Process Diagnostics

28 www.aiche.org/cep May 2007 CEP

F
low maldistribution in process units such as packed
columns can severely reduce process efficiency and
operability. To address this issue, computer-aided
tomography (CAT) using high-energy gamma rays can
provide information about the distribution of liquids,
vapors and solids inside a vessel (1).
CAT-scans generate a cross-sectional density profile of a
column or riser duct at a fixed elevation. This profile is
developed by taking several different angular measure-
ments between a source and a detector from many different
points on the circumference (1). Gamma-ray tomography
takes advantage of the penetrating properties of high-ener-
gy gamma radiation to detect internal process densities of
reactors, absorbers and distillation columns. Recent
decades have seen rapid growth in process tomography (2).
This article describes the use of gamma-ray CAT-scan-
ning for measuring liquid distribution in industrial packed-
bed columns, as well as for troubleshooting such equipment.
Gamma CAT-scan technology
Many different radioisotopes can be used as gamma-ray
sources. Proper source selection is critical to the success
or failure of gamma scans. When selecting a source, keep
the following guidelines in mind:
Photon energy. The larger or more dense the bed, the
more energetic the source should be. Source energy should
be adapted to the column diameter, process density and
holdup in the bed for good transmission and accuracy.
Activity. Sufficient source activity is required to pene-
trate the vessel, refractory or packing, and process fluids.
When source activity is low, the radiation detected is low,
and levels of background radiation can be significant (low
signal-to-noise ratio). Longer counting times are necessary
for smaller sources, since the accuracy of the counting-rate
measurement depends on the counting time. To minimize
counting time, the highest possible source activity must be
selected. On the other hand, sources with high activity can
reduce resolution and pose personnel exposure problems.
Detectors. Scintillation counters with a solid inorganic
crystal are superior to gas-filled detectors (i.e., Geiger-
Mueller counters) in terms of stability and sensitivity. An
intermediate-sized crystal (such as NaI) will detect scattered
radiation in addition to the pulse measured from the original
mono-energetic gamma-ray source. Scattered radiation can
interfere with achieving an accurate result if its effects are
not recognized and managed effectively by using the proper
equipment, procedures and equipment settings. As crystal
size increases, the scatter component becomes less signifi-
cant (3). Crystal size must be tailored to the job.
Scan lines. In the first gamma-ray tomography experi-
ment (4), a 5-millicurie cobalt-60 source and a Geiger-
Mueller detector were used. It involved 18 discrete meas-
urements, which were shaped in a fan pattern. The density
distribution was calculated graphically and analytically
based on these results. For the analytical method, the data
were reconstructed by assuming a fourth-order polynomial
density function and determining its coefficients by the
least-squares method.
That approach can be revised for packed towers. Unlike
a reactor riser pipe, the gamma absorption and density
Gamma CAT-scan technology makes
possible the collection of much more
vital online process information than
conventional diagnostic techniques.
Simon X. Xu
Shaw Stone & Webster
William Mixon
Tracerco
Diagnosing
Maldistribution in
Towers
CEP May 2007 www.aiche.org/cep 29
effects of the packing must be considered, since both will
vary with installation and operation. Secondly, more scans
are required for the towers, since most towers are larger in
diameter, and, hence, cross-sectional area. The third and
most important consideration in industrial towers is to
devise a system that is both functional and transportable
the system must be flexible, adapting to the individuali-
ty of a columns design and construction, as well as com-
pact so it can be easily moved from one location to anoth-
er in a timely manner. It must provide reproducible posi-
tioning for both the source and detector on several scans.
Dry scan. For applications that involve common com-
mercial packings and clean processes, the bed densities
and gamma absorption coefficients can be determined in
the lab. Otherwise, a dry scan of the tower is needed to
account for the packing. This dry scan should be done
when the tower is not operating, either before startup or
after shutdown.
Data reconstruction. A fourth-order polynomial density
function contains 15 coefficients that must be determined
by regression of the scan data. The more data points (scan
paths), the greater the statistical accuracy of the regressed
density profile. However, the more data points taken, the
more time is needed to perform the data acquisition, which
can be a problem if the column is unstable.
CAT-scan for packed columns
The new generation of packed column may exhibit
higher capacity, better efficiency and lower pressure drop
than a trayed column of the same size. However, this is
based on the premise of good vapor/liquid distribution in
the packed bed.
In industrial distillation columns, common causes of
liquid maldistribution include: design, manufacturing or
installation defects in distributors or packing beds; damage
or plugging; and process disturbances. The challenge for
troubleshooting engineers is diagnosing the maldistribu-
tion problems inside the beds.
Since the 1980s, initial liquid distribution has
received increasingly more attention, and many guide-
lines and test facilities for the design and assessment of
liquid distributors have been developed (5). However,
understanding the liquid distribution within industrial
packed columns is still nothing more than mathematical
speculation based on laboratory tests (6, 7).
In packed towers, liquid maldistribution can be clas-
sified as micro-maldistribution (random) or macro-
maldistribution (non-random). Micro-maldistribution is
characterized by slight and random differences in flows
from the drip points across the distributor, or from ran-
dom wandering of liquid in the packing channels. This
type of maldistribu-
tion can be offset by
lateral mixing of the
liquid traffic in the
packed bed, which
counterbalances any
ill effect on overall
efficiency (8).
However, the impact
of large-scale
macro-maldistribu-
tion is much more
severe (5).
Malfunctioning liq-
uid distributors and
fouling/plugging in packing beds are two common prob-
lems that cause macro-maldistribution.
In an industrial setting, CAT-scans detect macro-, but
not micro-, maldistribution. It is not practical or reason-
able to expect a fourth-order polynomial to provide a high-
resolution image. Should micro-maldistribution become a
major concern, more-complicated models for data collec-
tion and reconstruction will be needed.
Data collected from 20 to 200 scan lines are generally
sufficient to construct a representative tomography of most
industrial packed towers. Figure 1 shows a fan-beam
scheme of three fan rotations, with nine scan paths per
rotation (a 3 9 pattern). The object is to optimize the
placement of the scan paths to produce the best image.
Figure 2 shows two different conventions of presenting
CAT-scan results.
Demonstrating the technique
To evaluate the accuracy of CAT-scan techniques in
identifying liquid maldistribution, a series of scans was
performed on a 3-ft-dia. (914 mm) Plexiglass tower sec-
I Figure 2. CAT-scan results can be presented as a 3D contour map or
a 3D surface map.
3D Contour 3D Surface
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
,

l
b
/
f
t
3
Density, lb /ft
3
0
5
10
15
20
N
o
r
t
h
N
o
r
t
h
1420 1014 610 46
X
Y
Y
0.9
0
0.9
0.9
0
0.9
0.9
0
0.9
0.9 0 0.9
I Figure 1. The 3 9 scheme consists
of three fan rotations with nine scan
paths per rotation.
*
Source Detector
30 www.aiche.org/cep May 2007 CEP
tion with a 5-ft (1,524 mm) random packing bed, at the
Koch-Glitsch Research Center. A ladder pipe distributor
spread water to the top of the bed (with no countercur-
rent vapor flow), and the liquid was collected in an
annular collector or a chord collector beneath the packed
bed (Figure 3). Liquid flowrates were measured for each
section or annulus using the bucket-and-stopwatch
method. By sealing some of the distributor holes, annu-
lar and chord liquid maldistribution patterns were simu-
lated at liquid flowrates ranging from 5 to 20 gpm/ft
2
(1249 (m
3
/h)/m
2
). The CAT-scan elevation was 6 in.
(152 mm) above the bottom bed support. A 9 9 scan
pattern was utilized.
Figures 47 show CAT-scan results of the overall bed
density for simulated operations involving:
good distribution
chord maldistribution (more liquid flowing to one side)
Process Diagnostics
I Figure 3. Chord collectors and annular collectors are used to
determine liquid distribution.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Chord Collector Annular Collector
N
o
r
t
h
I Figure 4. CAT-scan for the good liquid distribution case.
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
,

l
b
/
f
t
3
N
o
r
t
h
Density, lb /ft
3
1122 1011 910 <9
0
0.9
0
0.6
4
8
12
16
20
0.9
0
0.9
I Figure 6. CAT-scan for the center annular maldistribution case.
Density, lb /ft
3
1420 1014 610 <6
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
,

l
b
/
f
t
3
N
o
r
t
h
0
0.6
0
5
10
15
20
0.9
0.9
0.9
0
I Figure 7. CAT-scan for the outer annular maldistribution case.
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
,

l
b
/
f
t
3
N
o
r
t
h
Density, lb /ft
3
1214 1112 811 78 <7
0.9
0
0.6
0
4
8
12
16
20
0.9
0
0.9
I Figure 5. CAT-scan for the chordal maldistribution case.
N
o
r
t
h
Density, lb /ft
3
1318 613 <6
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
,

l
b
/
f
t
3
0
5
10
15
20
0.9
0.9
0
0.9
0
0.6
CEP May 2007 www.aiche.org/cep 31
center annular maldistribution (more liquid flowing
toward the center area)
outer annular maldistribution (more liquid flowing
toward the outer area).
From a qualitative standpoint, the bed densities as
measured by the CAT-scans reflect the actual maldistribu-
tion patterns very well.
Quantitative CAT-scan results, however, present more
of a challenge. As noted earlier, a dry scan is necessary to
measure packing density and distribution in order to elimi-
nate the packing contribution from the overall bed density.
Figure 8 presents the results of a dry CAT-scan of the
test bed. Bed density varied over the range of 812 lb/ft
3
(130195 kg/m
3
) across the tower area, although the aver-
age bed density was close to the packing bulk density of
10.6 lb/ft
3
(170 kg/m
3
). Random packings can have local
bed-density variances due to installation and loading pro-
cedures, but weighting tests of beds that were packed dif-
ferently did not show significant density differences.
Further investigation found that the test column variance
was due to different orientations of the packing pieces on
the scan paths.
This indicates that a packings bulk density is not the
only factor that must be considered when investigating
maldistribution within a packed bed. A dry scan is needed
to account for packing orientation and external influences
such as stiffening rings and conduits, which can also affect
the scan results.
The volumetric fraction of liquid in the total flow for
any specific area can be obtained by integrating the liq-
uid density distribution, which is the difference between
the operating-bed density distribution and the dry-bed
density distribution.
Figures 9 and 10 compare the liquid distributions
obtained by the bucket-and-stopwatch method and the
CAT-scan. The distributions are in good agreement for the
good distribution and the chordal maldistribution
cases. Observations during the test indicated that part of the
annular collector was flooded and liquid overflowed from
one annulus to another. This precluded a quantitative com-
parison of the liquid distributions from the CAT-scan and
the collector for the annular maldistribution tests. However,
there is little reason to doubt the possibility of measuring
the annular maldistribution quantitatively with the CAT-
scan approach, based on the good qualitative images for
the annular maldistribution tests (Figures 6 and 7) and the
excellent quantitative agreement for the tests of good distri-
bution and chordal maldistribution (Figures 9 and 10).
Troubleshooting a refinery vacuum tower
The fractionation efficiency of a lube vacuum towers
top fractionation packed bed decreased significantly, affect-
ing the yield and quality of the top sidestream product.
This loss was attributed to liquid maldistribution resulting
I Figure 8. CAT-scan for the dry packing bed.
Density, lb/ft
3
1012 910
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
,

l
b
/
f
t
3
N
o
r
t
h
0.9
0
0.6
X
0
5
10
15
20
0.9
0
0.9
I Figure 9. Liquid flows determined by CAT-scan and by the
chord collector were in good agreement during good-distribution
operation.
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
L
i
q
u
i
d

F
l
o
w
r
a
t
e
,

g
p
m
/
f
t
2

Collector Area Number (#18 = West Side)
Measured by
Bucket-and-Stopwatch
Technique
Calculated from
CAT-Scan Results
I Figure 10. Liquid flows determined by CAT-scan and by the
chord collector were in good agreement during chordal maldistri-
bution operation.
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
L
i
q
u
i
d

F
l
o
w
r
a
t
e
,

g
p
m
/
f
t
2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Collector Area Number (#18 = West Side)
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
Measured by
Bucket-and-Stopwatch
Technique
Calculated from
CAT-Scan Results
32 www.aiche.org/cep May 2007 CEP
from corrosion products plugging the liquid pre-distributor
that fed the gravity-flow distributor above the bed. The
potential financial consequences of lost fractionation were
significant. The refinery staff were able to diagnose the
most likely cause of the tower problem based on thermal
profiles, analytical data and tower inspection history. To
quantify the location and magnitude of liquid distribution,
the gamma CAT-scan diagnostic technique was employed.
A grid scan was performed on the tower (Figure 11) to
provide an initial look at the distribution in the two beds
of packing (the top fractionation bed (F1) and the top
pumparound bed (TPA) above it). A grid scan consists of
four equal scans, one through each quadrant of the tower.
For each scan, a
detector and a
radioactive source
are lowered simulta-
neously along the
tower and gamma-
ray intensity meas-
urements are taken
at specific eleva-
tions. Under ideal
conditions and uni-
form liquid load-
ings, each scan plot
will closely overlay
the next. Non-uni-
form liquid loadings
or mechanical items such as manways can cause devia-
tions between the scan plots (1).
The grid scan data are shown in Figure 12. The data
indicate that both beds were in place and were experienc-
ing severe liquid maldistribution. The top (TPA) bed
appeared to exhibit liquid biasing to the south side of the
tower accompanied by a liquid deficiency on the west side
of the tower. The F1 bed appeared to be holding up a sig-
nificant amount of liquid in the top section of packing and
exhibited severe liquid maldistribution in the top half of
the packing. The maldistribution appeared to be less
severe lower in the bed, indicating that the structured
packing was redistributing the liquid.
A close look at the gamma absorption for the chimney
tray between the beds indicated that liquid was overflow-
ing the risers during the south and east scans. Liquid
appeared to be approximately even with the top of the ris-
ers on the north scan and two to three inches below the top
of the risers during the west scan. The high liquid level
could have been caused by plugged drip tubes or a
reduced draw rate from the collector.
A CAT-scan was performed on each bed of packing
at the elevations noted in Figure 12 in order to quantify
the liquid maldistribution. Figure 13 represents the
CAT-scan performed on bed F1 located below the vacu-
um gas oil (VGO) Draw. Two dry spots were identified,
one in the northeast quadrant and the other on the west
side of the tower.
With knowledge of the maldistribution patterns, a team
of refinery staff, local engineering/design contractor person-
nel and corporate engineers developed a novel, first-of-a-
Process Diagnostics
I Figure 11. The scan line orientations
for the grid scan of the lube vacuum
tower.
Gamma Source
Radiation Detector
N
I Figure 12. Grid scan data for the lube vacuum tower.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
100 1,000 10,000
Tan Line
CAT-Scan Elevation
Manway
Platform
VTPA/VGO Draw
T
o
p

B
e
d

B
e
d

F
1
Ring 194'6"
Risers Hats 194'1"
Top of Risers 192'7"
Pan #5 191'9"
Bottom of Stump 190'4"
Distributor 190'3"
Drip Tube Distributor
CAT-Scan Elevation
Ring
Riser Hats 180'55/8"
South Scan
North Scan East Scan
West Scan
I Figure 13. The CAT-scan of the top fractionation bed (F1)
identified two dry spots.
Manway
Pumparound
Return
Draw
Density,
lb /ft
3
1516
1415
1314
1213
1112
1011
CEP May 2007 www.aiche.org/cep 33
kind online fix that involved a pump-back reflux circuit off
the top pumparound. CAT-scanning was used to determine
the orientation of the new liquid distribution system, focus-
ing on the low-liquid-density areas of the tower cross-sec-
tion. After startup of the new circuit, 6570% of the lost top
sidestream yield was recovered, exceeding expectations (9).
Identifing the cause of liquid maldistribution
in a revamped distillation tower
Apetrochemical plant performed a major revamp of one
of its most critical distillation towers. This tower was over
150 ft tall, over 20 ft in diameter, and contained several
large beds of structured packing. The scope of the revamp
included removing all of the old distributors and packed
beds and replacing them with a more-efficient design.
Upon startup, the tower was unusually unstable. The
operations staff could not increase the feed rate while
maintaining the desired product quality. Both the overhead
and bottoms products were off-specification, even when
the tower was stable and operating below design rates.
As a first diagnostic step, samples were taken at each
packed bed. Analysis of these samples indicated that all of
the beds were performing poorly, but the source of the prob-
lem could not be determined. One possibility was maldistri-
bution of vapor and/or liquid through all the beds. If the dis-
tribution was good, then the packing was falling well short
of its design efficiency. Another possibility was that
mechanical damage might have occurred during startup.
To help identify the cause of the problem, a grid scan of
the tower was performed. The grid scan would reveal any
mechanical damage and provide information on the quality
of the liquid/vapor distribution through each of the beds.
The results of the grid scan showed that all distributors,
collectors and packed beds were in place with no evidence
of mechanical damage. It also showed slight liquid maldis-
tribution in all of the beds, which did not appear severe
enough to cause the very poor efficiency of the tower. The
scan line orientations and grid scan results from the feed
bed are illustrated in Figure 14.
Because a grid scan is comprised of only four scan
lines, it does not give a picture of the entire cross-sectional
area of the tower. The grid scan would identify liquid
maldistribution only if it had an asymmetric pattern (e.g.,
liquid channeling down one side and vapor channeling up
another side).
Liquid maldistribution was still strongly suspected. To
obtain a more-detailed distribution profile, a CAT-scan
was performed near the top of the bed.
The CAT-scan results (Figure 15) showed that a large
amount of liquid was channeling down the center of the
bed. This confirmed that a liquid maldistribution problem,
rather than poor packing performance, was the cause of
the efficiency reduction in the tower.
With the information provided by the scans, plant per-
sonnel decided to shut down the tower and inspect the liq-
uid distributors. Upon inspection, an error in distributor
I Figure 14. Grid scan for the revamped packed column.
56'
54'
52'
50'
48'
46'
44'
42'
40'
38'
36'
34'
32'
30'
28'
26'
24'
22'
20'
18'
16'
14'
12'
10'
6'
8'
4'
2'
CAT-Scan Elevation
100 1,000 10,000
Manway
Manway
Ring
Platform
Distributor
Distributor
Collector
Collector
Feed
Scan Line Orientation Ring
Ring
Feed Bed
N
Source
Detector
Southwest Scan Chord
Southeast Scan Chord
Clear Vapor Bar
Nouthwest Scan Chord
Noutheast Scan Chord
I Figure 15. The CAT-scan shows more liquid channeling down
the center of the revamped packed bed.
Manway Draw
Feed
Average Liquid Flux, %
153%165%
141%153%
129%141%
106%118%
94%106%
82% 94%
71%82%
59%71%
47%59%
118%129%
34 www.aiche.org/cep May 2007 CEP
installation was discov-
ered. The problem was
corrected, and the tower
was restarted without
incident. The tower was
pushed to maximum
design rates, and the
desired separation effi-
ciency of the new pack-
ing was achieved.
CAT-scanning for
FCC risers
Figure 16 depicts a
typical refinery fluid
catalytic cracking (FCC)
riser. A gamma scan of
the riser combined with
a CAT-scan can be used
to evaluate the perform-
ance of the injection system. The riser scan, performed by
placing the gamma source and detector across the riser
diameter, provides a catalyst density profile along the riser
height. The CAT-scan produces a density distribution
across the riser cross-section at a given elevation.
Optimizing the steam injection rate. The conversion
efficiency of gas oil into gasoline in an FCC riser was
lower than expected. Based on operating experience and
design specifications, engineers were mainly concerned
with the fluidization regimes of the catalyst particles in the
feed zone. To improve the atomization of the feed oil, a
measured amount of steam is usually injected with it. The
engineers were also interested in the effect of the steam
injection rate on the fluidization regimes.
Conventional measurements by the thermocouples
installed at the feed zone did not provide sufficient infor-
mation for analyzing the fluidization process or catalyst
distribution inside the riser. CAT-scans were performed to
study the effect of steam injection on fluidization.
The vertical (or riser) scan gave the catalyst density
profile along the height of the riser at high and low
steam rates (Figure 17). It appeared that the overall cata-
lyst density in the riser feed zone at a scan elevation of
1318-ft (4.05.5-m) was lower at the higher steam rate.
The scan also indicated that the catalyst traveled upward
about 8 ft (2.4 m) from the feed nozzle before the feed
was completely vaporized.
A CAT-scan was then performed above the feed noz-
zles elevation of 12 ft (3.7 m) to map the catalyst distri-
bution across the riser at the two steam rates (Figure 18).
There was a high-density zone in the center of the riser at
both operating conditions, meaning that the catalyst in the
center of the riser was not evenly fluidized at the feed
zone. However, the core of high-density area did become
smaller with the higher steam rate. Based on the tests, the
operators were able to optimize the steam rates to improve
the risers performance.
Diagnosing feed nozzle plugging. Poor product yield of
an FCC unit can be caused by plugged or coked riser feed
nozzles, which are critical for efficient catalyst/hydrocar-
bon mixing and fluidizing.
Ariser feed nozzle arrangement consisted of six nozzles
Process Diagnostics
I Figure 18. CAT-scans at low and high steam rates indicate that
catalyst in the center area of the riser is not fluidized well,
although the dense core was smaller at the high steam rates.
Density, lb /ft
3
1012 810 68 46 24 02
CATScan at Low Stream Rate CATScan at High Stream Rate
I Figure 16. A fluid catalytic
cracking (FCC) riser.
To
Cyclones
Vaporization
Zone
Refractory
Liner
Feed
Injection
Zone
Feedstock
(Liquid)
Feedstock
(Liquid)
Feed
Injection
Nozzles
Riser
Wall
Catalyst
(Solid)
Reaction
Zone
I Figure 17. A riser scan shows changes in the catalyst density
profile with changing steam rate.
24'
22'
20'
18'
16'
14'
12'
10'
8'
6'
CAT-Scan Location
Low
Steam
High
Steam
Density, lb/ft
3
6'9" 1.7 1.8
9'0" 1.4 2.1
10'10" 2.4 2.7
12'6" 4.7 4.2
13'9" 7.1 5.7
15'3" 10 8.3
Platform
1,000 10,000
5,000 lb/h Steam 15,000 lb/h Steam
Scan Line Orientation
Elevation
CEP May 2007 www.aiche.org/cep 35
spaced evenly at 60 apart. The operations staff had con-
cerns about the integrity and functionality of the nozzles. A
riser scan performed while all six nozzles were operating
showed the riser density vs. elevation, and enabled a CAT-
scan elevation to be selected based on analysis of the hydro-
carbon/catalyst mixing zone. ACAT-scan of the riser ap-
proximately 3 ft above the feed nozzles in the catalyst/feed
acceleration zone was then performed (Figure 19).
The hydrocarbon feed to one of the nozzles (Nozzle #3)
was then turned off to simulate a plugged or coked nozzle.
Another vertical scan of the riser and a repeat CAT-scan at
the same elevation were performed (Figure 20).
The riser scans showed no appreciable difference in the
acceleration density profile between all six nozzles operat-
ing and only five operating. The CAT-scan of the riser
with Feed Nozzle #3 closed appeared as expected, with an
area of increased density in the vicinity of the closed noz-
zle due to the loss of hydrocarbon transport and reaction.
Closing remarks
The CAT-scan has proven to be a practical tool for
investigating flow distributions of vapor/liquid and
vapor/solid systems inside process vessels.
CAT-scans have been used in packed bed and mist
eliminator applications with column diameters ranging
from 2 ft to 35 ft (0.610.7 m), and in fluidized catalyst
beds in reactors ranging from 0.7 ft to 6 ft (0.21.8 m).
Application of gamma CAT-scan technology in packed
distillation columns and FCC risers has made it possible
and practical to collect much more vital online process
information than just using conventional techniques for
process diagnosis.
I Figure 20. CAT-scan with Feed Nozzle #3 closed.
1 6
5
4
3
2
Density,
lb /ft
3
2530
2025
1520
1015
510
Nozzle #3
Closed
I Figure 19. CAT-scan of the riser with all six feed nozzles open.
1
6
5
4 3
2
Density,
lb /ft
3
2530
2025
1520
1015
510
Literature Cited
1. Bowman, J. D., Troubleshoot Packed Towers with Radio-
isotopes, Chem. Eng. Progress, 89 (9), pp. 3441 (Sept. 1993).
2. Scott, D. M., and R. A. Williams, eds., Frontiers in Industrial Pro-
cess Tomography, Engineering Foundation, New York, NY (1995).
3. Price, W. J., Nuclear Radiation Detection, McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY (1964).
4. Bartholomew, R. N., and R. W. Casagrande, Measuring Solids
Concentration in Fluidized Systems by Gamma-Ray Absorption,
Ind. Eng. Chem., 49 (3), pp. 428431 (Mar. 1957).
5. Killat, G. R., and T. D. Rey, Properly Assess Maldistribution in
Packed Towers, Chem. Eng. Progress, 92 (5), pp. 6973 (May 1996).
6. Klemas, L., and J. A. Bonilla, Accurately Assess Packed-Column
Efficiency, Chem. Eng. Progress, 91 (7), pp. 2744 (July 1995).
7. Stikkelman, R. M., Gas and Liquid Maldistributions in Packed
Columns, Academisch Boeken Centrum, Delft, The Netherlands
(1989).
8. Kister, H., Distillation Design, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY
(1992).
9. Xu, S. X., et al., Troubleshooting Industrial Packed Columns by
Gamma-Ray Tomography, presented at CE Expo99, Houston,
TX (Jun. 9, 1999).
SIMON (XIAOMIN) XU is currently a separations specialist with Shaw Stone
& Webster (1430 Enclave Parkway, Houston, TX 77077; Phone: (281) 368-
3292; Email: simon.xu@shawgrp.com). Previously he spent ten years with
Tru-Tec Div. of Koch Engineering (then Tru-Tec, Quest TruTec and Tracerco)
in Texas and nine years with the Univ. of Petroleum in Beijing, primarily
involved in R&D and troubleshooting of distillation units. He earned BS
and PhD degrees in oil refining and chemical engineering from the Univ.
of Petroleum China. He is a member of AIChE.
WILLIAM MIXON is the Eastern Regional Manager for Tracerco (8181 GSRI
Rd., Baton Rouge, LA 70820; Phone: (225) 761-0621; Fax: (225) 767-
2637; E-mail: william.mixon@tracerco.com). After receiving a BS in
chemical engineering from Louisiana State Univ., he joined Tru-Tec
Services (now Tracerco) as a project engineer in the Southeast Regional
office, and later was named manager of that office. In his current position
as Eastern Regional Manager, his territory now covers the Southeast
Regional Office in Baton Rouge, LA, and the Northeast Regional Office in
Newark, DE.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Mike Flenniken of Quest TruTec LP for his
assistance in preparing the FCC case studies and Koch-Glitsch, Inc. for the
use of the test column. They also appreciate the guidance provided by
C. Conforti, T. Marut and J. Dusseault of ExxonMobil for the field test.
CEP