CHAPTER 3

How Trays Work:

Flooding
History of Distillation
The ancient Egyptians produced beer from barley that had a few
percent of alcohol. Next, wine was produced by fermenting grape
juice, which had a greater sugar content than barley. This brought
the content of alcohol up to about 14 percent. Next, fortified wines
(like sherry or port) were made by adding extra sugar and yeast to
the fermenting grape juice. This increased the alcohol up to about
17 percent. Much above this point, alcohol kills off the yeast.
Next, distillation was used. I visited a primitive distillation plant
in Peru. It was a single-stage evaporation process. The fermented grape
juice is partially vaporized and the alcohol–water vapors are totally
condensed. The resulting condensate is 40 to 44 percent alcohol. The
higher alcohol content is obtained by vaporizing less of the still’s
content.
To go much beyond the 44 percent alcohol, one needs to intro-
duce modern process engineering technology:

• Partial condensation
• Reflux
• Reboiler

I’ve shown a sketch of such a facility in Fig. 1.3. The idea is to

generate reflux to improve the separation between water and etha-
nol. To generate reflux, a partial (rather than a total) condenser is
required. Also, a way of adding more heat to the still, to match up
with the capacity of the partial condenser, is needed. I’ve now intro-
duced a complex control loop into my plant. Alcohol levels of 60-plus
percent can be obtained with this two-stage evaporator.
Finally, we have the Patent Still, introduced by the Scots in the
1830s. Now, distillation trays equipped with bubble caps and feed
preheat are used. I visited an apple orchard in England, which used

23

03_Lieberman_Ch03_023-[Link] 23 14/04/14 5:59 PM

 24 Chapter Three

Figure 3.1 The very first distillation tower was the Patent Still. This drawing was
filed with the original patent application submitted in 1835. Column on the right is a
bubble-cap trayed tower. Column on the left is a feed preheater vs. an overhead
vapor condenser.

the original design of the Patent Still to produce apple brandy. A sketch
of this apparatus, whose design has not been altered in 180 years, is
shown in Fig. 3.1. The sketch has been copied from the original patent
application filed in London in the 1830s.
With the multitrayed distillation column, ethanol concentrations
(as limited by the alcohol–water azeotrope) of 90-plus percent can be
obtained, if enough reflux and enough trays are used.

3.1 Tray Types

Distillation towers are the heart of a process plant, and the working
component of a distillation column is the tray. A tray consists of the
following components, as shown in Fig. 3.2:

• Overflow, or outlet weir

• Downcomer
• Tray deck

There are two types of tray decks: perforated trays and bubble-
cap trays. In this chapter, we describe only perforated trays, examples
of which are

• Valves or flutter caps

• V grid, or extruded-valve caps
• Sieve decks
• Jet trays

03_Lieberman_Ch03_023-[Link] 24 14/04/14 5:59 PM

 H o w Tr a y s Wo r k : F l o o d i n g 25

Weir

Downcomer

Tray
deck

Figure 3.2 Perforated trays.

Possibly 90 percent of the trays seen in the plant are of these types.
Perforated tray decks all have one feature in common; they depend
on the flow of vapor through the tray deck perforations, to prevent
liquid from leaking through the tray deck. As we will see later, if
liquid bypasses the outlet weir and leaks through the tray deck onto
the tray below, tray separation efficiency will suffer.

3.2 Tray Efficiency

Distillation trays in a fractionator operate between 10 and 90 percent
efficiency. It is the process person’s job to make trays operate as close
to 90-percent efficiency as possible. Calculating tray efficiency is
sometimes simple. Compare the vapor temperature leaving a tray to
the liquid temperature leaving the trays. For example, the efficiency
of the tray shown in Fig. 3.3 is 100 percent. The efficiency of the tray
in Fig. 3.4 is 0 percent.
How about the 10 trays shown in Fig. 3.5? Calculate their average
efficiency (the answer is 10 percent). As the vapor temperature rising
from the top tray equals the liquid temperature draining from the
bottom tray, the 10 trays are behaving as a single perfect tray with
100-percent efficiency. But as there are 10 trays, each tray, on average,
acts like one-tenth of a perfect tray.

03_Lieberman_Ch03_023-[Link] 25 14/04/14 5:59 PM

 26 Chapter Three

400°F
Vapor 350°F
Liquid

400°F
Liquid

450°F
Vapor

Figure 3.3 Hundred-percent tray efficiency.

400°F
350°F
Vapor
Liquid

350°F
Liquid

400°F
Vapor

Figure 3.4 Zero-percent tray efficiency.

03_Lieberman_Ch03_023-[Link] 26 14/04/14 5:59 PM

 H o w Tr a y s Wo r k : F l o o d i n g 27

Figure 3.5
Average tray
efficiency = 400°F
10 percent.
Vapor

(1)

(2)

(9)

(10)

400°F
Liquid

Poor tray efficiency is caused by one of two factors:

• Flooding
• Dumping

In this chapter, we discuss problems that contribute to tray deck

flooding.

03_Lieberman_Ch03_023-[Link] 27 14/04/14 5:59 PM

 28 Chapter Three

3.3 Downcomer Backup

Liquid flows across a tray deck toward the outlet weir. The liquid over-
flows the weir, and drains through the downcomer to the tray below.
Vapor bubbles up through the sieve holes, or valve caps, on the tray
deck, where the vapor comes into intimate contact with the liquid.
More precisely, the fluid on the tray is a froth or foam—that is, a mix-
ture of vapor and liquid. In this sense, the function of a tray is to mix the
vapor and liquid together to form a foam. This foam should separate
back into a vapor and a liquid in the downcomer. If the foam cannot
drain quickly from a downcomer onto the tray below, then the foamy
liquid or froth will back up onto the tray above. This is called flooding.

3.4 Downcomer Clearance

Referring to Fig. 3.6, note that the downcomer B is flooding. The cause
is loss of the downcomer seal. The height of the outlet weir is below the
bottom edge of the downcomer from the tray above. This permits
vapor to flow up downcomer B. The up-flowing vapor displaces the
downflowing liquid. That is, the vapor pushes the liquid up onto the
tray above—which is a cause of flooding. On the other hand, Fig. 3.7
shows what happens if the bottom edge of the downcomer is too close
to the tray below. The high pressure drop needed for the liquid to
escape from downcomer B onto tray deck 1 causes the liquid level in
downcomer B to back up onto tray deck 2. Tray 2 then floods. Once tray
2 floods, downcomer C (shown in Fig. 3.7) will also back up and flood.
This process will continue until all the tray decks and downcomers
above downcomer B are flooded.
On the other hand, all trays in a tower below downcomer B will
lose liquid levels and dry out when flooding starts in downcomer B.
Thus, the following rules apply:

• When flooding starts on a tray, all the trays above that point
will also flood, but trays below that point will go dry.
• An early indication of flooding in a distillation column is loss
of liquid level in the bottom of the column.
• If the downcomer clearance—which means the distance
between the bottom edge of the downcomer and the tray
below—is too great, the downcomer becomes unsealed. Vapor
flows up the downcomer, and the trays above flood.
• If the downcomer clearance is too small, then liquid backs up
in the downcomer, and the trays above flood. To calculate the
height of liquid in the downcomer, due to liquid flowing
through the downcomer clearance:
DH = 0.6 × V 2

03_Lieberman_Ch03_023-[Link] 28 14/04/14 5:59 PM

 H o w Tr a y s Wo r k : F l o o d i n g 29

Figure 3.6
Flooding due to
lack of a
downcomer seal.

Vapor

Figure 3.7
Flooding caused by
inadequate
downcomer C
clearance.

Tray #2

Tray #1

03_Lieberman_Ch03_023-[Link] 29 14/04/14 5:59 PM

 30 Chapter Three

where DH =inches of clear liquid backup in the downcomer, due to

head loss under the downcomer
V =horizontal component of liquid velocity, in ft/s, as the
liquid escapes from the downcomer

To guarantee a proper downcomer seal, the bottom edge of a

downcomer should be about 0.5 inch below the top edge of the outlet
weir. This dimension should be carefully checked by process person-
nel when a tower is opened for inspection. It is quite easy for sloppy
tray installation to distort this critical factor.

3.4.1 Height of Liquid on Tray Deck

As the liquid level on a tray increases, the height of liquid in the
downcomer feeding this tray will increase by the same amount.
Again, excessive downcomer liquid or froth levels result in flooding
and loss of tray efficiency.
The liquid level on a tray is a function of two factors:

• Weir height
• Crest height

The weir height on many trays is adjustable. We usually adjust

the weir height to between 2 and 3 inches. This produces a reasonable
depth of liquid on the tray to promote good vapor-liquid contact.
The crest height is similar to the height of water overflowing a
dam. It is calculated from

Crest height = 0.4 (GPM ÷ inch (outlet) weir length)0.67

where crest height = inches of clear liquid overflowing the weir

GPM = gallons (U.S.) per minute of liquid leaving the
tray
The sum of the crest height plus the weir height equals the depth
of liquid on the tray deck. One might now ask, “Is not the liquid
level on the inlet side of the tray higher than the liquid level near the
outlet weir?” While the answer is “Yes, water does flow downhill,”
we design the tray to make this factor small enough to neglect.

3.5 Vapor-Flow Pressure Drop

We have yet to discuss the most important factor in determining the
height of liquid in the downcomer. This is the pressure drop of the
vapor flowing through the tray deck. Typically, 50 percent of the level
in the downcomer is due to the flow of vapor through the trays.
When vapor flows through a tray deck, the vapor velocity increases
as the vapor flows through the small openings provided by the valve
caps, or sieve holes. The energy to increase the vapor velocity comes

03_Lieberman_Ch03_023-[Link] 30 14/04/14 5:59 PM

 H o w Tr a y s Wo r k : F l o o d i n g 31
from the pressure of the flowing vapor. A common example of this is
the pressure drop we measure across an orifice plate. If we have a pipe-
line velocity of 2 ft/s and an orifice plate hole velocity of 40 ft/s, then
the energy needed to accelerate the vapor as it flows through the orifice
plate comes from the pressure drop of the vapor itself.
Let us assume that vapor flowing through a tray deck undergoes
a pressure drop of 1 psi (lb/in2). Figure 3.8 shows that the pressure
below tray deck 2 is 10 psig and the pressure above tray deck 2 is
9 psig. How can the liquid in downcomer B flow from an area of low
pressure (9 psig) to an area of high pressure (10 psig)? The answer is
gravity, or liquid head pressure.
The height of water needed to exert a liquid head pressure of 1 psi
is equal to 28 inches. of water. If we were working with gasoline, which
has a specific gravity of 0.70, then the height of gasoline needed to exert
a liquid head pressure of 1 psi would be 28 inches/0.70 = 40 inches of
clear liquid.

3.5.1 Total Height of Liquid in the Downcomer

To summarize, the total height of clear liquid in the downcomer is the
sum of four factors:

• Liquid escape velocity from the downcomer onto the tray

below.
• Weir height.
• Crest height of liquid overflowing the outlet weir.
• The pressure drop of the vapor flowing through the tray
above the downcomer. (Calculating this pressure drop is dis-
cussed in Chap. 4.)

Figure 3.8 Vapor

DP causes
downcomer
backup. 9 psig

Tray #2

10 psig

03_Lieberman_Ch03_023-[Link] 31 14/04/14 5:59 PM

 32 Chapter Three

Unfortunately, we do not have clear liquid, either in the down-

comer, on the tray itself, or overflowing the weir. We actually have a
froth or foam called aerated liquid. While the effect of this aeration on
the specific gravity of the liquid is largely unknown and is a function of
many complex factors (surface tension, dirt, tray design, etc.), an aera-
tion factor of 50 percent is often used for many hydrocarbon services.
This means that if we calculated a clear liquid level of 12 inches in
our downcomer, then we would actually have a foam level in the
downcomer of 12 inches/0.50 = 24 inches of foam.
If the height of the downcomer plus the height of the weir were
24 inches, then a downcomer foam height of 24 inches would corre-
spond to downcomer flooding. This is sometimes called liquid flood.
This discussion assumes that the cross-sectional area of the down-
comer is adequate for reasonable vapor-liquid separation. If the
downcomer loading (GPM/ft2 of downcomer top area) is less than
150, this assumption is okay, at least for most clean services. For dirty,
foamy services a downcomer loading of 100 GPM/ft2 would be safer.

3.6 Jet Flood

Figure 3.9 is a realistic picture of what we would see if our towers
were made of glass. In addition to the downcomers and tray decks
containing froth or foam, there is a quantity of spray, or entrained
liquid, lifted above the froth level on the tray deck. The force that

Figure 3.9
Entrainment
causes a jet flood.

Tray #2

Spray

Foam

Foam

Spray

03_Lieberman_Ch03_023-[Link] 32 14/04/14 5:59 PM

 H o w Tr a y s Wo r k : F l o o d i n g 33
generates this entrainment is the flow of vapor through the tower.
The spray height of this entrained liquid is a function of two factors:

• The foam height on the tray

• The vapor velocity through the tray

High vapor velocities, combined with high foam levels, will

cause the spray height to hit the underside of the tray above. This
causes mixing of the liquid from a lower tray with the liquid on the
upper tray. This backmixing of liquid reduces the separation, or tray
efficiency, of a distillation tower.
When the vapor flow through a tray increases, the height of froth
in the downcomer draining the tray will also increase. This does not
affect the foam height on the tray deck until the downcomer fills with
foam. Then a further increase in vapor flow causes a noticeable
increase in the foam height of the tray deck, which then increases the
spray height.
When the spray height from the tray below hits the tray above,
this is called the incipient flood point, or the initiation of jet flooding.
Note, though, that jet flood may be caused by excessive downcomer
backup. It is simple to see in a glass column separating colored water
from clear methanol how tray separation efficiency is reduced as
soon as the spray height equals the tray spacing. And while this
observation of the onset of incipient flood is straightforward in a
transparent tower, how do we observe the incipient flooding point in
a commercial distillation tower?
The reason I can write with confidence on this subject is that I
worked with a 4-inch demonstration transparent column at the Chev-
ron Refinery in Port Arthur, Texas, in 1989. I used the little distillation
tower to explain to plant technicians how distillation towers worked.
The tower’s feed was windshield wiper fluid with blue dye. The alco-
hol went overhead and the blue water was the bottoms product.

3.7 Incipient Flood

3.7.1 A Fundamental Concept
Figure 3.10 illustrates the operation of a simple propane-butane split-
ter. The tower controls are such that both the pressure and bottoms
temperature are held constant. This means that the percent of pro-
pane in the butane bottoms product is held constant. If the operator
increases the top reflux flow, here is what will happen:

1. The tower-top temperature drops.

2. The amount of butane in the overhead propane product drops.
3. The tower-bottom temperature starts to fall.

03_Lieberman_Ch03_023-[Link] 33 14/04/14 5:59 PM

 34 Chapter Three

-X

Reflux
1

Propane
product

Propane- 15
butane
feed 16

30

Steam
Butane
product

Figure 3.10 A simple depropanizer.

4. The reboiler duty increases, to restore the tower-bottom tem-

perature to its set point.
5. The weight flow of vapor and the vapor velocity through the
tray increase.
6. The spray height, or entrainment, between the trays increases.
7. When the spray height from the lower trays impacts the
upper trays, the heavier, butane-rich liquid contaminates the
lighter liquid on the upper trays with heavier butane.

03_Lieberman_Ch03_023-[Link] 34 14/04/14 5:59 PM

 H o w Tr a y s Wo r k : F l o o d i n g 35

Percent heavy
key component
A
in overhead

Incipient flood

Reflux

Figure 3.11 Definition of the incipient flood concept.

8. Further increases in the reflux rate then act to increase, rather

than decrease, the butane content of the overhead propane
product.

Figure 3.11 illustrates this point. Point A is called the incipient

flood point, that point in the tower’s operation at which either an
increase or a decrease in the reflux rate results in a loss of separation
efficiency. You might call this the optimum reflux rate; that would be
an alternate description of the incipient flood point.

3.7.2 Bypassing Steam Trap Stops Flooding

I wake up early to answer email questions before breakfast. Here’s
today’s question from South Africa:

• Hi Norman. We have a distillation tower that floods. Delta P

on trays below feed point is stable; delta P above feed (trays
16–22), increase from 9 to 19 KPA. Condenser and reflux
drum is internal in tower, and we cannot measure the reflux
rate. Yesterday, bypassed steam trap on reboiler outlet, and
flooding stopped. Conclude that flooding tower due to defec-
tive steam trap. What’s your opinion? Note tower fraction-
ation also improved after trap bypassed.
Regards,
Jon Sacha

• Dear Jon: You’re quite wrong. When you bypassed the steam
trap, you blew the condensate seal on the reboiler outlet. This
permitted uncondensed steam to blow through the reboiler,

03_Lieberman_Ch03_023-[Link] 35 14/04/14 5:59 PM

 36 Chapter Three

thus reducing the reboiler duty. The reduction in the reboiler

duty reduced the vapor flow up the tower and hence the inter-
nal reflux rate. This unloaded the trays and stopped the flood-
ing. Your observation that the tower fractionation improved as a
consequence of bypassing the steam trap was a positive indica-
tion that you had degraded tray efficiency due to entrainment.
That is, you were operating above the tower’s incipient flood
point. Certainly, there is nothing amiss with your reboiler steam
trap. You should try to water wash the trays above the feed
point onstream, as the trays in this service are typically subject to
NH4Cl salt sublimation. Hope this helps.
Best Regards,
Norman P. Lieberman

3.8 Tower Pressure Drop and Flooding

It is a characteristic of process equipment that the best operation is
reached at neither a very high nor a very low loading. The intermedi-
ate equipment load that results in the most efficient operation is
called the best efficiency point. For distillation trays, the incipient flood
point corresponds to the best efficiency point. We have correlated this
best efficiency point for valve and sieve trays as compared to the mea-
sured pressure drops in many distillation towers. We have derived the
following formula:

( ∆ P)(28)
=K
(NT)(TS)(s.g.)

where DP = pressure drop across a tray section, psi

NT = the number of trays
TS = tray spacing, inches
s.g. = specific gravity of clear liquid, at flowing temperatures

On the basis of hundreds of field measurements, we have observed

K = 0.18 to 0.25: Tray operation is close to its best efficiency point.

K = 0.35 to 0.40: Tray is suffering from entrainment—increase in
reflux rate noticeably reduces tray efficiency.
K = ≥0.5: Tray is in fully developed flood—opening a vent on the
overhead vapor line will blow out liquid with the vapor.
K = 0.10 to 0.12: Tray deck is suffering from low tray efficiency, due
to tray deck leaking.
K = 0.00: The liquid level on the tray is zero, and quite likely the
trays are lying on the bottom of the column.
K = 1.00: Tower is completely full of liquid.

03_Lieberman_Ch03_023-[Link] 36 14/04/14 5:59 PM

 H o w Tr a y s Wo r k : F l o o d i n g 37

3.8.1 Carbon Steel Trays

One of the most frequent causes of flooding is the use of carbon steel
trays. Especially when the valve caps are also carbon steel, the valves
have a tendency to stick in a partially closed position. This raises the
pressure drop of the vapor flowing through the valves, which, in
turn, pushes up the liquid level in the downcomer draining the tray.
The liquid can then back up onto the tray deck and promote jet flood
due to entrainment.
Of course, any factor (dirt, polymers, gums, salts) that causes a
reduction in the open area of the tray deck will also promote jet flood-
ing. Indeed, most trays flood below their calculated flood point,
because of these sorts of problems. Trays, like people, rarely perform
quite up to expectations.
The use of movable valve caps in any service where deposits can
accumulate on the tray decks will cause the caps to stick to the tray
deck. It’s best to avoid this potential problem. Use of grid trays with
fixed cap assemblies is preferred for most services.

3.9 Optimizing Feed Tray Location

From the design perspective, the optimum feed tray, for a feed with
only two components, is that tray where the ratio of the two compo-
nents matches the ratio in the feed. If the feed is at its bubble point
temperature, then the feed temperature and the tray temperature will
be the same, at the same pressure.
But that’s only for a binary feed composition. In multicomponent
distillation, the ratio of the key components in the feed will typically
not coincide with the ratio of the key components in the liquid on the
tray, even though the tray temperature is the same as the feed at its
bubble point temperature.
So the question is, which of the following two criteria should be
used to determine the feed tray location:

• Where the ratio of the key components in the liquid on a tray

matches the ratio of the key components in the feed?
• Or where the feed temperature matches the temperature of
the tray?
My practice is to identify both possible locations and then locate
the feed nozzle halfway between the two options. I would provide
two alternate feed nozzles at each of the other above locations, except
the operators would likely never use them.
Incidentally, when I refer to “Key Components,” I mean, for
example:

• Debutanizer—Normal Butane and iso-Pentane

• Depropanizer—Propane and iso-Butane

03_Lieberman_Ch03_023-[Link] 37 14/04/14 5:59 PM

 38 Chapter Three

• De-Ethanizer—Ethane and Propylene

• Gasoline Splitter—iso-Hexane and cyclo-Hexane

All of the above services have feeds with dozens of other non-key
components.

3.10 Catacarb CO2 Absorber Flooding

I’ve never told this story to anyone. Not even to Liz or my mom. It
occurred in Lithuania in 2006. I had been hired to expand the capac-
ity of the hydrogen plant that was limiting refinery capacity. The
bottleneck was the absorber that removed CO2 with catacarb solu-
tion from the hydrogen product. This absorber was subject to flood-
ing as the catacarb circulation rate increased in proportion to H2
production. That is, the solution was carried overhead with the
hydrogen product.
I studied the design of the tower, but could not see an explanation
for the flooding. Nevertheless, I decided to modify all the 40 trays in
the absorber. The materials were ordered, and the labor force organ-
ized. However, the morning the absorber was opened, I received a
call from my assistant, Joe.
“Hey, Norm, there’s kind of a plate in front of the solution inlet
nozzle (see Fig. 3.12). It don’t show on the drawings. What you want
to do with that plate?”
“Joe,” I answered, “I’ll be there in 10 minutes.”
I looked at the plate. Dimension “x” was only about ¾ inch. Evi-
dently, the plate was intended as an inlet solution distributor. I calcu-
lated that the delta P, as the solution flowed underneath the plate,
was about 15 inches:

• Delta H (inches) = 0.6 (V)2

• Where V was the solution velocity through the ¾-inch gap in
feet per second.
• The plate was 12 inches high. As the solution rate increased,
the liquid would back up over the top edge of the plate
and be blown out of the top of the absorber. So, I told Joe to
have the bottom 2 inches of the plate cut off to increase “x”
to 2¾ inches.

“And, Joe,” I continued, “Also, close up the tower afterward.”

“Norm, but what about all the tower tray changes?” Joe pro-
tested.
“Don’t argue. I know what I’m doing.”
When the tower started up a week later, the Hydrogen Plant bot-
tleneck was gone. The plant manager never found out what I did,

03_Lieberman_Ch03_023-[Link] 38 14/04/14 5:59 PM

 H o w Tr a y s Wo r k : F l o o d i n g 39
Hydrogen

Catacarb Catacarb
CO2 solution
"X" = 3/4" 12"
absorber

H2 + CO2

Figure 3.12 Restriction of the inlet distributor causes entrainment of the

catacarb solution.

or that I had wasted $20,000 for unused tray materials. Perhaps, since
I had achieved the objective, he wouldn’t have cared. Anyway, the
alternate proposal to expand H2 plant capacity, submitted by a major
engineering contractor, would have cost $3,000,000.
“All’s well that ends well.”

03_Lieberman_Ch03_023-[Link] 39 14/04/14 5:59 PM