice: Due To Third Party Proprietary Information

ExxonMobil Proprietary
RESTRICTED ACCESS NOTICE

DESIGN PRACTICES DUE TO THIRD PARTY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
This practice may contain third party information with confidentiality

and use restrictions. EMRE's Law Department should be consulted
prior to its release to any entity other than a 50% or more owned
affiliate of Exxon Mobil Corporation who has an appropriate
agreement (e.g. Standard Research Agreement, Upstream Cost
Sharing Agreement) in place and their employees (this does not
include in-house contractors, consultants, etc.)
Any questions regarding Third Party Restricted Access should be

directed to the appropriate contact in EMRE's Legal Department. A
list of contacts can be found at:
http:\\159.70.37.160\patents\assignresp91800.pdf
To continue within this practice CLICK HERE
ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA

FRACTIONATING TOWERS DESIGN PRACTICES
DUALFLOW TRAYS Section Page
EXXON III-L 1 of 37
ENGINEERING Date
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION - For Authorized Company Use Only December, 1998
Changes shown by ç
CONTENTS
Section Page
SCOPE .....................................................................................................................................................3
REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................................3
INTERNATIONAL PRACTICES .........................................................................................................3
OTHER LITERATURE.......................................................................................................................3
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................3
DEFINITIONS............................................................................................................................................3
APPLICATIONS........................................................................................................................................3
BASIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................................................................4

TRAY SPACING................................................................................................................................4
TOWER DIAMETER..........................................................................................................................4
ULTIMATE CAPACITY ......................................................................................................................4
TRAY LAYOUT AND HOLE AREA.....................................................................................................4
HOLE SIZE, SHAPE AND LAYOUT...................................................................................................5
TRAY HYDRAULICS.........................................................................................................................5
TRAY EFFICIENCY...........................................................................................................................5
DETAILED DESIGN PROCEDURE ...........................................................................................................5

VAPOR AND LIQUID LOADINGS AT CONDITIONS (STEP 1) ...........................................................5
TRAY SPACING, SIZE, AND LAYOUT (STEP 2) ...............................................................................5
TRAY HYDRAULICS (STEP 3)..........................................................................................................6
TRAY EFFICIENCY (STEP 4)............................................................................................................6
TOWER CHECKLIST (STEP 5) .........................................................................................................6
PROBABILITY OF SUCCESSFUL OPERATION ................................................................................6
NOMENCLATURE ....................................................................................................................................7
COMPUTER PROGRAMS.........................................................................................................................8
DUALFLOW TRAY CALCULATION FORM (PART 1 OF 5) (CUSTOMARY UNITS).................................28
DUALFLOW TRAY CALCULATION FORM (PART 1 OF 5) (METRIC UNITS)..........................................33
EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

DESIGN PRACTICES FRACTIONATING TOWERS
Section Page DUALFLOW TRAYS
III-L 2 of 37 EXXON
Date ENGINEERING
December, 1998 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION - For Authorized Company Use Only
CONTENTS (Cont)
Section Page
TABLE
Table 1 Dualflow Tray Design Principles (Metric Values are in Parentheses) .................................. 9
FIGURES
Figure 1 Effect of Vapor Momentum on Tray Efficiency (Same for Customary and Metric Units)..... 11
Figure 2 Standard Surface Tension (σSTD) (Same for Customary and Metric Units) ....................... 12
Figure 3 Kσµ Factor for Capacity Correlation (Same for Customary and Metric Units)..................... 13
Figure 4A KH Factor for Capacity Correlation (Customary Units)...................................................... 13
Figure 4B KH Factor for Capacity Correlation (Metric Units)............................................................. 14
Figure 5 KAD Factor for Capacity Correlation (Same for Customary and Metric Units) .................... 15
Figure 6 J5 Factor for Dry Tray Pressure Drop Correlation (Same for Customary and Metric Units) 16
Figure 7A CL Factor for Total Tray Pressure Drop Correlation (Customary Units)............................. 17
Figure 7B CL Factor for Total Tray Pressure Drop Correlation (Metric Units) .................................... 18
Figure 8 KLV Factor for Total Tray Pressure Drop Correlation (Same for Customary and
Metric Units) .................................................................................................................. 19
Figure 9 Kp Factor for Total Tray Pressure Drop Correlation (Same for Customary and
Metric Units) .................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 10 KQ Factor for Clear Liquid Height Correlation (Same for Customary and Metric Units) ...... 21
Figure 11 Kη Factor for Froth Density Correlation (Same for Customary and Metric Units) ............... 22
Figure 12A KDV Factor for Liquid Phase Mass Transfer Coefficient Correlation (Customary Units)...... 22
Figure 12B KDV Factor for Liquid Phase Mass Transfer Coefficient Correlation (Metric Units)............. 23
Figure 13A KHD Factor for Vapor Phase Mass Transfer Coefficient Correlation (Customary Units) ..... 23
Figure 13B KHD Factor for Vapor Phase Mass Transfer Coefficient Correlation (Metric Units)............. 24
Figure 14A KFL Factor for Vapor Phase Mass Transfer Coefficient Correlation (Customary Units) ...... 25
Figure 14B KFL Factor for Vapor Phase Mass Transfer Coefficient Correlation (Metric Units) ............. 26
Figure 15A Interfacial Area (Customary Units) .................................................................................. 27
Figure 15B Interfacial Area (Metric Units) ......................................................................................... 27
Revision Memo
12/98 Practice renumbered from Section III-N with withdrawal of Section III-M.
Dualflow trays not recommended for tower diameter greater than 4 ft (1200 mm).
Reference added to PEGASYS screening quality computer program. Additional
information added on Ripple Trays.

EXXON III-L 3 of 37
ENGINEERING Date
SCOPE
This section describes the techniques for specifying the process design features of downcomerless sieve trays (dualflow trays).
Detailed mechanical design and hole arrangement are normally handled by the tray fabricator. Calculation forms outlining the
stepwise design procedure are given herein in both Customary and Metric units. Since dualflow trays are infrequently used by
Exxon, it is recommended that all dualflow tower designs be reviewed by your FRACTIONATION SPECIALIST.
The procedure for calculating overall efficiency for dualflow tray is also included in this section. For designing tray-related tower
internals, such as reboiler connections, vapor distributors and liquid distributors, see Section III-H.
REFERENCES
INTERNATIONAL PRACTICES
IP 5-2-1, Internals for Towers, Drums and Fixed Bed Reactors.
OTHER LITERATURE
Downcomer Capacity Correlations Have Been Improved (Dry Tray Pressure Drop), ER&E Report EE.49E.80.
Sieve Tray Capacity Correlations Have Been Improved (Ultimate Capacity), ER&E Report EE.76E.72.
BACKGROUND
The design equations and guidelines given in this section for predicting capacity, pressure drop, and efficiency were developed
from data collected by Fractionation Research, Inc. (FRI) in their four ft (1200 mm) diameter high and low pressure columns.
The numbered equations referred to herein are those found on the calculation forms located at the end of this section.
Equations describing parameters shown on the various graphs have been omitted in this section due to the small number of
dualflow tray applications. If the need arises, these equations can be made available via consulting your FRACTIONATION
SPECIALIST.
DEFINITIONS
The following definitions are for those terms specific to the dualflow tray. For a discussion of such general concepts as jet
flooding and flexibility, see Section III-A, Basic Concepts and Device Selection.
ç The dualflow tray is a perforated flat tray without downcomers. Because this tray type lacks downcomers, the holes have the
dual function of passing both vapor and liquid countercurrently. The Ripple Tray, marketed by Stone & Webster, is similar to
the dualflow tray in design and operation, except the Ripple Tray is corrugated in the form of a sine wave. The design
procedures in this section can be used to screen Ripple Trays. A FRACTIONATION SPECIALIST should be consulted for any
Ripple Tray application to help evaluate this technology for Exxon application.
APPLICATIONS
The absence of downcomers provides both advantages and disadvantages. Because the entire plate is active, dualflow trays
possess higher capacity than that of a sieve or valve tray. But, even at design liquid and vapor rates, efficiency is usually
lower. However, for high pressure, high vapor density systems, the peak tray efficiency approaches that of a sieve tray.
Dualflow trays are particularly well-suited for the fractionation of polymerizable compounds or high solids content systems (i.e.,
slurries) because of the self-cleaning nature of the tray. When these applications involve heat transfer service, consult your
FRACTIONATION SPECIALIST to determine the number of trays required.
FRI data have shown that the dualflow tray performs best in the operating region of 60 to 85 percent of flood, depending on the
system being designed. The efficiency increases rapidly with vapor rate and reaches a maximum in the 75 to 80 percent of
flood range. Although dualflow trays with greater than 20 percent hole area possess higher capacities than most other tray
types and packings, their efficiency is normally low. Consequently, dualflow trays may be used to debottleneck existing towers
only when a considerable sacrifice in efficiency can be tolerated.
The major disadvantage of dualflow tray is their poor turndown ratio resulting from the rapid fall off in efficiency as the vapor
loading is decreased. Therefore, the dualflow tray must be properly designed and the operating vapor and liquid rate ranges
must be kept small. The capacity credit will seldom justify dualflow trays as a first choice because of the tray's poor efficiency
characteristics. Sieve or valve trays should always be considered first, depending on flexibility requirements.

III-L 4 of 37 EXXON
Date ENGINEERING
BASIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

The dualflow tray design procedure requires the selection of a trial tower diameter, tray spacing, and tray layout. These are
then checked against performance limitations.
TRAY SPACING
The optimum combination of tray spacing and tower diameter is the one which minimizes the total investment, subject to the
limitations outlined under DETAILED DESIGN PROCEDURE. These limitations are a function of tower diameter, service, and
maintenance requirements.
TOWER DIAMETER
In a grass-roots tower design, the approximate (first trial) tower area for design of dualflow trays can be estimated from Eq.
(2a1) below. The metric equation Eq. (2a1)M can be found on the DUALFLOW TRAY CALCULATION FORM (METRIC).
VL
As = + 5.93 LL Eq. (2a1)
K σµ KH K AD
where: As = Tower cross-sectional area, ft2

VL = Vapor load at conditions, ft3/s, calculated using Eq. (1a1)
LL = Liquid rate at conditions, ft3/s
Kσµ = Surface tension-viscosity capacity factor, dimensionless (Figures 2 and 3)
KH = Tray spacing capacity factor, dimensionless (Figure 4A) (As first trial, use 18 in.
tray spacing)
KAD = Open area-hole size capacity factor, dimensionless (Figure 5) (As first trial, use 20%
open area and 1/2 in. hole size)
The percent of flood can then be calculated from Eq. (2c2) using the initial calculated tower area, or the existing tower area in
tower revamp studies. The metric equation Eq. (2c2)M can be found on the DUALFLOW TRAY CALCULATION FORM
(METRIC).
VL
100
As
%Fc = Eq. (2c2)
 - 5.93 L L 
K σµ K H K AD exp  
 As 
The calculated percent of flood, % Fc, should be checked against the recommended design percent of flood, % Fd, found under
the DETAILED DESIGN PROCEDURE. For the most economical new tower design and the highest possible efficiency at the
given design loadings, the tower cross-sectional area should be adjusted such that the calculated percent of flood approaches
the recommended design percent of flood. For the design of towers to be retrofitted with dualflow trays, the tray open area
and/or the tray spacing can be adjusted to achieve the recommended design percent of flood.
ç If the tower diameter exceeds 4 ft (1200 mm), dualflow trays should not be used since operating instabilities can occur because
of vapor and liquid maldistribution problems. Stone & Webster Ripple  Trays claim over 200 applications for towers up to 40
ft (12 m) in diameter and could be considered for towers greater than 4 ft (1200 mm) in diameter.
ULTIMATE CAPACITY
Eq. (2b1) or Eq. (2b1)M on the calculation forms give the limiting vapor load for ultimate capacity. If this load is exceeded, the
liquid is broken up into such small droplets that increasing the tray spacing will not reduce the amount of liquid entrained to the
tray above. The ratio of design vapor load to the vapor load for ultimate capacity must be kept below 90%. If necessary, the
tower diameter must be increased to reduce the percent of ultimate capacity.
TRAY LAYOUT AND HOLE AREA

As shown in Figure 1 where overall tray efficiency is plotted against vapor hole momentum for a typical FRI system, design tray
efficiency is maintained only within a very narrow vapor rate range. The location and width of this range at which design
efficiency can be maintained is a function of the tray open area and tray spacing as shown qualitatively in Figure 1.

EXXON III-L 5 of 37
ENGINEERING Date
BASIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS (Cont)

Turndown is the ratio of maximum to minimum vapor loadings between which the tray efficiency is maintained at nearly the
design value. For most dualflow trays this will be only 1.33 to 1 (i.e., the tray cannot be turned down more than 25%). For a
specific set of design maximum and minimum tower loadings, a maximum tray spacing design with a ratio of hole area to
bubble area of 15 - 20% will provide maximum turndown. However, for larger hole area ratios (25 - 30%), the peak efficiency is
significantly lower than that of smaller hole area trays.
The allowable vapor loading increases as the percent hole area increases. However, the maximum tray efficiency is adversely
affected for hole areas above 25 percent. The recommended hole area for use as a first trial for sizing new towers is 20
percent. Thus, a balance between capacity, efficiency, and turndown can be achieved by optimizing the hole area.
HOLE SIZE, SHAPE AND LAYOUT

In general, a hole diameter of 1/2 in. (13 mm) should be used. However, for fouling services containing solids or polymerizable
compounds, holes sizes of 3/4 in. to 1-1/2 in. (19 - 38 mm) are recommended. The allowable range of hole sizes is outlined in
Table 1.
In the rare case in which the designer is specifying the tray layout, the hole pitch to diameter ratio should be checked against
the criteria given in Table 1. However, it is usually not necessary to specify the pitch in the final process drawings that are
given to the tray fabricator. Hole diameter and area are sufficient for the fabricator to prepare the mechanical design and layout
for the tray.
TRAY HYDRAULICS
The dry tray pressure drop, total tray pressure drop, and clear liquid height are calculated from the equations presented in the
Tray Hydraulics section (Part 3) of the calculation forms.
TRAY EFFICIENCY
The method for predicting dualflow tray efficiency is based on the two resistance theory of mass transfer. Although the theory
was developed for cross-flow contacting devices such as sieve and valve trays, it has been empirically modified to predict the
efficiency of counter-current contacting on dualflow trays. For more background material on predicting efficiency, selecting key
components, or sectioning a tower, see Section III-I, Tray Efficiency.
DETAILED DESIGN PROCEDURE

The stepwise procedure for designing a dualflow tray is presented in the DUALFLOW TRAY CALCULATION FORMS found in
this section. The procedure involves assuming a trial tray design with the help of the principles outlined above, checking the
design against various potential operating limitations, and then modifying the trial design as required to achieve an optimum
tray design. Deciding how to modify the trial design (changing the tower diameter, tray spacing, layout, etc.) will require
judgment while applying the basic design considerations already discussed. The final design should then be reviewed by your
FRACTIONATION SPECIALIST.
The calculation step numbers and equation numbers referred to below are those found on the calculation forms.
VAPOR AND LIQUID LOADINGS AT CONDITIONS (STEP 1)

This information is normally calculated as part of the heat and material balances for the tower. If the minimum liquid and vapor
loadings have not been specified, assume 75% of the design loadings. Vapor loadings are to the tray in question; liquid
loadings are from the tray in question.
TRAY SPACING, SIZE, AND LAYOUT (STEP 2)

Tray Spacing - A low tray spacing (between 18 and 24 in. [450 - 600 mm]) is often the most economical. For the first trial, a
tray spacing of 18 in. (450 mm) or that shown below (whichever is larger) should be used. The values given below are the
minima for most applications as determined by considerations of maintenance and support beam depths.
In special cases, even smaller spacings may be justified. However, smaller tray spacings make maintenance more difficult. On
the other hand, capacity requirements or foaming services may necessitate the use of tray spacings above 36 in. (900 mm).

III-L 6 of 37 EXXON
Date ENGINEERING
DETAILED DESIGN PROCEDURE (Cont)
MINIMUM TRAY SPACING, in. (mm)

TOWER DIAMETER, ft (mm) FOULING SERVICE
5 or less (1500 mm or less) 18 (450)*
5-1/2 to 7-1/2 (1650 to 2250 mm) 21 (525)*
8 to 10 (2400 to 3000 mm) 24 (600)*
* If there is no manhead between trays. The minimum tray spacing with a manhead present is 24 in. (600 mm) or 6 in. (150
mm) larger than the manhead diameter, whichever is greater.
Hole Area - For good efficiency at moderate capacity, 20 percent open area should be specified. If higher capacities are
required and lower efficiencies can be tolerated, then the open area can be increased to as much as 30%.
Hole Size - For clean services, 1/2 in. (13 mm) diameter holes are generally specified. However, fouling services may require
hole sizes of 3/4 in. (19 mm) or larger.
Tower Diameter - For new tower designs, the trial tower diameter, Dtr, is calculated from Eq. (2a2) or (2a2)M. It will be
necessary to adjust the trial diameter in order for the calculated percent of flood to approach the recommended design values
listed below. For existing towers to be retrofitted with dualflow trays, the open area and/or the tray spacing can be adjusted to
obtain the recommended design values given below.
SERVICE MAXIMUM DESIGN PERCENT OF FLOOD, %Fd
Hydrocarbon 85%
Aqueous 85
Foaming 60
ç Eq. (2c2) or (2c2)M is the dualflow tray capacity correlation which was developed from FRI dualflow data collected in their four
ft (1200 mm) diameter towers. As noted earlier, dualflow trays should not be used if their diameter exceeds 4 ft (1200 mm).
The recommended design percents of flood for dualflow trays applies only to those systems with surface tensions in excess of
5 dynes/cm (m/Nm). For systems with lower surface tensions, the allowable design percent of flood will be greatly reduced. A
limited amount of data from FRI is available to assist in designing for these systems. For further guidance, consult your
FRACTIONATION SPECIALIST.
Ultimate Capacity - The vapor load factor corresponding to ultimate capacity is calculated from Eq. (2b1) or (2b1)M. The ratio
of design to ultimate capacity vapor rates must be kept below 90%.
TRAY HYDRAULICS (STEP 3)

This part of the calculation form outlines the prediction of the various components of tray pressure drop and froth height.
TRAY EFFICIENCY (STEP 4)

The tray efficiency calculation procedure is described in this part of the form. For a description of the recommended estimation
techniques for liquid molecular diffusivity, see Appendix II of Section III-G.
From the tray efficiency calculations, the actual number of trays required for a specified separation can be determined from the
overall efficiency and the number of theoretical trays.
TOWER CHECKLIST (STEP 5)

Table 7 of Section III-A contains a detailed tower checklist that should be reviewed for all new designs as well as revamps.
PROBABILITY OF SUCCESSFUL OPERATION

The capacity correlation given in this section is the most accurate one currently available for dualflow trays in both hydrocarbon
and aqueous services. However, it must be used with care because no safety factor has been built into this correlation.

EXXON III-L 7 of 37
ENGINEERING Date
NOMENCLATURE
Ab = Bubble area, ft2 (m2)
Ao = Hole area, ft2 (m2)
As = Tower cross-sectional area, ft2 (m2)
Aw = Waste area, ft2 (m2)
a = Interfacial area, cm2/cm3 (mm2/mm3) (see Figure 15)
CL = Total tray pressure drop factor, dimensionless (see Figure 7)
DL = Liquid molecular diffusivity, cm2/s (m2/s)
Dt = Tower diameter, ft (mm)
Dtr = Trial tower diameter, ft (mm)
do = Hole diameter, in. (mm)
EMV = Murphree tray efficiency, dimensionless
EO = Overall efficiency, dimensionless
EOG = Point efficiency, dimensionless
%Fc = Calculated percent of flood, %
%Fd = Design percent of flood, %
Fr = Froude number, dimensionless [see Eq. (3d1) or (3d1)M]
Gm = Vapor rate, lb moles/h (kmol/s)
H = Tray spacing, in. (mm)
hc = Clear liquid height, in. (mm) of hot liquid
hed = Dry tray pressure drop, in. (mm) of hot liquid at conditions
hf = Froth height, in. (mm) of froth at conditions
ht = Total tray pressure drop, in. (mm) of hot liquid
J5 = Dry tray pressure drop factor, dimensionless (see Figure 6)
KAD = Open area-hole size factor, dimensionless (see Figure 5)
KDV = Liquid phase mass transfer coefficient factor, dimensionless (see Figure 12)
KFL = Vapor phase mass transfer coefficient factor, dimensionless (see Figure 14)
KH = Tray spacing factor, dimensionless (see Figure 4)
KHD = Vapor phase mass transfer coefficient factor, dimensionless (see Figure 13)
KLV = Total tray pressure drop factor, dimensionless (see Figure 8)
Kp = Total tray pressure drop factor, dimensionless (see Figure 9)
KQ = Clear liquid height factor, dimensionless (see Figure 10)
Kσµ = Surface tension-viscosity capacity factor, dimensionless (see Figure 3)
Kη = Froth density factor, dimensionless (see Figure 11)
kG = Vapor phase mass transfer coefficient, cm/s (mm/s)
kL = Liquid phase mass transfer coefficient, cm/s (mm/s)
Lb = Liquid velocity through the bubble area, ft/s (m/s)
LL = Liquid load at conditions, ft3/s (dm3/s)
Lm = Liquid rate, lb moles/h (kmol/s)
Lo = Liquid velocity through the holes, ft/s (m/s)
m = Slope of y* vs. x equilibrium curve
NA = Number of actual trays
NG = Vapor phase transfer unit, dimensionless

III-L 8 of 37 EXXON
Date ENGINEERING
NOMENCLATURE (Cont)
NL = Liquid phase transfer unit, dimensionless
NOG = Overall (vapor) mass transfer unit, dimensionless
NT = Number of theoretical trays
Q = Ratio of vapor momentum to liquid momentum, dimensionless
qv = Vapor rate at conditions, ft3/s (m3/s)
t = Tray thickness, in. (mm)
tG = Vapor residence time, s
tL = Liquid residence time, s
Vb = Vapor velocity through bubble area, ft/s (m/s)
 ρv 
0.5   ρv 
0.5 
 
VL = Vapor load, ft3/s   at conditions  m3 /s   at conditions 
 ρL - ρ v  
  ρL - ρ v  

VL(Ult) = Vapor load for ultimate capacity, ft3/s (m3/s)
Vo = Vapor velocity through holes, ft/s (m/s)
β = Ultimate capacity factor, dimensionless
η = Froth density parameter, dimensionless
λ = m (Gm/Lm), dimensionless
µL = Liquid viscosity at conditions, cP (mPa⋅⋅s)
ρL = Liquid density at conditions, lbs/ft3 (kg/m3)
ρv = Vapor density at conditions, lbs/ft3 (kg/m3)
σL = Surface tension at conditions, dynes/cm (mN/m)
σSTD = Standard surface tension, dynes/cm (mN/m)
ψ = Froth density, dimensionless
COMPUTER PROGRAMS
ç A dualflow tray design computer program is available through PEGASYS. This computer program is of screening quality only.
Final designs should be done using the Dualflow Tray Calculations Forms provided in this design practices section. Final
design should also be checked by a FRACTIONATION SPECIALIST.

EXXON III-L 9 of 37
ENGINEERING Date
TABLE 1
DUALFLOW TRAY DESIGN PRINCIPLES
(METRIC VALUES ARE IN PARENTHESES)
SUGGESTED ALLOWABLE QUALITY OF DATA

DESIGN FEATURE VALUES RANGE COMMENTS BACK-UP
1. Application
a) Debottlenecking Because the entire plate is active,

dualflow trays possess higher
capacities than either the sieve or the
valve tray. However, dualflow trays
exhibit very poor turndown ratios (about
1.33/1). This results in substantial
efficiency debits as the percent of flood
decreases (see Figure 1).
ç b) Tower diameter Equal or Operating instability may occur for Poor
less than dualflow trays larger than 4 ft (1200
4 ft mm) in diameter. Ripple Trays may be
(1200 mm) considered for larger diameters.
c) Services Always consider using other internals

(i.e., sieve trays, valve trays, or
packing) before resorting to dualflow
trays. However, in fouling or slurry
services, dualflow trays may provide
the best performance.
2. Hole Size and

Layout
a) Hole diameter 1/2 in. 3/8 in. to Directionally, smaller holes have better Good
(13 mm) 1-1/2 in. capacity and efficiency characteristics
normal (9 - 38 mm) for nonfouling systems. However,
3/4 in. to holes smaller than 3/8 in. (9 mm) on
1-1/2 in. for carbon steel trays tend to rust over
fouling during hydrostatic testing and should
service. be avoided. The use of corrosion
(19 - 38 mm) resistant alloys to overcome this
problem may not be economically
justified. Additionally, holes larger than
1/2 in. (13 mm) reduce both capacity
and efficiency and increase the
pressure drop. But in fouling services,
these larger holes are necessary to
reduce the tendency for the holes to
become plugged.
b) Ratio of hole 15 to 25 10 to 30 In general, the lower the open area, the Good
area to bubble lower the capacity and the higher the
area, Ao/Ab, pressure drop will be. A dualflow tray
percent with 20 percent open area has good
capacity and efficiency with a
reasonable pressure drop. Higher
open area trays may be necessary for
increased capacity requirements, but
they tend to exhibit lower efficiencies.

III-L 10 of 37 EXXON
Date ENGINEERING
TABLE 1 (Cont)
DUALFLOW TRAY DESIGN PRINCIPLES
(METRIC VALUES ARE IN PARENTHESES)
SUGGESTED ALLOWABLE QUALITY OF DATA

DESIGN FEATURE VALUES RANGE COMMENTS BACK-UP
c) Hole distribution It is important that the hole area be Fair

uniformly distributed on the tray deck
to minimize vapor and liquid
maldistribution. Indications of
efficiency and capacity debits exist for
trays with non-uniform hole
distributions. For further details see
IP 5-2-1.
d) Ratio of hole 2 or 3 1.7 to 3 A triangular pitch should be used. Fair

pitch to hole
diameter
e) Hole blanking Blanking of dualflow trays is not Poor

recommended unless the tower is
being sized for future service with
higher capacity requirements. To
maintain the best efficiency, it is
important to blank the trays uniformly
within the bubbling area and not
around the periphery. See IP 5-2-1 for
more details on tray blanking.
3. Tray spacing 18 in. to 12 in. to Generally, lower tray spacings are Good
30 in. (450 36 in. (300 more economical. However, tray
to 750 mm) to 900 mm) capacity and efficiency increase with
increasing tray spacing. Use of
variable spacings to accommodate
loading changes from tower section to
tower section should be considered to
minimize tower height, improve
efficiency, and improve turndown.

EXXON III-L 11 of 37
ENGINEERING Date
FIGURE 1
EFFECT OF VAPOR MOMENTUM ON TRAY EFFICIENCY
(SAME FOR CUSTOMARY AND METRIC UNITS)
Ao/Ab = 15 to 20%
Design
Efficiency
Tray Efficiency
Relatively
Large
Turndown
Ratio
Vapor Momentum, V o ρ v, through the Holes
Ao/Ab = 25 to 30%
Design
Efficiency
Tray Efficiency
Small
Turndown
Ratio
Vapor Momentum, V o ρ v, through the Holes DP3LF01

Date ENGINEERING
FIGURE 2
σSTD)
STANDARD SURFACE TENSION (σ
(SAME FOR CUSTOMARY AND METRIC UNITS FOR APPLICATION)
50
40
30
20
σ STD, dynes / cm or mN / m
10
9
8
7
6
5
2
0.03 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10
DP3LF02
Viscosity, cP or mPa s

ENGINEERING Date
FIGURE 3
Kσ µ FACTOR FOR CAPACITY CORRELATION
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
K Factor
0.4
σµ
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10
Actual/Standard Surface Tension Ratio, σ L / σ STD DP3LF03
FIGURE 4A
KH FACTOR FOR CAPACITY CORRELATION
(CUSTOMARY UNITS)
0.20
0.19
0.18
0.17
KH Factor
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.12
12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
Tray Spacing, in DP3LF4a

Date ENGINEERING
FIGURE 4B
KH FACTOR FOR CAPACITY CORRELATION
(METRIC UNITS)
0.20
0.19
0.18
0.17
KH Factor
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.13
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Tray Spacing, mm DP3LF4b

ENGINEERING Date
FIGURE 5
KAD FACTOR FOR CAPACITY CORRELATION
3.2
3.1
Ao
3.0 Ab
30%
2.9
2.8
25%
2.7
2.6
KAD Factor
2.5
20%
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
15%
2.0
1.9
1.8
0.04 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Tray Thickness to Hole Diameter Ratio, t / d o

DP3LF05

Date ENGINEERING
FIGURE 6
J5 FACTOR FOR DRY TRAY PRESSURE DROP CORRELATION
0.44
Ao %
15
Ab
0.42
0.40 %
20
0.38
%
0.36 25
0.34
%
30
0.32
J5 Factor
0.30
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.20
0.18
0.16
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20 25
Hole Diameter to Tray Thickness Ratio, d o/ t DP3LF06

ENGINEERING Date
FIGURE 7A
CL FACTOR FOR TOTAL TRAY PRESSURE DROP CORRELATION
(CUSTOMARY UNITS)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
CL Factor
do
10 t
9
8 25
7
6 20
5
15
4
3 10
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6 2
0.5
0.005 0.007 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 10
Liquid Velocity Through Bubble Area, L b

, ft / s DP3LF7a

Date ENGINEERING
FIGURE 7B
CL FACTOR FOR TOTAL TRAY PRESSURE DROP CORRELATION
(METRIC UNITS)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10 do
CL Factor
9 t
8
25
7
6 20
5
15
4
3 10
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6 2
0.5
0.001 0.002 0.003 0.005 0.007 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Liquid Velocity Through Bubble Area, L b, m/s DP3LF7b

ENGINEERING Date
FIGURE 8
KLV FACTOR FOR TOTAL TRAY PRESSURE DROP CORRELATION
4
Q
3
1
0.9
10
0.8
0.7
0.6
KLV Factor
20
0.5
0.4
40
0.3
60
80
0.2
100
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 100 200 300 400 500
CL
J5 DP3LF08

Date ENGINEERING
FIGURE 9
Kp FACTOR FOR TOTAL TRAY PRESSURE DROP CORRELATION
0.8
0.7
J5
0.6
0.5
KP Factor
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.3
0 1 2 3 4 5
KLV DP3LF09

ENGINEERING Date
FIGURE 10
KQ FACTOR FOR CLEAR LIQUID HEIGHT CORRELATION
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
9
KQ Factor
8
7
6
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
DP3LF10
Q

Date ENGINEERING
FIGURE 11
Kη FACTOR FOR FROTH DENSITY CORRELATION
10
9
8
7
Ao
6
Ab
5
4
Kη Factor
10%
3
20%
30%
2
1
0.001 0.002 0.003 0.005 0.007 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.1 0.2
ρV DP3LF11
ρL
FIGURE 12A
KDV FACTOR FOR LIQUID PHASE MASS TRANSFER
COEFFICIENT CORRELATION
(CUSTOMARY UNITS)
20
(ρ L – ρ V) lbs / ft 3
80
60
40
KDV Factor
10
9 20
8
7 10
6
5
5
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 100
(ρ L µ L) lbs cP DP3LF12a
ft3

ENGINEERING Date
FIGURE 12B
KDV FACTOR FOR LIQUID PHASE MASS TRANSFER
(METRIC UNITS)
20
kg
(ρ L − ρ V)
m3
1200
900
10 600
KDV Factor
9
300
8
7 200
6
100
5
4
3
2
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 100 200 300 400 500 700 1000 2000
kg
(ρ L µ L), mPa s DP3LF12b
m3
FIGURE 13A
KHD FACTOR FOR VAPOR PHASE MASS TRANSFER
(CUSTOMARY UNITS)
20
Tray Spacing, in
10 48
9
36
8 24
KHD Factor
7
6 12
2
0.04 0.05 0.07 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
t
Tray Thickness to Hole Diameter Ratio, DP3LF13a
do

Date ENGINEERING
FIGURE 13B
KHD FACTOR FOR VAPOR PHASE MASS TRANSFER
(METRIC UNITS)
20
Tray Spacing, mm
10
9
1200
8 900
KHD Factor
7
600
6
300
5
2
0.04 0.05 0.07 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
t
Tray Thickness to Hole Diameter Ratio,
do DP3LF13b

ENGINEERING Date
FIGURE 14A
KFL FACTOR FOR VAPOR PHASE MASS TRANSFER
(CUSTOMARY UNITS)
5
1
0.9 Percent of Flood
0.8
0.7
40
50
0.6
60
70
0.5
80
90
0.4
0.3
KFL Factor
0.2
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1 2
VL
, ft/s DP3LF14a
AO

Date ENGINEERING
FIGURE 14B
KFL FACTOR FOR VAPOR PHASE MASS TRANSFER
(METRIC UNITS)
1
0.9 Percent of Flood
0.8
0.7 40
0.6 50
60
70
0.5
80
90
0.4
0.3
KFL Factor
0.2
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.03 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
VL DP3LF14b
AO , m/s

ENGINEERING Date
FIGURE 15A
INTERFACIAL AREA
(CUSTOMARY UNITS FOR APPLICATION)
4
a, cm2 / cm3
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Vb ρ v DP3LF15a
FIGURE 15B
INTERFACIAL AREA
(METRIC UNITS)
0.5
0.4
a, mm2 / mm3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Vb ρ v
DP3LF15b

Date ENGINEERING
DUALFLOW TRAY CALCULATION FORM (CUSTOMARY UNITS) SHEET 1 OF 5
Refinery & Project _________________________________________ Date _____________________________

Tower ___________________________________________________ By ______________________________
Service __________________________________________________
Tower Section (Top, Bottom) _____________________
Tower Number(s) _____________________
Design Based on Tray No. _____________________
1. Vapor and Liquid Loadings @ Conditions

a. Vapor to the tray
Temperature, °F _____________________
Pressure, psia _____________________
Density, ρv, lb/ft3 ρv _____________________
Vapor rate, qv, ft3/s qv _____________________
ρv
_____________________
ρL - ρv
0.5
 ρv 
VL = qv   Eq. (1a1) VL _____________________
 ρL - ρv 
b. Liquid from the tray
Temperature, °F _____________________
Viscosity µL, cP µL _____________________
Surface tension σL, dynes/cm σL _____________________
Density, ρL, lb/ft3 ρL _____________________
Liquid rate, LL, ft3/s LL _____________________
2. Trial Size, Spacing and Layout

a. Trial tray size TRIAL FINAL
Design percent flood, %Fd %Fd ________ ________
Standard surface tension, σSTD, dynes/cm (Figure 2) σSTD ________ ________
(σL/σSTD) ________ ________
Kσµ (Figure 3) Kσµ ________ ________
Tray spacing, H, in. H ________ ________
Tray thickness, t, in. t ________ ________
Hole diameter, do, in. do ________ ________
Fraction open area, Ao/Ab Ao/Ab ________ ________
KH (Figure 4A) KH ________ ________
KAD (Figure 5) KAD ________ ________

ENGINEERING Date
TRIAL FINAL
If you are designing dualflow trays for an existing
tower, proceed to Step 2(b).
VL
Trial As = + 5.93 L L Eq. (2a1) ________ ________
K σµ K H K AD
Trial Dtr = 1.13 (Trial As)0.5 Eq. (2a2) Dtr ________ ________
Round up trial Dtr to nearest standard size

diameter (generally in 0.25 ft increments)
Standard trial Dtr, ft ________ ________
b. Ultimate capacity
1/4
 β   σL 
VL(Ult) = 0.62 A s    Eq. (2b1) ________ ________
 1 + β   ρL - ρv 
0.5
 ρ _ ρv 
where: β = 1.4  L  VL(Ult) ________ ________
 ρv 
Design vapor load, VL, (from Eq. (1a1)) ________ ________
VL/VL(Ult) ________ ________
If VL/VL(Ult) > 0.90 choose a
larger diameter and repeat this step.
c. Final tray size

As = 0.785 Dt2, ft2 Eq. (2c1) ________ ________
100 VL /A s
%Fc = Eq. (2c2) ________ ________
 - 5.93 LL 
K σµ KH K AD exp  
 As 
If %Fc > %Fd, choose a larger
diameter and repeat Steps (2b) and (2c)
If %Fc < < %Fd, consider reducing
the diameter such that %Fc = %Fd
d. Final tray layout

Tower diameter, Dt, ft Dt ________ ________
Tray spacing H, in. H ________ ________
Cross-sectional area, As, ft2 As ________ ________
Waste area, Aw, ft2 (if any) Aw ________ ________
Bubble area, Ab = (As - Aw), ft2 Ab ________ ________
Open area, Ao, ft2 Ao ________ ________
Fraction open area, Ao / Ab Ao / Ab ________ ________

Date ENGINEERING
e. Final tray loadings

Vapor hole velocity, Vo, ft/s
qv
Vo = Eq. (2e1) Vo _____________________
Ao
Vapor bubble area velocity, Vb, ft/s
qv
Vb = Eq. (2e2) Vb _____________________
Ab
Liquid hole velocity, Lo, ft/s
LL
Lo = Eq. (2e3) Lo _____________________
Ao
Liquid bubble area velocity, Lb, ft/s
LL
Lb = Eq. (2e4) Lb _____________________
Ab
3. Tray Hydraulics
a. Dry tray pressure drop, hed, in. of hot liquid
do do
_____________________
t t
J5 (Figure 6) J5 _____________________
ρ
hed = J5 v Vo2 Eq. (3a1) hed _____________________
ρL
b. Total tray pressure drop, ht, in. of hot liquid

CL (Figure 7A) CL _____________________
CL
_____________________
J5
0.5
Vo  ρv 
Q=   Eq. (3b1) Q _____________________
Lo  ρL 
KLV (Figure 8) KLV _____________________
Kp (Figure 9) Kp _____________________
ρ  2
ht = K p (KLV + 1.0)3  v  Vo Eq. (3b2) ht _____________________
 ρL 
c. Clear liquid height, hc, in. of hot liquid

KQ (Figure 10) KQ _____________________
hc = ht - KQ hed Eq. (3c1) hc _____________________

ENGINEERING Date
FINAL
d. Froth height, hf, in. of froth at conditions
Vb2
Fr = 0.373 Eq. (3d1) Fr _____________________
hc
Kη (Figure 11) Kη _____________________
η = K η (Fr ) 0.41
Eq. (3d2) η _____________________
1
ψ= Eq. (3d3) ψ _____________________
1+ η
hc
hf = Eq. (3d4) hf _____________________
ψ
4. Tray Efficiency
a. Liquid and vapor residence times, tL and tG in seconds
hf
tL = 0.0833 Eq. (4a1) tL _____________________
Lb
hf
tG = 0.0833 Eq. (4a2) tG _____________________
Vb
b. Mass transfer coefficients, kL and kG, cm/s

(ρL µL) _____________________
KDV (Figure 12A) KDV _____________________
DL, cm2/s DL _____________________
If values for DL are not available, see Section III-G,

Appendix II, for the recommended estimation methods
kL = KDV (DL )0.5 Eq. (4b1) kL _____________________

KHD (Figure 13A) KHD _____________________
KFL (Figure 14A) KFL _____________________
Ao
kG = K HD K FL Eq. (4b2) kG _____________________
Ab
c. Interfacial area, a, cm2/cm3

a (Figure 15A) a _____________________

Date ENGINEERING
FINAL
d. Transfer units, NL and NG, dimensionless
NL = kL a tL Eq. (4d1) NL _____________________
NG = kG a tG Eq. (4d2) NG _____________________
e. Equilibrium parameters
dy *
m= , from equilibriu m curve m _____________________
dx
G 
λ= m  m  Eq. (4e1) _____________________
 Lm 
f. nsfer units
1 1 λ 1
= + Eq. (4f1) _____________________
NOG NG NL NOG
g. Point Efficiency
EOG = 1 - exp (-NOG) Eq. (4g1) EOG _____________________
EOG* = 0.9 EOG Eq. (4g2) EOG* _____________________
h. Tray Efficiency
e ( λ EOG *) - 1
EMV = Eq. (4h1) EMV _____________________
λ
i. Overall Efficiency
ln [1 + EMV ( λ - 1)]
EO = Eq. (4i1) EO _____________________
ln (λ )
j. Number of Trays
NA = NT / EO Eq. (4j1) NA _____________________
5. Tower Checklist - See Table 7 in Section III-A for the Tower Design Checklist (Trays)

ENGINEERING Date
DUALFLOW TRAY CALCULATION FORM (METRIC UNITS) SHEET 1 OF 5
Refinery & Project _________________________________________ Date ____________________________

Tower ___________________________________________________ By ______________________________
Service __________________________________________________
Tower Section (Top, Bottom) _____________________
Tower Number(s) _____________________
Design Based on Tray No. _____________________
1. Vapor and Liquid Loadings @ Conditions

a. Vapor to the tray
Temperature, °C _____________________
Pressure, kPa gage _____________________
Density, ρv, kg/m3 ρv _____________________
Vapor rate, qv, m3/s qv _____________________
ρv
_____________________
ρL - ρv
0.5
 ρv 
VL = qv   Eq. (1a1)M VL _____________________
 ρL - ρv 
b. Liquid from the tray
Temperature, °C _____________________
Viscosity µL, mPa•s µL _____________________
Surface tension σL, mN/m σL _____________________
Density, ρL, kg/m3 ρL _____________________
Liquid rate, LL, dm3/s LL _____________________
2. Trial Size, Spacing and Layout

a. Trial tray size TRIAL FINAL
Design percent flood, %Fd ________ ________
Standard surface tension, σSTD, dynes/cm (Figure 2) σSTD ________ ________
(σL/σSTD) ________ ________
Kσµ (Figure 3) Kσµ ________ ________
Tray spacing, H, mm H ________ ________
Tray thickness, t, mm t ________ ________
Hole diameter, do, mm do ________ ________
Fraction open area, Ao/Ab Ao/Ab ________ ________
KH (Figure 4B) KH ________ ________
KAD (Figure 5) KAD ________ ________

Date ENGINEERING
TRIAL FINAL
If you are designing dualflow trays for an existing
tower, proceed to Step 2(b).
 1000 VL 
Trial As = 0.00328  + 5.93 LL  Eq. (2a1)M ________ ________
 K σµ KH K AD 
Trial Dtr = 1.13 (Trial As)0.5 Eq. (2a2)M Dtr ________ ________
Round up trial Dtr to nearest standard size

diameter (generally in 75 mm increments)
Standard trial Dtr , mm ________ ________
b. Ultimate capacity
1/4
 β   σL 
VL(Ult) = 0.378 A s    Eq. (2b1)M ________ ________
 1 + β   ρL - ρ v 
0.5
 ρ _ ρv 
where: β = 1.4  L  VL(Ult) ________ ________
 ρv 
Design vapor load, VL, (from Eq. (1a1)) ________ ________
VL/VL(Ult) ________ ________
If VL/VL(Ult) > 0.90 choose a
larger diameter and repeat this step.
c. Final tray size

As = 0.785 Dt2 x 10-6, m2 Eq. (2c1)M ________ ________
328 VL /A s
%Fc = Eq. (2c2)M ________ ________
 - 0.0194 LL 
K σµ KH K AD exp  
 As 
If %Fc > %Fd, choose a larger
diameter and repeat Steps (2b) and (2c)
If %Fc < < %Fd, consider reducing
the diameter such that %Fc = %Fd
d. Final tray layout

Tower diameter, Dt, mm Dt ________ ________
Tray spacing H, mm H ________ ________
Cross-sectional area, As, m2 As ________ ________
Waste area, Aw, m2 (if any) Aw ________ ________
Bubble area, Ab = (As - Aw), m2 Ab ________ ________
Open area, Ao, m2 Ao ________ ________
Fraction open area, Ao / Ab Ao / Ab ________ ________

ENGINEERING Date
e. Final tray loadings

Vapor hole velocity, Vo, m/s
qv
Vo = Eq. (2e1)M Vo _____________________
Ao
Vapor bubble area velocity, Vb, m/s
qv
Vb = Eq. (2e2)M Vb _____________________
Ab
Liquid hole velocity, Lo, m/s
LL
Lo = x 10−3 Eq. (2e3)M Lo _____________________
Ao
Liquid bubble area velocity, Lb, m/s
LL
Lb = x 10−3 Eq. (2e4)M Lb _____________________
Ab
3. Tray Hydraulics
a. Dry tray pressure drop, hed, mm of hot liquid
do do
_____________________
t t
J5 (Figure 6) J5 _____________________
ρv
hed = 273 J5 Vo2 Eq. (3a1)M hed _____________________
ρL
b. Total tray pressure drop, ht, mm of hot liquid

CL (Figure 7B) CL _____________________
CL
_____________________
J5
0.5
Vo  ρv 
Q=   Eq. (3b1)M Q _____________________
Lo  ρL 
KLV (Figure 8) KLV _____________________
Kp (Figure 9) Kp _____________________
ρ 
ht = 273 Kp (KLV + 1.0)3  v  Vo2 Eq. (3b2)M ht _____________________
 ρL 
c. Clear liquid height, hc, mm of hot liquid

KQ (Figure 10) KQ _____________________
hc = ht - KQ hed Eq. (3c1)M hc _____________________

Date ENGINEERING
FINAL
d. Froth height, hf, mm of froth at conditions
Vb2
Fr = 102 Eq. (3d1)M Fr _____________________
hc
Kη (Figure 11) Kη _____________________
η = K η (Fr ) 0.41
Eq. (3d2)M η _____________________
1
ψ= Eq. (3d3)M ψ _____________________
1+ η
hc
hf = Eq. (3d4)M hf _____________________
ψ
4. Tray Efficiency
a. Liquid and vapor residence times, tL and tG in seconds
hf
tL = x 10−3 Eq. (4a1)M tL _____________________
Lb
hf
tG = x 10−3 Eq. (4a2)M tG _____________________
Vb
b. Mass transfer coefficients, kL and kG, mm/s

(ρL µL) _____________________
KDV (Figure 12B) KDV _____________________
DL, m2/s DL _____________________
If values for DL are not available, see Section III-G,

Appendix II, for the recommended estimation methods
kL = 1000 KDV (DL )0.5 Eq. (4b1)M kL _____________________

KHD (Figure 13B) KHD _____________________
KFL (Figure 14B) KFL _____________________
Ao
kG = K HD K FL Eq. (4b2)M kG _____________________
Ab
c. Interfacial area, a, mm2/mm3

a (Figure 15B) a _____________________

ENGINEERING Date
FINAL
d. Transfer units, NL and NG, dimensionless
NL = kL a tL Eq. (4d1)M NL _____________________
NG = kG a tG Eq. (4d2)M NG _____________________
e. Equilibrium parameters
dy *
m= , from equilibriu m curve m _____________________
dx
G 
λ = m  m  Eq. (4e1)M λ _____________________
 Lm 
f. Overall transfer units

1 1 λ 1
= + Eq. (4f1)M _____________________
NOG NG NL NOG
g. Point Efficiency
EOG = 1 - exp (-NOG) Eq. (4g1)M EOG _____________________
EOG* = 0.9 EOG Eq. (4g2)M EOG* _____________________
h. Tray Efficiency
e ( λ EOG *) - 1
EMV = Eq. (4h1)M EMV _____________________
λ
i. Overall Efficiency
ln [1 + EMV ( λ - 1)]
EO = Eq. (4i1)M EO _____________________
ln ( λ )
j. Number of Trays
NA = NT/EO Eq. (4j1)M NA _____________________
5. Tower Checklist - See Table 7 in Section III-A for the Tower Design Checklist (Trays)

Restricted Access Notice: Due To Third Party Proprietary Information

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Restricted Access Notice: Due To Third Party Proprietary Information

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Restricted Access Notice: Due To Third Party Proprietary Information

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ExxonMobil Proprietary

RESTRICTED ACCESS NOTICE

This practice may contain third party information with confidentiality

Any questions regarding Third Party Restricted Access should be

To continue within this practice CLICK HERE

ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company – Fairfax, VA

BASIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................................................................4

DETAILED DESIGN PROCEDURE ...........................................................................................................5

DUALFLOW TRAY CALCULATION FORM (PART 1 OF 5) (CUSTOMARY UNITS).................................28

DUALFLOW TRAY CALCULATION FORM (PART 1 OF 5) (METRIC UNITS)..........................................33

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

BASIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

where: As = Tower cross-sectional area, ft2

TRAY LAYOUT AND HOLE AREA

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

BASIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS (Cont)

HOLE SIZE, SHAPE AND LAYOUT

DETAILED DESIGN PROCEDURE

VAPOR AND LIQUID LOADINGS AT CONDITIONS (STEP 1)

TRAY SPACING, SIZE, AND LAYOUT (STEP 2)

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

DETAILED DESIGN PROCEDURE (Cont)

MINIMUM TRAY SPACING, in. (mm)

SERVICE MAXIMUM DESIGN PERCENT OF FLOOD, %Fd

TRAY HYDRAULICS (STEP 3)

TRAY EFFICIENCY (STEP 4)

TOWER CHECKLIST (STEP 5)

PROBABILITY OF SUCCESSFUL OPERATION

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

SUGGESTED ALLOWABLE QUALITY OF DATA

a) Debottlenecking Because the entire plate is active,

c) Services Always consider using other internals

2. Hole Size and

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

SUGGESTED ALLOWABLE QUALITY OF DATA

c) Hole distribution It is important that the hole area be Fair

d) Ratio of hole 2 or 3 1.7 to 3 A triangular pitch should be used. Fair

e) Hole blanking Blanking of dualflow trays is not Poor

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

Vapor Momentum, V o ρ v, through the Holes

Vapor Momentum, V o ρ v, through the Holes DP3LF01

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

Actual/Standard Surface Tension Ratio, σ L / σ STD DP3LF03

Tray Spacing, in DP3LF4a

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

Tray Spacing, mm DP3LF4b

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

Tray Thickness to Hole Diameter Ratio, t / d o

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

Hole Diameter to Tray Thickness Ratio, d o/ t DP3LF06

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

Liquid Velocity Through Bubble Area, L b

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

Refinery & Project _____________ Date _

Refinery & Project _____________ Date