0263–8762/04/$30.00+0.

00
# 2004 Institution of Chemical Engineers
www.ingentaselect.com=titles=02638762.htm Trans IChemE, Part A, January 2004
Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 82(A1): 3–9

RETROFIT DESIGN FOR INCREASING THE PROCESSING

CAPACITY OF DISTILLATION COLUMNS
1. A Hydraulic Performance Indicator
Z.-Y. LIU and M. JOBSON*
Department of Process Integration, UMIST, Manchester, UK

I
ncreasing the throughput of an existing distillation process is an important objective of
retrofit design of distillation processes. When the throughput is increased, entrainment
flooding may create a bottleneck in the column. Important goals of retrofit design are to
identify and remove such a bottleneck. This work develops an analysis tool for retrofit design of
distillation columns. A new measure, fractional utilization of area (FUA), is proposed to
identify the extent to which the area available for vapour flow on an existing stage of the
column is utilized. The area utilization is assessed relative to an acceptable approach to
flooding conditions in the column section. FUA is defined as the ratio of the area required for
vapour flow on a stage to the maximum area available for vapour flow in the column section.
An FUA curve, indicating area utilization on every stage in the column, can be generated from
converged simulation results and existing sizing correlations. The FUA curve is a useful
analysis tool, as it allows the bottleneck in the column to be identified and allows the
effectiveness of proposed modifications to be evaluated.

Keywords: bottleneck; flooding.

INTRODUCTION
In recent years, there has been great incentive to improve the
efficiency with which existing capital in chemical proces-
sing facilities is utilized. Retrofit design projects aim to find
ways to maximize the use of existing equipment, and thus
minimize expenditure on new capital, when the production
objectives change. Examples of new objectives are increas-
ing the throughput of a process, accommodating new feed-
stocks, producing products of higher value, reducing
operating costs, energy requirements or atmospheric emis-
sions, and incorporating new technologies into a process. It
has been estimated that, at the end of the 1980s, 70–80% of
capital investment projects in the processing industry were
retrofit projects (Grossmann et al., 1987; Gunderson, 1990).
Given the prevalence of distillation processes in chemicals
processing plants, it follows that retrofit design of distilla-
tion columns and distillation processes is an important issue
in maximizing the efficiency with which existing plant
equipment is used in the industry.
In this work, we shall focus on the retrofit of distillation
columns in order to allow the throughput to an existing
distillation column to be increased. Many column modifica-
tions can allow this goal to be achieved. There is currently
no systematic and quantitative way of identifying which of
these modifications will be effective for a particular distilla-
tion process and for a particular set of design objectives. The
*Correspondence to: Dr M. Jobson, Department of Process Integration,
UMIST, PO Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, UK.
E-mail: m.jobson@umist.ac.uk
design engineer must therefore resort to trial and error, rules
of thumb, experience and intuition in order to identify
effective solutions to the design problem. The design
process will not be efficient, nor can it engender confidence
that the most effective design solution has been obtained.
This paper presents a hydraulic analysis tool for retrofit
design of distillation processes. The tool allows one to
identify effective, low-cost modifications to a distillation
column in order to increase its processing capacity. This
should allow promising design options to be identified
systematically, quickly and easily (Liu and Jobson, 2003).
While this design methodology does not allow optimal
designs to be identified, it can allow a wide range of
promising design options to be evaluated with relatively
little computational and engineering effort. Related work
focuses on the particular design option of changing the
operating pressure of a distillation column in order to
increase its processing capacity (Liu, 2000).
There are two main approaches that are adopted for the
retrofit design of distillation processes in order to increase
throughput:
(1) replacing existing internals with high capacity and=or
high efficiency internals;
(2) revamping the process by improving the utilization of
existing equipment and making relatively minor modi-
fications, including adjusting the operating conditions,
adding equipment, etc.
The last two decades saw the development of a new
generation of structured packings and of a range of new

3
4 LIU and JOBSON
high-performance trays (e.g. Fair and Seibert, 1999;
Billingham and Lockett, 1999). Replacing existing column
internals with these new internals can allow the processing
capacity and=or efficiency of an existing distillation column
to be increased. Some recent publications (e.g. Kister et al.,
1994; Bravo, 1997) have identified strategies for selecting
the most appropriate internals for a given application.
While replacing existing column internals with new
internals can often allow the throughput to the column to
be increased significantly, using new internals is not the only
design option, and is not always the most cost-effective
design option. The first of the two approaches to distillation
retrofit design can therefore be extremely effective, but the
cost and associated downtime can be unnecessarily high.
The second approach to retrofit distillation design
involves improving the way existing equipment is used.
Litzen and Bravo (1999) noted that design strategies that
aim to improve the efficiency with which existing equipment
is utilized are often overlooked. The design methodology
developed here and in Liu and Jobson (2003) aims to
identify design solutions that allow a throughput increase
by making relatively minor modifications to the column
configuration and operating conditions, thereby minimizing
the required capital expenditure. The design solutions
that are identified can sometimes be very effective, but
very much less expensive than replacing the column
internals.
A number of authors have proposed design principles for
increasing the processing capacity of distillation columns by
improving the effectiveness of the existing equipment. For
example, Litzen and Bravo (1999) presented an approach
that exploits synergies between existing equipment in an
entire plant. In particular, if some processing equipment has
spare capacity while other equipment limits the plant
capacity, the spare capacity can be exploited in order to
reduce the demands on the constrained equipment. Williams
(1998) outlined a few factors that should be considered in a
retrofit design, including defining the objectives, evaluating
existing operations, and using computer simulations to
assess the benefits of proposed modifications. Xu et al.
(1998) assumed that it is sufficient to analyse the hydraulic
performance of only the key stages in order to evaluate the
capacity of a distillation column. The key stages are the top
and bottom stages, and those directly above and below the
feed point. Xu et al. (1998) also discussed in a qualitative
way how adjusting the operating conditions of the column
(including feed temperature, feed composition, reflux rate,
reflux temperature, boil-up rate and operating pressure) can
allow its throughput to be increased.
The main drawback of existing retrofit design methods is
that they only provide qualitative guidelines. In practice,
design engineers need both qualitative and quantitative
guidance. This paper presents an analysis tool that can
provide such guidance.
For an existing distillation process, with a fixed feed
composition, there will be a maximum feed flow rate that
can be separated to meet some fixed product specifications.
The bottleneck of the process is that part of the installed
equipment that cannot accommodate higher flows than those
associated with this maximum feed flow rate. For example,
one of the heat exchangers may no longer be able to perform
as it is required to, or the downcomers in the column may
flood, etc. This study assumes that tray flooding, or entrainment
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2004, 82(A1): 3–9
flooding, constrains the production capacity of an existing
distillation column. This assumption is good at low pres-
sures (less than 5 or 10 bar), where entrainment flooding is
the main constraint to increasing throughput. The analysis
tool can easily be extended to apply to packed distillation
columns.
This paper discusses how the hydraulic performance
of an existing distillation column can be analysed and
how bottlenecks caused by entrainment flooding can be
identified.
PREVIOUS WORK ON ANALYSIS OF
DISTILLATION COLUMNS
A number of methodologies have been developed to
identify column and process modifications that can reduce
the operating costs of distillation columns. Dhole and
Linnhoff (1993) recognized that tools for the analysis of a
proposed or existing distillation column need to be based on
realistic conditions in the column, rather than on some
unrealisable thermodynamic ideal. They developed the
concept of a column grand composite curve; this curve can
be generated from the results of a converged simulation of a
column. The curve can then be interpreted to give quanti-
tative recommendations about modifications to the existing
distillation process or column that can reduce its operating
costs. These modifications include changing the thermal
condition of the feed and introducing intermediate reboilers
or condensers to the column.
Column or process modifications that reduce operating
costs often reduce the flow rates of vapour and liquid in the
column. Reducing flow rates can in turn allow existing
distillation equipment to accommodate increased feed
flows. However, design options that can reduce operating
costs do not always simultaneously increase the production
capacity of a distillation column. For example, using a side
reboiler in the stripping section of a distillation column can
often reduce operating costs. However, if the location
and=or the duty of the side reboiler are not appropriate,
the maximum throughput of the column may actually
decrease (Liu and Jobson, 2003).
The analytical tool developed by Dhole and Linnhoff
(1993) has a number of attractive features. Firstly, the column
grand composite curve is a graphical tool; its visual nature is
useful for providing insights into the distillation problem and
for devising appropriate design solutions. Secondly, the tool
uses the results of a simulation of the distillation process. The
tool is therefore based on rigorous and complex calculations,
rather than on short-cut calculations or other approximations
of the column behaviour. Thirdly, the tool forms the basis of
a design methodology: qualitative and quantitative design
guidelines can be interpreted from the column grand compo-
site curve.
The analytical tool presented in this paper has similar
features, in that it allows insights to be obtained, is based on
the results of column simulations and facilitates systematic
generation and evaluation of retrofit design options (Liu and
Jobson, 2003). The tool allows the bottleneck in a distilla-
tion column to be identified, potential modifications to be
suggested and proposed design changes to be assessed.
 RETROFIT DESIGN 1
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS OF TRAY FLOODING IN
DISTILLATION COLUMNS
One approach to analysing the hydraulic performance in a
distillation column is to look at the liquid and vapour flow
rates in the column. It could be concluded that flooding will
occur on those stages with the highest traffic. However, this
approach is too simplistic to be useful, since flooding in a
column, especially at lower pressures, is associated with the
combination of the liquid and vapour flows, rather than with
the absolute flows.
A Hydraulic Performance Indicator
This work proposes a performance indicator for the
hydraulic condition of an existing distillation column. The
indicator is related to the area required for vapour flow if
flooding is to be avoided. The indicator allows one to
identify bottlenecks and to analyse and evaluate modifica-
tions proposed to overcome these bottlenecks.
Traditionally, in the design of new distillation columns, it
is recommended that the size of a number of key trays is
determined. For example, Kister (1992, pp 336–337) recom-
mends that the diameter required for the top-most and
bottom-most trays, for those above and below every feed,
and for those with the highest vapour or liquid flows is
determined using detailed sizing calculations. The principle
underlying this approach is that, when the feed flow rate to a
column is increased to the maximum possible value, only a
few stages in a column will flood. The remaining trays do
not constrain the operation of the column; on these trays, the
area available for vapour flow is not fully utilized.
It is useful to know to what extent the area available for
vapour flow on each stage is utilized when a column is
operating at its maximum throughput. From this knowledge,
it can be deduced on which stages vapour and liquid traffic
should be reduced, and which stages can accommodate
increased flows. For a given feed flow rate and for each
stage, we can calculate the column diameter that would be
required if the flows on that stage represented the maximum
flows that could be tolerated. For example, the vapour
Figure 1. Operating conditions for a vinyl chloride column. (Stage numbers reflect theoretical stages. Trays are sieve trays spaced 46 cm apart. Z ¼ 0.90;
f ¼ 0.75.)
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2004, 82(A1): 3–9
5
velocity could be assumed to correspond to 80% of the
flooding velocity. The minimum diameter required for
satisfactory hydraulic performance could then be compared
with the diameter of the existing column in order to
establish whether, and to what extent, the flows to that
stage could be increased. Knowing the extent to which the
area available for vapour flow is utilized is useful, because
the required area is inversely proportional to the feed flow
rate, i.e. the throughput.
Therefore, a new indicator of the hydraulic performance
of an existing distillation column is proposed. The fractional
utilization of area (FUA) is defined by:
Area required on stage i for vapour flow
FUA ¼ (1)
Area available on stage i for vapour flow
where the area that is required for vapour flow is calculated
for a given approach to flooding conditions (e.g. when the
vapour velocity is 80% of the flooding velocity).
An Analysis Tool: the FUA Curve
The area utilization of each stage in a column can be
determined and can be represented on an FUA curve.
Consider for example the vinyl chloride column represented
in Figure 1. The vapour and liquid flow on each stage and
the FUA curve for the column are represented in Figure 2.
Figure 2 shows how the maximum vapour and liquid flows
in the column may not indicate adequately on which stages
of the column the flows approach most closely flooding
conditions. In particular, the vapour flow rate is greatest above
the feed (where liquid flows are low), but the area required for
vapour flow is greatest at the bottom of the column.
It may be seen in Figure 2 that high liquid or vapour flows
on the feed stage can lead to the formation of a peak in the
FUA curve. However, the area requirement on the feed stage
is not necessarily much greater than that of adjacent stages,
since, typically, tray spacing is increased at the feed tray, to
accommodate the feed nozzle, liquid distributors and access
way, etc. Therefore, in this work, peaks in the FUA curve
corresponding to the feed stage will not be treated as
potential sites for flooding.
6 LIU and JOBSON
Figure 2. Vapour and liquid flow rates and FUA in the vinyl chloride
column represented in Figure 1. Maximum diameter (on bottom stage):
2.08 m.
The FUA is defined to be proportional to the tray area
that is required to operate at the limiting flow conditions
(e.g. when the vapour velocity is 80% of the flooding
velocity). The area requirement at these limiting conditions
is proportional to the vapour flow rate, if all other design
variables (operating pressure, reflux ratio, product specifica-
tions, etc.) and hence system properties (stage composition,
liquid and vapour densities, etc.) are constant.
The required area is related to the vapour and liquid flows
on the stage. It is also related to the properties of the mixture
on that stage (e.g. density of the liquid and vapour phases,
and the surface tension of the liquid phase) and to the
construction of the tray (e.g. type and geometry of the tray,
and downcomer area). A detailed discussion on how the
fractional utilization of area is calculated is presented later.
Stages that utilize available area the most are those that will
constrain the operation of the column when the throughput is
increased. Therefore the FUA curve can be used to identify
bottlenecks directly, as well as to indicate where area is
available but under-utilized. This information can be used
to identify and assess process modifications that could allow
the throughput to be increased (Liu and Jobson, 2003).
Figure 3 represents strategies for reducing the maximum
area utilization in a column. It may be possible to change the
internal flows in the column, so that under-utilized sections
become more heavily utilized. The internal flows may be
reduced in one section and increased in another (arrow A),
for example by changing the thermal condition of the feed.
Figure 3. The FUA curve gives insight into modifications that may be effective for increasing the production capacity of an existing distillation column.
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2004, 82(A1): 3–9
Alternatively, flows may be changed within a section of the
column (arrow B), for example by using intermediate heat
exchange. Lastly, it may be possible to decrease the area
utilization everywhere in the column (arrow C), for example
by using more theoretical stages, or more efficient internals,
or by changing the operating pressure. The FUA curve
therefore offers insights into the potential for increasing
the throughput of the column by adjusting the traffic in the
column. Quantitative and qualitative guidelines for design
options that will decrease the area utilization locally or
throughout the column are presented in Liu and Jobson (2003).
The maximum FUA value, FUAmax, is inversely propor-
tional to the maximum throughput of the column. For
example, if process modifications allow FUAmax to be
reduced from 1 to 0.8, then an increase in throughput of
25% can be accommodated, since this increased throughput
will correspond to an FUAmax value of 1, i.e. the maximum
possible utilization of available area. The FUA curve can
therefore give quantitative information about the maximum
processing capacity of an existing column.
Determining the Fractional Utilization of Area
The definition of fractional utilization of area [equation
(1)] in turn requires the area required and the area available
for vapour flow to be defined. The denominator of Equation
(1), the ‘available area’ can be defined as (i) the actual area
available for vapour flow in an existing column section or
(ii) the maximum area that is required for vapour flow in that
section for a given throughput. In the first case, details about
the geometry of existing trays need to be interpreted to
determine the available area; these details include the actual
diameter of the column and the magnitude of the area that is
not available for vapour flow, e.g. below each downcomer.
In the second case, there is an implicit assumption that at
least one stage in that section is at its limiting hydraulic
condition. On that stage, the available area will be equal to
the required area (FUA ¼ 1); it will follow that the through-
put to this stage cannot be increased. The second of these
approaches is adopted in this work for the purposes of
illustration.
The area required for vapour flow on a stage can be
calculated from correlations. Most commercial simulation
packages include tray sizing functions for distillation
columns. In those simulators where column diameters are
not calculated, by default, for every stage, the user may
 RETROFIT DESIGN 1
define each stage to be a column ‘section’ for which the
diameter is calculated. The area required for flow on a stage,
Anet, can be derived from the required column diameter, D:
pD2 Z
Anet ¼ (2)
4 WV rL
where Z is the fraction of the column cross-sectional area
that is available for vapour flow. Typically, Z lies in the range
0.85–0.95 (Wankat, 1988); the remaining area is that of the
downcomer. In this paper, Z is taken to be 0.90.
Rather than using sizing correlations within the frame-
work of a commercial simulator, the area required for
vapour flow can be calculated using published correlations
(e.g. Fair, 1963, 1985a, b; Ludwig, 1979; Wankat, 1988). In
this paper, the method of Wankat (1988) is used.
Anet is related to the vapour velocity, Uop, by:
V MWV
Anet ¼ (3)
rV Uop
where V is the vapour molar flow rate; MWV is the mean
molecular weight of the vapour; and rV is the density of the
vapour.
The operating velocity, Uop, is related to the flooding
velocity, Uflood by:
Uop ¼ fUflood (4)
where f typically falls in the range 0.65–0.9 (Wankat,
1988). In this paper f will be taken to be 0.75.
The flooding velocity is related to the flooding constant,
K, and the density of the liquid and vapour phases (rL and
rV, respectively):
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
r
rV
Uflood ¼ K L (5)
rV
The flooding constant is a function of the surface tension of
the liquid phase, s, and the capacity factor, Csb:
h s i0:2
K ¼ Csb (6)
20
where s is in dyne cm
1.
A number of correlations for calculating the capacity
factor of trayed columns have been developed. Kister and
Haas (1990) summarize several of these correlations and the
restrictions that apply to them. Two of these correlations are
presented in this paper—those of Fair (1963, 1985a) and
Kister and Haas (1990). According to Kister (1992, pp 279–
281), the correlation of Fair (1963) has been widely and
successfully used for predicting entrainment flooding.
However, the correlation is conservative at high pressures
and for high liquid flows. In these cases, Kister (1992)
recommends that the correlations of Smith et al. (1963) or
Kister and Haas (1990) are used. In this study, the correla-
tion of Fair (1963, 1985a) is used; all operating pressures are
less than 10 bar. Correlations for predicting the flooding
velocity for packed columns have also been developed
(e.g. Kister, 1992, pp 479–491; Stichlmair and Fair, 1998).
For a sieve tray, Fair (1963, 1985a) correlates the capacity
factor, Csb, with the flow parameter, Flv (Kessler and
Wankat, 1988):
log10 Csb ¼ a þ b log10 Flv þ c(log10 Flv )2 (7)
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2004, 82(A1): 3–9
7
where the parameters a, b and c are related to the tray
spacing and may be found in Kessler and Wankat (1988).
The flow parameter is defined by:
rffiffiffiffiffiffi
W rV
Flv ¼ L (8)
where WL and WV are the mass flow rates of liquid and
vapour.
Kister and Haas (1990) instead correlate the capacity
factor for sieve and valve trays by:
 2 0:125  0:1  0:5
d s rV S
Csb ¼ 0:144 H (9)
rL rL hct
where dH is the hole diameter in mm; S is tray spacing in
mm, and hct is clear liquid height at the froth-to-spray
transition in mm, which can be calculated for sieve trays
by the method proposed by Kister (1992, p 320).
The cross-sectional area of a column that is required for
vapour flow at a given approach to flooding conditions can
therefore be calculated by equations (3)–(8), or equations
(3)–(6) and equation (9). The properties of the vapour and
liquid mixtures on each stage, namely WL, WV , V, MWV , s,
rV and rL can be obtained from the converged results of
commercial simulation software. Some basic information
about the configuration of the column—namely, the tray
type and spacing—and operating pressure allows appropri-
ate correlations for the capacity factor to be chosen.
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES
Vinyl Chloride Column
Figure 2 shows the FUA curve for the vinyl chloride
column described in Figure 1.
Deisobutaniser
Figure 4 presents the feed properties, product specifica-
tions and column configuration for a distillation column
separating i-butane from n-butane in a multicomponent
mixture as well as the FUA curve for this example, as
calculated using equations (3)–(8).
C8–C9 Splitter
The FUA curve may be obtained using correlations, such
as equations (3)–(8), or by using tray sizing facilities in
commercial simulation software. Figure 5 gives details of a
distillation column separating n-octane from n-nonane in a
mixture of normal paraffins. The column diameter for each
stage that is required when the vapour velocity is 75% of the
flooding velocity is calculated using HYSYS (Version 1.2,
Hyprotech Ltd, Calgary, 1996) and Pro=II (Version 5.1,
Simulation Sciences, 1996). [Both of these methods use
the approach of Fair (1963, 1985a) to calculate the required
diameter.] Figure 5 plots the diameter required on each stage
in the column and Figure 6 presents FUA curves for the
three methods of calculation. The FUA curves are obtained
by taking the maximum required diameter in the column as
the reference case and assuming that the fraction of the
cross-sectional area that is available for vapour flow is
constant through the column.
8 LIU and JOBSON

Figure 4. FUA curve for a deisobutaniser. (Trays are sieve trays spaced 46 cm apart. Z ¼ 0.90; f ¼ 0.75.)

Figure 5. The diameter required for the separation of C8 from C9 in a C7–C15 mixture. Trays are assumed to be sieve trays, spaced 61 cm apart. The other
parameters of the tray layout are taken as the default parameters of the commercial software (HYSYS version 1.2 and PRO=II version 5.5).

While there is good agreement between the diameters

predicted by the commercial simulators and the method
presented in equations (3)–(8), there are some differences
between the results relating to the use of discrete tray-size
options in the commercial software and to refinements of the
basic approach which are not clearly documented. Clearly, it
is essential that the user has confidence in the hydraulic
correlations used. The way the FUA curve is then used to
analyse the hydraulic performance of existing distillation
columns does not depend on the method by which the FUA
curve is obtained.

Figure 6. Cross-sectional area required for the separation shown in Figure 5,
where the area is normalized with respect to the maximum area required for
vapour flow.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents an indicator for the hydraulic perfor-
mance of an existing distillation column. The FUA of each
stage in the column indicates the extent to which the area
available for vapour flow is required. An FUA curve can be
generated; it indicates which stages have spare capacity and

Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2004, 82(A1): 3–9
 RETROFIT DESIGN 1
which stages will flood first when the throughput to the
column is increased. The FUA curve therefore reveals
opportunities to rearrange vapour and liquid flows in the
column in order to reduce the traffic on the stages that are
heavily utilized.
The area required for vapour flow, and hence the FUA,
of each stage in a column can be determined, either using
built-in sizing correlations of commercial or customized
simulation software, or by using appropriate hydraulic
correlations. In the latter case, the properties of the vapour
and liquid mixtures on each stage (including flow rates,
densities, liquid viscosity, etc.) can be obtained by simula-
tion. Some basic information about the design of the column
and trays (e.g. column diameter, tray type, tray spacing and
fraction of the cross-sectional area of the tray that is
available for vapour flow) is also required.
The FUA curve is a useful analysis tool, since it indicates
which stages will flood when the column throughput is
increased, and the flow rate at which the acceptable approach
to flooding will first be exceeded. Furthermore, the FUA
curve allows insights to be obtained about the type (and
extent) of column modifications that will allow the proces-
sing capacity of the column to be increased. If the maximum
value of the FUA curve is known before and after a
proposed process modification, then it is possible to estimate
the associated increase in throughput that is possible. The
hydraulic performance indicator discussed in this paper
forms the basis of a retrofit design methodology when the
throughput to an existing distillation column is to be
increased (Liu and Jobson, 2003).
NOMENCLATURE
Anet net column cross-sectional area required for vapour flow
Csb capacity factor
D diameter of the distillation column
dH hole diameter, mm
Flv flow parameter
FUA fractional utilization of area
hct clear liquid height at the froth-to-spray transition, mm
MWV mean molecular weight of the vapour
S tray spacing, mm
Uflood flooding velocity
Uop limiting vapour velocity
V vapour molar flow rate
WL liquid mass flow rate
WV vapour mass flow rate
Greek symbols
s surface tension of the liquid, dyne cm
1
rL density of the liquid phase
rV density of the vapour phase
Z fraction of the column cross-sectional area that is available for
vapour flow
REFERENCES
Billingham, J.F. and Lockett, M.J., 1999, Development of a new generation
of structured packings for distillation, Trans IChemE, Part A, Chem Eng
Res Des, 77: 583.
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2004, 82(A1): 3–9
9
Bravo, J.L., 1997, Select structured packings or trays? Chem Eng Prog,
93(6): 36.
Dhole, V.R. and Linnhoff, B., 1993, Distillation column targets, Comput
Chem Eng, 17: 549.
Fair, J.R., 1963, Tray hydraulics. Perforated trays, in Design of Equilibrium
Stage Processes, Smith, B.D. (ed) (McGraw-Hill, New York, USA), Chap.
15.
Fair, J.R., 1985a, Liquid–gas systems, in Perry’s Chemical Engineer’s
Handbook, Perry, R.H. and Green, D. (eds), 6th edn (McGraw-Hill,
New York, USA), Chap. 18.
Fair, J.R., 1985b, Stagewise mass transfer processes, in Scaleup of Chemical
Processes: Conversion From Laboratory Scale Tests to Successful
Commercial Size Design, Bisio, A. and Kabel, R.L. (eds) (Wiley, New
York, USA), Chap. 12.
Fair, J.R. and Seibert, A.F., 1999, A new, ultracapacity tray for distillation
columns, Trans IChemE, Part A, Chem Eng Res Des, 77: 619.
Grossmann, I.E., Westerberg, A.W. and Biegler, L.T., 1987, Retrofit design
of processes, in Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Founda-
tion of Computer Aided Procedures and Operations (FOCAPO), Park
City, UT, July, p 403.
Gundersen, T., 1990, Retrofit design research and applications of systematic
methods, in Foundations of Computer-Aided Process Design, Siirola, J.J.,
Grossmann, I.E. and Stephanopolous, G. (eds) (CACHE, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands), p 213.
Kessler, D.P. and Wankat, P.C., 1988, Correlations for column parameters,
Chem Eng, 71(Sept): 71.
Kister, H.Z., 1992, Distillation Design (McGraw-Hill, New York, USA),
pp 279–281, 320, 336–337, 479–491.
Kister, H.Z. and Haas, J.R., 1990, Predict entrainment flooding on sieve and
valve trays, Chem Eng Prog, 86(9): 63.
Kister, H.Z., Larson, K.F. and Yanagi, T., 1994, How do trays and packings
stack up? Chem Eng Prog, 90(2): 23.
Litzen, D.B. and Bravo, J.L., 1999, Uncover low-cost debottlenecking
opportunities, Chem Eng Prog, 95(3): 25.
Liu, Z.Y., 2000, Retrofit design for debottlenecking distillation processes,
Ph.D. Thesis, UMIST, UK.
Liu, Z.Y. and Jobson, M., 2003, Retrofit design for increasing the processing
throughput of distillation columns. 2. Proposing and evaluating design
options, Trans IChemE, Part A, Chem Eng Res Des, 82: 10–17.
Ludwig, E.E., 1979, Applied Process Design for Chemical and Petrochem-
ical Plants, 2nd ed., Vol. 2. (Gulf, Houston, USA).
Smith, R.B., Dresser, T. and Ohlswager, S., 1963, Hydrocarbon Proc Petrol
Refin, 42(5): 183.
Stichlmair, J.G. and Fair, J.R., 1998, Distillation Principles and Practice
(Wiley-VCH, New York, USA), Chap 2.
Wankat, P.C., 1988, Separations in Chemical Engineering: Equilibrium
Staged Separations (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA), pp 386–
389.
Williams, J.A., 1998, Optimise distillation system revamps, Chem Eng Prog,
94(3): 23.
Xu, S.X., Winfield, C. and Bowman, J.D., 1998, Proper analysis and
operating adjustments help boost separation capacity without increasing
flooding, Chem Eng, August: 100.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Process Integration Research
Consortium and the Overseas Research Scholarship scheme for their
support.
The manuscript was received 7 August 2002 and accepted for publica-
tion after revision 21 August 2003.