6164 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.

2007, 46, 6164-6182

REVIEWS

Gas-Liquid Distributors for Trickle-Bed Reactors: A Review

R. N. Maiti and K. D. P. Nigam*
Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016, India

A concise review of the gas-liquid distributors used in trickle-bed reactors (TBRs) is presented. The following
topics are considered: distributors in a large-scale reactor, quench box/redistributor, inert particle layer,
application of fluid flow modeling (CFD) in distributor studies, and distributors used in a laboratory-scale
reactor. Mainly four types of distributors used in a large-scale reactor (e.g., perforated plate, multiport chimney,
bubble cap, and gas-lift distributors) are described along with their advantages and disadvantages. Effects of
various types of weep hole, such as inverted V notch and rectangular slot at the distributor tube wall and
fluid distributing device at downcomer outlet, are discussed. Sizing methodology of multiport downcomer in
chimney type distributors is presented. The performance of a gas-lift distributor is found to be more promising
compared to other distributors. It provides intimate mixing of vapor and liquid, is less vulnerable to fouling,
is insensitive to tray levelness, and distributes liquid uniformly at a large turndown ratio. This is also reflected
in the increasing use of gas-lift distributors with increasingly stringent product specifications. This review
presents all the information available in the literature to the best of the author’s knowledge and focuses the
attention on enhancing the further understanding of internals toward uniform distribution of liquid in TBRs.
It also focuses the future directions of work in designing of gas-liquid distributors to further facilitate the
understanding of the design of TBRs to meet the challenges of the stringent sulfur specification in transportation
fuel (10 ppmw in EURO V by 2009).

1. Introduction commercialized catalysts with the ever-increasing activities

Trickle-bed reactors (TBRs) are one of the important classes
of multiphase flow reactors. It consists of a fixed bed of solid
catalyst particles contacted by a cocurrent downward gas-liquid
flow carrying both reactants and products. In some cases,
upward-flow TBRs are used but, because of flooding problems,
downward flow is the most widely preferred. TBRs have been
widely used in the petroleum industry for many years and are
now gaining widespread use in several other fields. They are
employed in petroleum, petrochemical, and chemical industries,
in waste treatment, and in biochemical and electrochemical
processing, as well as in other applications.1-4
In general, the reaction occurs between the dissolved gas and
the liquid-phase reactant at the interior surface of the catalyst.
In some cases, the liquid phase may be an inert medium for
contacting the dissolved gaseous reactant with the catalyst. The
observed and expected reaction rates, when the particles are
fully covered with liquid, are directly related to partial wetting
of the catalyst.5 For this reason, it is desirable to have external
surfaces of the catalyst fully covered with liquid (as it is
perceived that the pore gets filled with liquid by capillary force)
for maximum utilization of catalyst. In some cases, gas is
sparingly soluble (gas-limiting reactions) and incomplete particle
wetting is desirable because it increase the effectiveness factor,
owing to reduced gas-to-particle resistance. Obviously, there is
a balance that must be maintained to avoid particle dry out,
local temperature gradients, and vapor-phase reactions.
Since the introduction of the first commercial hydrotreating
units in the 1950s, catalyst manufacturers have developed and
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 011-2659 1020. E-mail: nigamkdp@
gmail.com.
10.1021/ie070255m CCC: $37.00 © 2007 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 08/22/2007
required to meet the stringent low sulfur, nitrogen, and aromatics
specifications of environmentally friendly fuels. The key
parameter for further improving unit performance with highly
active catalyst is the efficient distribution of reactants at the
microlevel, i.e., wetting of catalyst. There are several factors
that affect the macro- and microlevel liquid distribution and
flow textures. Macrolevel flow distribution is mainly affected
by inlet liquid distribution, particle shape and size of the particle,
fluid velocity, and packing method. At the microlevel, liquid
distribution and flow textures are affected by start-up procedures,
fluid velocity, wettability, flow modulations, and coordination
number of particle as reviewed by Maiti et al.4 However, the
extent of uniform distribution of liquid through the catalyst bed
at the microlevel is grossly affected by proper design and
functioning of reactor internals.
The internal elements include (i) liquid entry devices, (ii) top
distribution plate, (iii) quench box, and (iv) redistributor, i.e.,
redistributes the liquid and gaseous reactants evenly across each
subsequent catalyst bed (Figure 1). The purpose of the liquid
entry device and distribution tray is to establish an even liquid
distribution radially across the catalyst bed. Poor liquid distribu-
tion introduces gross nonwetting in the bed, as shown in Figure
2parts a-c.6 The catalyst particles on the upper left side of
packing (Figure 2a) are not wetted and are not utilized. This is
in agreement with the observations of Christensen et al.,7 Szady
and Sundaresan,8 and Marchot et al.9,10 The latter authors studied
the distribution of liquid in a laboratory trickling filter and
observed that about half of the bed cross section did not receive
any liquid and the distribution was not uniform in the remaining
cross section.

Figure 1. Schematic drawing of a trickle-bed reactor used in hydrocracking.
Figure 2. (a-c) Liquid maldistribution in trickle-bed reactors.
A catalyst bed is hydraulically unstable in the sense that, if
a restriction develops somewhere in the bed, then it will always
become worse until the time of catalyst replacement. This may
happen as a result of uneven distribution of gas and liquid in
the catalyst bed where pockets containing mainly liquid and
insufficient hydrogen can cause coking. Temperature maldis-
tribution in exothermic processes generally indicates greater fluid
flow in one part of the bed versus another. Rapid pressure drop
buildup sometimes reveals coking in the bed caused by regions
of stagnant flow or insufficient reactants. The restriction may
be developed because of mechanical degradation of catalyst
particle or corrosion materials, pipe scales/foreign material that
entered with the feed. Fresh (not discolored) catalyst is
sometimes found when fixed-bed units are opened for servicing
after 2-3 years in operation, indicating flow bypassing. These
findings indicate that at least some aspects of fluid flow in gas-
liquid distributors have not been well-understood. Yet in the
petroleum refining and other industries, public demand and
government regulations have dictated the removal of certain
compounds from chemical products, necessitating more severe
operation and greater need for optimal and reliable reactor
performance. Effective distribution in reactors is critical to
meeting these demands.
Most of the designs of internals in TBRs packed with
millimeter-sized particles are influenced by hardware used in a
packed and trayed fractionation column. These designs are not
necessarily well-suited for trickle-bed reactors because of large
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 19, 2007 6165
center-to-center spacing between distributors and poor liquid
discharge pattern. Moreover, with increasing demand of removal
of certain specific compounds from petroleum refining products
(e.g., ultralow sulfur diesel as specified in EURO III, EURO
IV, and EURO V (10 ppm) norms by 2009), a greater need
exists for optimum and reliable reactor performance. For
example, in a DHDS (diesel hydro desulfurization) reactor, only
1% of the untreated feed (∼1.0 wt % sulfur) mixed with the
product because of wall flow or flow channeling keeps the
product sulfur specification (100 wt ppm) off by ∼100%, even
after using a highly active catalyst. Effective uniform distribution
of liquid in the macroscopic level is critical to meeting the above
demands,5 and it demonstrates to have a good distribution
especially when such a low sulfur specification in the product
is targeted.
Until recently, very little work has been undertaken to study
and significantly improve the performance of existing distribu-
tion tray designs. Typically, catalyst manufacturers are well-
equipped to test and develop new catalysts but have neither the
testing facility nor the expertise to study flow distribution
devices. Only a limited group of companies with the combined
expertise from both catalysts manufacturing and licensing of
technology possess these capabilities, vz. Haldor Topsoe, IFP,
UOP, etc. Engineering companies do not have the facilities nor
the interest to undertake reactor internals development studies,
which fall outside the scope of their activities. In view of the
rapid advances that are being realized in the area of improvement
of reactor internals, it is deemed appropriate to supplement the
information and description of varieties of liquid distributors
used in TBRs. The present review aims to discuss the different
types of internals used broadly in the industrial scale and in
which improvements have been made over the years in terms
of (1) distributors in large-scale reactors, (2) quench box/mixing
device, (3) inert layer, (4) application of fluid flow modeling
(CFD) in distributors studies, and (5) distributors used in the
laboratory scale. Internals for cocurrent upflow reactors are also
discussed in brief.
It is hoped that the paper will stimulate additional research
and development activities on design and selection of reactor
internals (mainly used in the industrial scale) with a view to
obtain uniform distribution of gas and liquid on the macroscopic
level in the case of trickle-bed reactors.
2. Distributors in Large-Scale Reactors
Most of the known designs of vapor-liquid distributors fall
into one of the four categories. The first kind of distributor is
a perforated plate or sieve tray (Figure 3a). This may or may
not have notched weirs around the perforations. The tray may
also have chimneys for vapor flow. This type of distributor is
used for rough liquid distribution in conjunction with a more
sophisticated final liquid distribution tray. The second common
type of liquid distribution device is a chimney tray. This device
uses a number of standpipes, typically on a regular square or
triangular pitch pattern on a horizontal tray. The standpipes have
holes in the sides of the pipes for the passage of liquid (Figure
3b). The tops of the standpipes are open to allow vapor flow
down through the center of the chimneys. The third type of
liquid distribution device is a bubble cap tray. This device uses
a number of bubble caps laid out on a regular pitched pattern
on a horizontal tray. A cap is centered concentrically on a
standpipe (Figure 3c), and sides of the cap are slotted for vapor
flow. Liquid flows under the cap and, together with the vapor,
flows upward in the annular area and then down through the
center of the standpipe. The fourth type of distributor is the
6166 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 19, 2007
Figure 3. Different types of distributors: (a) perforated tray, (b) multiport chimney, (c) bubble cap, and (d) vapor-lift tube.
vapor assist lift tube (Figure 3d). One leg (downflow tube) of
the inverted “U” fits through a perforation in the support tray.
The other leg (upflow tube) is shorter so that it is elevated above
the tray. The ends of both legs are open. At the top of the
inverted “U”, there is an internal opening between the legs. The
device thereby provides a flow path across the tray, from the
inlet through the end of the short leg, with vertical flow through
the short leg, a direction change at the top of the inverted “U”,
downflow through the long leg, and discharge through the open
end of the long leg below the tray. A vertical slot is cut into
the side of the short leg opposite the longer leg. The top of the
slot is at or below the bottom of the internal opening between
the legs.
In many processes, e.g., hydroprocessing reactors, there can
be wide variations in the flow rates of vapor and liquid phases
and physical properties over time and during turndown opera-
tions. Because of fabricating tolerances and the care of instal-
lation, there will be unavoidable variations in the distribution
tray levelness. Liquids dropping onto the distribution tray from
an inlet distributor or quench zone mixer may be unevenly
distributed and could result in liquid height gradients across
the tray due to splashing, waves, or hydraulic head. Therefore,
to have the optimized liquid distribution, the following important
elements must be considered during the design of the gas-
liquid distributor tray:
(a) Drip point spacing. The dense spacing of drip points is a
key parameter in optimum radial dispersion of liquid coming
out of distributor. The liquid dripping on to the catalyst bed
may be visualized as a point source below each tube in the tray,
and it disperses radially as it passes through the bed. So part of
the bed may be used to compensate the larger drip point spacing
toward uniform distribution of the liquid. Therefore, for uniform
distribution of liquid, closer spacing and a greater number of
drip points should be provided.
(b) Vaporization over the run cycle. Vaporization over the
run cycle increases the vapor/liquid ratio, which can reduce the
liquid level on the tray below a point where liquid can flow
through some of the distributors. The tray design should be able
to handle various vapor/liquid ratios.
(c) Tray levelness. Tray levelness must be carefully consid-
ered so that liquid does not preferentially flow through only
Figure 4. Impact of tray levelness for (a) perforated-plate distributor, (b)
chimney distributor, and (c) vapor-lift distributor.
some of the distribution points, as shown in Figure 4a. The
design of the distributor should be able to overcome out-of-
levelness of the tray. Fabrication tolerance, poor inclination,
deflection under load, mishandling, etc. cause tray out-of-
levelness. The impact of tray levelness is reduced by the choice
of a proper distributor, as shown in parts b and c of Figure 4.
(d) Vulnerability to plugging. Vulnerability to plugging by
coke or corrosion products must be considered to ensure equal
liquid flow from all distribution points.
(e) Vapor-liquid mixing. Vapor-liquid mixing is also an
important feature for ensuring that the reactants reaching the
catalyst surface are at an equilibrium temperature to have a
uniform reaction throughout the entire catalyst bed. So the
distributor providing a higher degree of vapor/liquid mixing will
be advantageous, especially for trays located downstream of
quench zones.
(f) Pressure across the distributor. The pressure across the
distributor should be low.
In the following sections, the key features of different
distributor designs that have been published and patented over
the years and how well these devices address the above design
considerations are discussed.
2.1. Perforated Tray. This distributor tray is provided with
a large number of liquid downflow apertures. Generally, a pool

Figure 5. Distribution systems for use in multiple beds (U.S. Patent No.
4,836,98912): (a) perforated tray and (b) perforated tray for rough
distribution.
of liquid will accumulate on the tray and cover these apertures
so that the flow of vapor through them is not possible. Normally,
a large size chimney is provided to pass vapor to the tray/bed
below this. The top of each chimney is provided with a number
of slots to act as a weir for liquid flow if the liquid on the tray
builds up and a flooding situation occurs (Figure 5a). This tray
is rather simple to construct and is capable of providing the
greatest number of drip points over the cross section of the
catalyst bed. It is used in isolation for a rough distribution of
liquid or in combination with other distributors (i.e., chimney
tray, bubble cap, and gas-lift tubes) for a finer distribution of
liquid. In the case of multiple beds, there is a collection tray
below the catalyst bed and a rough distributor tray below the
collection tray, which is basically a perforated tray type. After
the perforated tray, a second, final distributor tray is provided
with downcomers for flow of liquid and vapor onto the lower
catalyst bed. Smith et al.11 developed a perforated distribution
tray with a small perforation for liquid flow along with a central
opening with cylindrical weirs for gas flow. Perforations were
5-15 cm in diameter, and the total open area was sufficient
for passage of liquid and accumulation of liquid up to a certain
level with pressure drop not exceeding 5 cm. As an example,
Figure 5b shows the perforated distributor system developed
by Aly et al.12 for an initial, rough distribution of liquid to the
second distributor tray along with the chimney for vapor flow.
Grott et al.13 also used a perforated tray (with a cylindrical wall
at the outer periphery of the tray) for distributing liquid effluent
from the mixing chamber. The tray has a uniformly distributed
perforation of size 16 mm. Vapor passes through the annular
passageway.
The performance of this type of distribution device will not
properly satisfy all the required design considerations. Liquid
on the unleveled tray will gravitate to the low points, and
consequently, the sensitivity of tray levelness will be very high.
The perforation can easily become plugged by coke, corrosion
products, or other debris carried into the reactor by the feed.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 19, 2007 6167
Finally, the flexibility to liquid load is very poor. Typically,
this type of distribution tray can be designed to give good
performance at either the design conditions or at turndown
conditions, but not at both situations. Consequently, the tray
has a tendency to run dry as vaporization increases toward the
end of the cycle. This type of design may, therefore, not be
seriously considered to provide good uniform distribution.
However, this type of distributor may be used as rough
distribution in a multilevel distributor system.
2.2. Chimney Tray. These types of distributors consist of a
horizontal tray fitted with vertical downpipes called risers (both
sides open-ended) having holes (liquid openings) drilled in the
sides. These lateral liquid opening(s) may be at one or more
elevations with varying sizes and shapes. The total flow area
of the liquid openings is selected to hold a certain liquid level
on the tray, and the total cross-sectional area of the vapor
chimneys is normally selected to obtain a low pressure drop
across the tray to ensure that the driving force for liquid flow
through the liquid openings is mainly the static head of the liquid
column above the liquid opening and not the pressure drop
caused by vapor flow through the chimneys. The bulk of the
liquid flow would pass through the holes as a jet, which is
sheared by the gas passing vertically downward. The shearing
actions break up the liquid and thereby improve gas-liquid
contact before reaching the catalyst bed. This type of liquid
distributor is generally designed to control liquid level on the
tray as well as proper mixing of two phases depending upon
the types of holes. Over the years, chimney trays have been
patented along with the constant updation by several investiga-
tors. Details of some of the typical chimney distributors with
the development as reported in the patent are compiled in Table
1. As en example, Riopelle and Scarsdale14 disclosed in U.S.
Patent No. 3,353,924 a gas-liquid distributor, consisting of
pipes with long vertical slots/notches on the sides so that liquid
flow through the distributor increases as liquid level on the tray
increases (Figure 6). A simple fluid mechanical analysis of such
a device shows that the flow through the slot is proportional to
the height of the head of the liquid above the slot base raised
to the power of more than one (∼1.5). This behavior is
undesirable because the 1.5 power dependence on liquid height
makes the distributor very sensitive to variations in levelness.
In addition, this device uses separate, larger chimneys for gas
flow, which restricts the number of liquid irrigation points on
the tray.
Effron et al.15 disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 3,524,731 a
distributor that comprises a plate having short tubes and long
tubes inserted through the plate (Figure 7). The upper ends of
the longer tubes are provided with notches and gas caps at the
uppermost extremity. At low flow rate (i.e., at minimum feed
throughputs), the flow of liquid is entirely through the short
tubes with the gas flowing through the notched tubes. Uniformity
of distribution is readily achieved by sizing the short tubes so
that the head of liquid existing above it is at least 38 mm. At
higher flow rates, the liquid builds up to the notches provided
in the longer tubes and some of the liquid then begins to flow
through the longer tubes. This in effect serves to “spread out”
the increased flow over a greater number of points and serves
to maintain the desired uniformity of distribution. The flow
through the short tubes still remains uniform, and the gas phase
still continues to flow through the notched tubes. Thus, the
notched tubes serve two important functions: first, they act as
gas chimneys to provide good uniformity in the distribution of
the gas phase, and second, they prevent the building up of the
liquid level over the plate beyond a desired height. With this
6168 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 19, 2007

Table 1. Comparison of Different Chimney-Type Distributors

author type of distributor size details of the distributors advantages/disadvantages
Riopelle and Scarsdale14 chimney type long vertical down pipe for gas; sensitive to liquid height, i.e., tray
small liquid down pipe with long levelness; lesser no. of drip point as
vertical notch wide open at top gas and liquid down pipes are
separate; can take care high
turndown ratio
Effron and Hochman15 riser type long down pipes with notch at the upper end; at turndown flow, occurs through
short down pipe with overflow boxes at outlet; shorter tubes; at high flow, flow
pitch ) 7.5-30 cm; passes through both long and
shorter tube: dia (mm) ) 10-20, height ) 50; short tubes; can accommodate
longer tube: dia (mm) ) 25-50, height ) 165; wide variation in liquid flow rate;
triangular cutouts 25 mm × 50 (height) × 6 mm insensitive to tray levelness and
dirt deposition
Grosboll et al.16 chimney type chimney with circular hole at wall; both gas and liquid passes through
dia of tube ) 70-218 mm; same downcomer, so larger number
10-30 no. of chimney/m2; of drip points possible; free of
3-8 aperture around the perimeter wall, plugging and fouling as aperture at
5-15 cm above the plate; higher level; very sensitive to liquid
aperture size ) 0.6-6 cm2 height
Derr et al.17 weir type gas liquid downcomer pipe with circular sensitivity to tray levelness is less
holes at wall and rectangular notches at at high liquid flow rate but very
the upper end highly sensitive at low liquid flow;
uniform distribution possible
because of larger number of drip
points
Campagnolo et al.18 riser type; distributors at 1st tray are riser types with much larger number of drip points
a pair of weir slots for liquid flow; distributors at second and uniform distribution due to
distribution trays tray are both riser types for both gas and flow through both types of
liquid and liquid down pipes distributors; effect of tray levelness
is reduced because of flow through
weir slots as well
Koros et al. 19 chimney type vertical slots of different lengths around the uniform distribution due to radial
circumference of the chimney; spray- coverage of liquid spray; tray
generating device at outlet of distributors levelness less; effective at flow
variation because of existence of
slots of different lengths
Muldowney et al.20 open-ended down two types of down pipes, first type with holes effective at different flow rates
pipes with holes at two levels and second type has because at low flow rates liquid
at two different levels holes at higher level corresponding to first passes through down pipes with
type; lowermost holes are at least 6 mm lower hole only, free of plugging;
above the tray sensitivity to tray levelness is low
Wrisberg21 riser type open-ended tubes with aperture at various high flexibility at turn down
elevations (3-4 levels);
tube pitch ) 50-120 mm;
aperture at various levels with lowermost
at 50 mm from tray
Muller22 down pipes with downcomers with holes at wall at elevations, it is a combination of chimney and
liquid conduit a reduced flow area section, a liquid bubble cap type; as liquid is lifted
conduit, and a device for improved through conduit, it is less susceptible
liquid spread to plugging and fouling; liquid
bypassing through vapor is less
compared to bubble column; improved
distribution performance

feature, reactors of shorter overall lengths may be employed
since large buildups in liquid levels in the case of large turndown
ratios (i.e., maximum flow rate/minimum flow rate) do not
occur. The slots in the long tubes are designed so that, at
maximum flow rates, they take up to 50% of the total flow
rate. Furthermore, by maintaining a head of 38 mm above the
uppermost end of the shorter tubes, distribution becomes
relatively insensitive to out-of-level variations, which may occur
in the transverse direction of the reactor. Overflow boxes are
provided at the end of the shorter tube to reduce the effective
distance between drip points with slots to distribute liquid. The
preferred configurations for the slots are triangular cutouts. The
advantage of using such a slot, as compared to a slot of
rectangular cross section or one of triangular cross section with
the apex downwardly oriented, lies in the fact that it insures
greater uniformity of distribution when the liquid level above
the plate is not parallel to it because flow through the slot is
proportional to the height of the head of liquid above the slot
base raised to the power <1 (∼0.5).
Grosboll et al.16 disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 4,126,540 a
tray deck with a hollow chimney member with circular apertures
drilled on the riser surface (Figure 8) at different elevations.
The number of chimneys ranges from about 10 to 30/m2 of tray.
Each chimney has 3-8 apertures at evenly spaced intervals
around the perimeter of the chimney. The cross-sectional area
of each aperture may range in size from 0.6 to 6.0 cm2. The
top opening of the chimney is in the range 7.5-30 cm above
the tray. The cross-sectional area of the top opening is 45-380
cm2. Among the factors, which can be used to determine the
numbers, sizes, and locations of the apertures, are the flow rate
and the composition of the liquid-vapor mixture. The centerline
of the aperture is 5-15 cm above the tray, providing settling
space for particulate matter, if any, present in the liquid-vapor
mixture. The liquid level should be 3 times the diameter of the
smallest aperture. The pitch of the aperture in circumference is
D or 2D of the aperture. The plate distance over the opening is
at least 0.1-30 cm. The cross-sectional area of the plate is at
least two times as large as the cross-sectional area of the top

Figure 6. Liquid downcomer pipe (from U.S. Patent No. 3,353,92414).
Figure 7. Chimney distributor with different sizes of down flow pipes
(U.S. Patent No. 3,524,73115).
opening. The distributors are applicable for any bed of solid
particles but particularly in a bed of solid catalyst particles with
typical catalyst size range of 0.2-12 mm. This tray has
improved resistance to fouling and plugging since the liquid
openings are at a higher elevation, and particulate impurities
can, therefore, settle out on the tray without plugging the liquid
openings. The drawback of chimney tray designs with liquid
openings in one elevation only is poor liquid flow range. At
low liquid flow rates, the level will be at the liquid openings,
and the liquid flow through each chimney becomes very
sensitive to the variations in liquid depth, which will always
exist on the tray. At high liquid flow rates, liquid will overflow
the lowest elevated chimneys and cause liquid maldistribution.
Derr et al.17 disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 4,126,539 a pair of
gas-liquid distributor trays to facilitate the uniform spreading
of liquid over the upper face of a catalyst bed (Figure 9). The
distributor trays contain a series of spaced risers, which have
dual functions. It permit vapor to pass the tray and also serve
as liquid conduits because of weir slots cut into the sides of the
risers. The upper tray is perforated by a relatively uniformly
dispersed gas-phase downcomer. The gas and liquid downcom-
ers are of the weir type, which maintains a desired level of liquid
upon the upper tray surface throughout its cross-sectional area.
In addition, the liquid downcomers are provided with one or
more liquid flows through holes, or orifices. The liquid flows
through the holes are sized to permit only a portion of the tray-
accumulated liquid to flow through the holes with the remaining
portion of the liquid overflowing the weir of each downcomer
and flowing downward. This arrangement ensures the flow of
liquid through each liquid downcomer of the upper distributor
tray.
A second gas/liquid distributor tray is positioned beneath the
upper distributor tray. The second distributor tray is provided
with gas/liquid downcomer with one or more circular liquid
holes. The weir type distributors of the second tray maintain a
desired liquid level on the tray so that saturated liquid and
hydrogen rich gas pass downwardly through the open-ended
downcomers under flow conditions of limited pressure drop.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 19, 2007 6169
Figure 8. Hollow chimney member for distributing a mixed fluid stream
(U.S. Patent No. 4,126,54016).
Figure 9. Chimney type distributors (from U.S. Patent No. 4,126,53917).
These liquid flows through holes are sized to permit flow of
only a portion of the highest liquid flow permitted by the tray
and ensure that some liquid always flows through each
downcomer. At high flow rate, the liquid passes through the
rectangular notches and flow is proportional to the liquid head
over the tray, raised to the power 0.5. This provides a
minimization of sensitivity of liquid flow to variations in level.
A disadvantage of such use of this distributor would arise at
low liquid flow rates, which cause the liquid level on the tray
to fall between the top and bottom of the holes. Under these
conditions, a 1.5 power dependence on liquid height instead of
0.5 makes the distributor strongly sensitive to variations in
levelness. A low liquid level could be minimized by sizing the
circular holes smaller, but hole diameters < ∼6 mm would be
impractical because of the possibility of plugging. Thus, for a
given reactor, there is a minimum liquid rate for which
downpipes with holes are effective, below which good distribu-
tion cannot be guaranteed. Another problem with this distributor
is that the liquid is carried past the tray by the risers and, thus,
the number of points at which the liquid is introduced to the
upper face of the bed is limited by the number of risers that
can be uniformly positioned on the tray. This limitation is
aggravated by the fact that the risers are of relatively large
diameter. Accordingly, as the number of liquid introduction
points is decreased, the depth to which the liquid must penetrate
the catalyst bed to reach equilibrium distribution increases, and
catalyst utilization in the upper bed is thereby impaired.
Additionally, because of the nature of liquid flow through weirs,
the uniformity of liquid distribution affected by this type of
design is very sensitive to tray unevenness, introduced during
fabrication or installation.
Campagnolo et al.18 disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 4,788,040
an inlet distributor system including a pair of distributor trays
for a fixed-bed catalyst reactor (Figure 10). An upper tray has
a series of risers. The risers are hollow and open above and
below the upper distributor tray to permit vapor to pass through
the tray, and each riser has weir slots cut into its outer surface
through which liquid can pass through the tray. The lower
6170 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 19, 2007
Figure 10. Inlet distributor system (from U.S. Patent No. 4,788,04018).
Figure 11. Chimney distributor with first end for liquid receive and second
end for liquid distribution (from U.S. Patent No. 5,403,56119).
distributor tray has a series of risers and downpipes thereon
arranged in a predetermined pattern. The pattern of risers and
downpipes provides an advantageous arrangement of pas-
sageways for liquid to be distributed to the catalytic bed. The
advantages of using this type of distributor are as follows: (1)
The number of discrete liquid streams entering the upper face
of the catalyst bed is maximum. (2) The distributor is designed
to ensure as nearly as possible equal liquid flow rate of each
stream, hence resulting in uniform liquid irrigation over the
entire face of the bed. In this distributor, liquid flow is through
orifices in the riser and through the liquid downpipes. In both
cases, flow is proportional to the square root of the liquid height
on the distributor tray. (3) Since the flow rate through the
apertures of the distributor is proportional to the square root of
liquid height, the effect of tray levelness is minimized. By
contrast, in a distributor employing weir flow, the effect of tray
irregularities is magnified.
Koros et al.19 disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 5,403,561 a mixed-
phase fixed-bed reactor distributor (Figure 11), which is a
horizontal tray with vertically disposed chimneys. These
chimneys have a first end to receive liquid and gas above the
tray and a second end for distributing the liquid and gas
downwardly below the tray (Figure 11). The spray-generating
devices for producing the conical spray are located at positions
so that the spray of the mixed fluid stream from one spray-
generating device as it impinges on the top surface of the fixed
bed will overlap the spray from an adjacent spray-generating
device. The maximum flow through the device at acceptable
pressure drop and the angle of the spread of the conical spray
pattern are controlled by the choice of ribbon pitch, diameter
width, and length. The angle of the spray and the overlap
determine the appropriate distance between the tray carrying
the spray device and the catalyst bed. Another important feature
of the distributor is the self-adjusting control of uniform vapor
flow through each distribution element. This control is provided
by the uniform back-pressure due to the pressure drop exerted
Figure 12. Distributor down pipes with holes at different levels (U.S. Patent
No. 5,484,57820).
by the flow of vapor and liquid through the conical spray-
producing zone in combination with the uniform flow of liquid
provided by the chimney slots. A surprising discovery is that
this apparatus operates over wide variations in liquid and vapor
flow rates while providing excellent flow-distribution perfor-
mance. In addition, when in a preferred operating mode, fine
droplets ranging between 10 microns and 1000 microns are
produced. These extremely small drops are dispersed and
suspended in the vapor flow, providing the fixed bed below
the tray with a uniform vapor/liquid flow mixture that, via
normal bed flow dynamics characteristics, will be distributed
uniformly within the top entrance region of the catalyst bed.
Muldowney et al.20 disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 5,484,578 a
distributor system for uniformly directing vapor and liquid across
the surface of a fixed bed of solids in a downflow reactor
comprising a distributor tray and open-ended downpipes (Figure
12). There are two different types of downpipes with different
numbers of holes for gas/liquid flow. A first array of the
downpipes has vertically spaced elevations of holes above the
level of the tray. A second array of the downpipes has at least
one elevation of holes at substantially the same height above
the level of the tray as one of the upper elevations of holes in
the first array of the downpipes. However, the second array has
no elevation of holes corresponding to the lowermost elevation
of holes, and possibly other lower elevations of holes, in the
first array of downpipes. The absence of the lowermost holes
in the second array of downpipes causes the liquid flow rate
through the distributor tray at a given liquid height to be reduced
when that liquid height falls below the elevation of the holes
second from the bottom in the first array. This maximizes the
liquid height above the lowermost holes, preserving good
distribution even when the distributor is subject to variations
in level from one point to another. The downpipes are vertically
disposed tubes with open ends, which extend above and below
the tray by one or more tube diameters. The lowest holes on
any downpipe are suitably 0.6 cm to several cm (at the center
of the hole) above the top surface of the tray to prevent scale,
sludge, or other solid matter conveyed in the liquid phase from
passing through the tray onto the solids bed below. Thus, the
presence of the downpipes ensures that a pool of liquid is
maintained on the tray. It is generally preferred that at least the
bottom hole, or, more preferably, several of the holes, in the
downpipes be entirely submerged in the standing liquid.

Figure 13. Open-ended tubular distributor (from U.S. Patent No. 5,688,-
44521).
An aspect of the present distributor is that the outlet streams
from the downpipes diverge into conical sprays because the
streams lose momentum to the comparatively stagnant gas
between the distributor tray and the inerts layer located above
the catalyst bed. The extent of divergence depends on the liquid
and gas flow rates, the fluid properties, and the dimensions of
the downpipes. On typical pitches, the conical outlet sprays
approach one another or partially overlap. For this reason, the
liquid coverage at the top of the solids bed is minimally
compromised even when the second array of pipes, which have
only one hole, are passing no liquid at all. The coverage is
typically at least ∼80% to ∼95% of the coverage obtained when
all downpipes are passing liquid, and it can approach 100%
coverage. It is preferable that the downpipes of both the first
and second arrays feature one or more notches in the top rim to
conduct liquid during periods of abnormally high flow. High
flow may occur because of an interval of higher-than-design
feed rate, an unplanned surge of incoming liquid, or, much more
rarely, a general rise in the liquid level on the tray due to
plugging of most of the downpipe holes. The notches result in
less sensitivity of liquid flow to liquid height when the tray is
imperfectly leveled than would occur if the rims were unnotched.
The notches may be rectangular, triangular, semicircular, or of
various other shapes and are distinct and unconnected to any
of the holes in the downpipes.
Wrisberg21 disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 5,688,445 a distribu-
tor arranged above the surface of the trickle bed (Figure 13).
The tray is equipped with open-ended tubular distributor
downcomers with horizontal apertures at various elevations in
the tube wall of the downcomers to provide passage of liquid
and gas flow through the open ends of the downcomers. The
number and dimensions of downcomers depend on the actual
rate of gas and liquid flow introduced on the tray. In general,
the height of the downcomers above the tray is at least 200
mm to allow for varying liquid load without overflow of liquid
through the open ends of the downcomers. The downcomers
are typically disposed in the tray with a pitch of about 50-120
mm. Horizontal apertures in the downcomers are typically
disposed at 3-4 elevations at a minimum elevation of ∼50 mm
above the bottom of the tray and at intervals of 30-40 mm
between each aperture, which ensures high flexibility at
turndown of the trickle-bed reactor. The diameter of the
apertures is selected to maintain a liquid level on the tray of
about 150-190 mm at 125% of liquid load. Preferably, the
diameter of the apertures is at least 4 mm. As an important
feature, the inner diameter of the downcomers is adjusted to
provide a Froude number (NF) < 0.35. At a Froude number <
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 19, 2007 6171
Figure 14. Down pipes with liquid conduit (from U.S. Patent No.
2006016375822).
0.35, it is ensured that the downcomers are not partially floated,
which otherwise will result in an uneven flow distribution
between the downcomers and fluctuations in velocity head loss
at a varying degree of flooding. Sometimes, the tray is
additionally equipped with a number of open-ended tubular gas
chimneys extending vertically for a certain height above and
below the tray. The gas chimneys have an inner diameter, which
is larger than that of the downcomers, at least 2 times the
diameter of the downcomers. The gas chimney may, further-
more, be provided with apertures of the same diameter and at
the same elevations as the apertures in the downcomers.
Muller22 disclosed a distribution tray in U.S. Patent No.
20060163758 for distribution of vapor and liquid across a vessel
that has downcomers with a reduced flow area section and a
device for improved liquid spread at the outlet of the downcomer
(Figure 14). The distribution tray with downcomers has open
upper ends for vapor inlet and open lower ends for passing the
vapor and liquid through the tray. A liquid conduit is also
provided for each downcomer with a liquid inlet submerged in
the liquid pool on the tray, with a section for upward flow of
the liquid and with liquid openings at more elevations. The
liquid conduit is used to transfer liquid from the liquid pool
into the downcomer. Unlike with a conventional chimney, the
driving force of the liquid flow is both liquid height and pressure
drop for the vapor entrance. The lower end of the downcomer
is provided with means for improving the local liquid spread
from each downcomer such as vanes, baffles, ribbons, and
corrugated, flat, or curved plates with or without perforations.
During operation, vapor enters the downcomer upper end. Liquid
collected on the tray flows through the inlet, upward through
the conduit, and through the openings into the downcomer,
where the liquid is mixed with downwardly flowing vapor. The
two-phase stream passes the reduced flow area section with
increased velocity for improved dispersion of the liquid before
the stream flows through the device for improved liquid spread,
and it then exits through the lower end of the downcomer.
From Table 1, it is observed that performance of the chimney
tray has been improved with developed slot size and type along
with use of a number of slots at several elevations. But unlike
a conventional chimney, the new improved chimney type with
liquid conduit, developed by Muller,22 is more promising to
overcome the disadvantages of conventional chimney distribu-
tors.
2.2.1. Methodology for Sizing Distributor Downpipes. In
the following paragraphs, the sizing methodology was discussed
for downpipes having two arrays of pipes with holes at different
levels, as disclosed by Muldowney et al.20 Sizing of downpipes
involves more than one operating mode specified by a total gas
6172 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 19, 2007
rate and a total liquid rate. The fluid rates and other fluid
properties like gas density, gas viscosity, liquid density, liquid
viscosity, and liquid surface tension are determined at process
conditions using applicable thermodynamics at the prevailing
temperature and pressure.
2.2.1.1. Approximate Count of Downpipes. The vessel
diameter is fixed by considerations other than fluid distribution
(e.g., available space) and is assumed to be known at the outset
of the tray design process. On the basis of this diameter, an
approximate count of downpipes is determined by adopting pitch
spacing. For maximum coverage, the pitch is typically chosen
as small as practically possible, so that downpipes are located
as close to each other as fabrication will permit. Common
pitches vary from 30 to 60 cm to several centimeters, depending
on the importance of maximizing coverage. The allowable pitch
is typically restricted by the position of tray support beams and
other internal members. Once the numbers of downpipes are
known, the gas and liquid rates per downpipe are calculated,
considering at this point that all the downpipes are alike.
2.2.1.2. Diameter of the Downpipes. The next dimension
to be determined is the diameter of the downpipes. Too large a
diameter limits the number of pipes on the distributor tray. Too
small a diameter results in excessive pressure drop across the
distributor tray. Between these extremes is typically a range of
diameters ranging from a few centimeters to <1 cm. A
convenient pipe size is chosen for first-pass calculations with
the possibility of subsequently fine-tuning the diameter. Multiple
diameters may also be used on the same tray.
2.2.1.2.a. First-Pass Calculations. The downpipes in the first
array, that is, those having all the holes, are designed first, using
the design case with the highest liquid flow rate. The following
equations are presented for a downpipe having holes at two
elevations, but the formulas are readily extended to pipes having
three or more elevations of holes. As noted above, the total
hole area at a given elevation is calculated, and this total area
may be realized by any number of holes through the downpipe
wall at that elevation.
At any single elevation, an equation relating liquid height to
liquid flow rate is
h ) H + f(A, FL)QL2 + g(A,FL, FG, QG)QL (1)
where f and g are functions readily obtained by a pressure
balance at the downpipe holes.
The physical constraint that defines the functions f and g is
equality of pressure between the liquid and the gas at two
locations: the top surface of the standing liquid and the point
in the interior of the pipe where the phases return to pressure
equilibrium.
2.2.1.2.a.1. Sizing of Holes Cut in the Walls of Downpipes.
In designing a two-elevation pipe such as the two-hole down-
pipe, eq 1 is written once for the top hole and once for the
bottom hole, that is, with different values of H and possibly
different values of A, creating two equations in the four
unknowns as hTOP, QL,TOP, hBOTTOM, and QL,BOTTOM. The other
two equations needed to close the system are
hTOP ) hBOTTOM (2)
QL,TOP + QL,BOTTOM ) QL (3)
Equation 2 requires that the liquid heights governing the top
and bottom holes be the same, and eq 3 requires that the sum
of the liquid flows through the top and bottom holes equals the
total liquid flow per downpipe. The design of the first array of
pipes consists of choosing values for the areas (A) and locations
(H) of the top and bottom holes for the highest expected liquid
flow rate through the tray, solving eqs 1-3 by trial-and-error
to determine the liquid height (h) on the tray, and adjusting the
hole areas (A) and locations (H) until the liquid height (h) is
satisfactory or at a predetermined level above the top hole.
The holes in the downpipes of the second array are sized by
solving eq 1 for the area (A) of the hole in each pipe needed to
pass the same amount of liquid (QL) at the same liquid height
(h) as for the two-hole downpipe. The calculation is again
specific to the case with the highest liquid flow rate when all
downpipes would be expected to pass liquid. This is also a trial-
and-error calculation because the area (A) appears in a complex
manner in two terms of eq 1.
2.2.1.2.a.2. Number of Down Pipes. Following the hole
sizing for the case of the highest contemplated liquid flow to
the distributor tray, the system is evaluated for the case of the
lowest expected liquid flow rate to determine what fraction of
the downpipes should be in the second array and, thus, lack
bottom holes. This evaluation is accomplished by applying eq
1 to a pipe of the first array to determine what liquid flow rate
per downpipe would result in the liquid height being comfortably
above the bottom hole but below the top hole. The result will
be some value QL* greater than the actual flow rate per
downpipe QL. The ratio of the actual QL to the target QL* is
the fraction of pipes that must be first-array members. The
remaining pipes are designated as the second array. This step
usually requires several repetitions since the fraction of pipes
in the second array preferably must correspond to a uniform
grid spacing. It is often necessary to make small adjustments
to the holes sizes during this step. Also, it is sometimes preferred
to instead try fixed fractions of second-array pipes corresponding
to convenient grid spacing and to check for acceptable liquid
level.
2.2.1.2.b. Second-Pass Calculations. Once the number of
downpipes in each array is fixed and the hole sizes are known,
the first-pass design is completed. Adjustments must be made
to the first-pass design because the foregoing calculations are
based on the assumption that gas rates through the downpipes
of the first array and the second array are equal, which generally
is not accurate. The partitioning of the gas flow is determined
by the pressure drop across the first array of downpipes versus
the pressure drop across the second array of downpipes. When
both sets of downpipes are passing liquid, the pressure drops
across member pipes of each set are similar, though not identical
because the different numbers of liquid jets in the two types of
pipes result in somewhat different degrees of shear. When only
the first-array downpipes are passing liquid, the gas flow will
slightly favor the second array of pipes because the effective
flow area in the second array of pipes is larger because of the
absence of liquid therein. The following pressure drop equation
(eq 4) provides an analysis of gas flow.
∆p ) φ(Ap,QG, FG, µG) +
ψ(Ap, QG, QL, FG, FL, µG, µL, σL) (4)
where ∆p ) pressure drop across the full length of the
downpipe, Ap ) cross-sectional area for flow in the downpipe,
φ ) pressure losses in the length of the downpipe between the
upper rim and the top hole, and ψ ) pressure losses in the two-
phase section of the downpipe between the top hole and the
lower rim of the downpipe.
In eq 4, φ is a function describing pressure losses in the length
of the downpipe between the upper rim and the top hole, which

is specific to the numbers and types of notches in the upper
rim. The function ψ is a function describing pressure losses in
the two-phase section between the top hole and the bottom end
of the downpipe, which is specific to the numbers, elevations,
and relative positions around the pipe circumference of the holes.
Gas flow to each type of downpipe is determined for a given
design case by writing eq 4 once for a first-array downpipe and
once for a second-array downpipe. For the highest-flow case,
the values of QL will be substantially equal for each array pipe,
but for other design cases, and in particular for the low-flow
case, the values of QL will differ significantly. The values of
QG to be used are those used in eq 1 for liquid height, which
are equal for the first and second arrays during the initial
calculation. Using eq 4, the pressure drop across the first array
and second array of downpipes are computed. When the pressure
drops are equal, the design is consistent and complete.
However, after the first-pass calculation, the pressure drops
cannot be equal because the gas rates were assumed to be equal
even for the low-flow case when the second array of downpipes
is inactive. Thus, an outer loop of iteration must be undertaken
in which the gas flow rate to the first array of downpipes is
guessed, the gas flow rate to the second array of downpipes is
obtained as the difference between the guessed first-array gas
flow and the total gas flow, and all of the foregoing calculations
are repeated until the degree of gas partitioning is arrived at,
which reconciles the liquid height and pressure drop equations
for all design cases. This procedure is not practical for hand
calculation and is preferably executed by a digital computer. A
suitable numerical technique for solving these equations is a
Newton-Raphson method.
Successful completion of the design procedure occurs when
downpipe diameters and locations, hole sizes and locations, and
other details as noted above give a liquid height above the
bottom elevation of holes for all design cases and above higher
elevations of holes in as many design cases as possible. The
fundamental requirements for realizing the maximum benefits
of the present invention are that the bottom holes of the first
array be submerged in all cases and that the downpipes of the
first array be arranged on the tray to provide maximal coverage
when the pipes of the second array are inactive.
2.3. Bubble Cap Tray. These distributors have a completely
different mode of operation than the chimney type of distribution
trays. While the static liquid head is the driving force for liquid
distribution on the chimney distribution trays, the driving force
for liquid distribution on the bubble cap tray is the vapor flow.
The bubble cap distributor consists of a horizontal tray. Bubble
caps are provided for vapor and liquid flows across the tray.
Each bubble cap is an inverted U-shaped flow conduit consisting
of upflow channel(s) and downflow channel(s). The lower part
of each upflow channel is provided with one or more lateral
vapor openings, typically vertical slots or inverted V-notches.
Each downflow channel extends through the tray plate. The
vapor passes through the lateral vapor openings in the lower
part of each upflow channel and thereby generates a pressure
drop from the vapor space above the tray to the inside of the
upflow channel. Because of this pressure drop, liquid is lifted
up into the upflow channel and mixed with the vapor and the
two-phase mixture flows up through the upflow channel, over
an internal weir, and down through the downflow channel and
exits the distribution unit below the tray.
An example of a traditional bubble cap distribution tray is
given in U.S. Patent No. 3,218,249 by Ballard et al.23 (Figure
15). A cap is mounted on the riser. The bottom of the cap is
slotted equidistantly. The depth of the slot should preferably
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 19, 2007 6173
Figure 15. Modified bubble cap (from U.S. Patent No. 3,218,24923).
be from ∼3 mm to ∼12 mm of the depth of the cap itself, and
the width of the slots should be from about 1/32 to about 1/8 of
the cap cross-sectional diameter. Other type of slots like V-notch
are also used. The top of the slots is maintained below the
bottom of the upper rim of the downcomer. A good practice is
to maintain a clearance of at least 6 mm between the top of the
slot and the top of the riser. The top of the downcomer may be
slotted or left unslotted. The bottom of the downcomer slots
should be maintained above the top of the cap slot. Usually,
the downcomer will be from ∼7.5 to ∼15 cm in cross-sectional
diameter, although a downcomer as small as 3.8 cm or less is
less typically used. Sometimes a bubble cap with a riser flared
at the bottom is advantageous for vapor-liquid distribution. The
liquid tends to flow down the riser wall, particularly at lower
vapor rates, and the flared section causes the liquid to be
disengaged from the riser in a conical pattern, thereby achieving
a greater distribution of the liquid over the cross section of the
vessel.
In operating a reactor with a bubble cap tray, a mixed phase
is introduced in the reactor through the inlet conduit and sparger,
which distributes the liquid onto the tray with a minimum of
splashing and erosion. The liquid phase, disengaged from the
vapor phase by gravity, fills up on a tray to a level below the
slot depth in the downcomer caps, with such level being
determined primarily by the gas flow rate per cap. It is, of
course, necessary that some of the slot openings be exposed
above the liquid surface to permit the passage of vapor. Where
the caps have no slots, the liquid level on the tray will be below
the bottom rims of the caps for the same reason. Where unslotted
caps are used, the clearance between the bottom rim and the
tray must be maintained to accommodate the passage of gas
and liquid. The pressure drop through the distribution tray in
the reactor, which is normally quite small, forces the feed vapor
through the slots to flow upwardly through the annulus, reverse
direction, and then flow downwardly through the downcomer.
The vapor, because of the forces acting on it as a result of being
fed to the reactor under pressure and then forced into the
contacting zone through the tortuous cap and downcomer paths,
is in constant turbulence as it contacts the liquid in the reservoir
on the distribution tray in the vicinity of the downcomers. For
this reason, the vapor entrains liquid with it as it passes through
the cap slots or under the downcomer cap and transports it
through the downcomers from whence it is discharged into the
contacting zone. The liquid on the distribution tray seeks its
own equilibrium level, as dictated by the design of the apparatus,
and it is, thus, not necessary for operability to achieve optimum
design efficiency for the distribution tray. The reactor will be
operative so long as the liquid level on the tray does not seal
off all openings in the downcomer caps.
Shih and Christolini24 disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 5,158,-
714 bubble caps with apertures comprising two rectangular
openings superimposed upon and at substantially right angles
6174 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 19, 2007
to one another, forming an opening in the shape of a cross, that
is, the central points of the two rectangular openings are
coincident and preferably are on the axis of the cap. Typically,
one of the rectangular openings is larger than the other, i.e.,
one has a longer length than the other opening.
Jacobs et al.25 disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 6,098,965 a
distribution apparatus that includes a plate with a number of
bubble caps. The bubble caps include a riser and a spaced-apart
cap. The riser has a top and a bottom, and the riser is secured
near the bottom to the redistribution plate. A passageway is
defined between the top and bottom and provides a means of
fluid communication across the redistribution plate. Preferably,
the cap has a plurality of spaced-apart slots to allow the flow
of fluids through the cap and into the annulus formed by the
cap and the riser.
Muller26 disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 6,769,672 a bubble cap
assembly having differently configured fluid-flow paths for
different resistances to the fluid passageway. This creates
different vapor flow rates and liquid flow rates in different
upflow channels. The shape, dimensions, and location of the
passageway, the cross-sectional size and shape of the upflow
channel, the length of the channel, the relative height of the
top of the upflow channel, the roughness of the surfaces in
contact with the fluid, and the presence of restrictions in the
fluid-flow path, including inside the downcomer, all put the
resistance in the overall flow path of fluids. As an example,
the difference between the liquid flow rates through at least
two flow paths of the apparatus may vary from ∼30% to
∼8200% for different process conditions. The invention im-
proves the uniformity of liquid distribution over the cross section
of the vessel despite differences in elevation of liquid levels on
the distribution tray or changes in the vapor and or liquid flow
rates through the reactor.
Nelson et al.27 disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 6,984,365 a bubble
cap distributor where a spacer is located between the riser and
the cap (to maintain a gap between the top end of the riser and
the cap) and a deflector baffle is placed below the outlet of the
passageway. The deflector baffle redirects the majority of the
fluid flowing downwardly from the riser passageway, so that
the fluid forms a relatively wide spray pattern over the
downstream catalyst bed.
In general, the bubble cap design is less sensitive to the tray
levelness and shows stable sensitivity over a very broad range
of liquid loadings compared to the case of the chimney
distributor. Also it provides intimate mixing between gas and
liquid because of its vapor-assist liquid sweeping quality. But
because of its larger diameter compared to the chimney type,
fewer drip points could be accommodated in the tray.
2.4. Vapor-Lift Tube. Gamborg and Jensen28 disclosed in
U.S. Patent No. 5,942,162 a liquid-vapor distribution device
for use in two-phase cocurrent downflow vessels with horizontal
tray being fitted with a vapor-lift tube (Figure 16). One leg
(downflow tube) of the inverted “U” fits through a perforation
in the support tray. The other leg (upflow tube) is shorter so
that it is elevated above the tray. The ends of both legs are
open. At the top of the inverted “U”, there is an internal opening
between the legs. The device thereby provides a flow path across
the tray, with inlet through the end of the short leg, vertical
flow through the short leg, direction change at the top of the
inverted “U”, downflow through the long leg, and discharge
through the open end of the long leg below the tray. A vertical
slot is cut into the side of the short leg opposite the longer leg.
The top of the slot is at or below the bottom of the internal
Figure 16. Vapor-lift tube (from U.S. Patent No. 5,942,16228).
opening between the legs. Alternatively, two or more slots could
be cut into the short leg sides adjacent to or opposite the longer
leg.
In operation, a liquid level will be established on the tray.
The liquid level on the vapor-lift tube will be above the bottom
of the short leg but below the top of the slot in the short leg.
Vapor will pass through the slot in the short leg, creating a
pressure drop between the inside and outside of the vapor-lift
tube. Because of the lower pressure inside the vapor-lift tube,
the liquid level will be higher inside than outside the vapor-lift
tube. The vapor and liquid will mix in the shorter leg with the
vapor lifting the liquid to flow up and over the connecting wall
between the shorter and longer legs. Liquid will partially
disengage while flowing over the connecting wall and down
the longer leg. At the opening under the tray, the liquid and
vapor will further disengage with the liquid draining off the
drip edge.
The vapor-lift tube device is similar to the bubble cap device
in concept but has several advantages. Since the vapor-lift tube
device is smaller, more can be placed on a distribution tray to
achieve better distribution of liquid. Furthermore, because of
the smaller size of the distributor, more wall coverage is
achievable. Overall wetting efficiency below the tray is better
with a smaller pitch than with a larger pitch. The bubble cap
design tray is limited to relatively large spacing; increasing the
number of bubble caps with reduced spacing would increase
the number of distribution points but would negatively impact
on the liquid/vapor flow relationships through each cap. Using
more bubble caps would require making the bubble caps smaller
with either smaller slots or fewer slots. Using smaller slots is
not practical since there is a minimum slot size for fouling
considerations. Using fewer slots is not desirable since that may
lead to channeling of the vapor in the annulus and less efficient
contacting with the liquid phase. A further advantage for the
vapor-lift tube device is that its simplicity makes it easier and
less costly to fabricate in the optimal size prescribed by the
process conditions.
Another advantage of a vapor-lift tube device according to
the invention over a chimney type design is the significantly
wider turndown range possible with the vapor-lift tube. As the
liquid flow decreases, a properly designed chimney must either
become taller or have smaller holes drilled in the side. This
problem has been solved by the vapor-lift tube design as this
system is self-controlling in the regard that the effective slot
areas are changed as a result of the actual liquid flow. The theory
behind this self-controlling system is that the pressure drop
equation below needs to be fulfilled for all liquid loads.
∆Pslot(h) ) ∆Pvapor
static (h) + ∆Pstatic (h) + ∆Pfriction(h) +
upflow vapor
upflow
∆Psfriction (h)

Figure 17. Typical quench box.
By studying this equation in detail, it can also easily be
concluded that overflow at high liquid rates would not be
possible because the actual liquid level cannot be higher than
the top of the slot. If the liquid level was assumed to be covering
the slot, it would be forced down by the vapor to fulfill the
above pressure balance. A further advantage of the vapor-lift
tube over the chimney-type design is the increased contacting
of the liquid and vapor phases. The intimate contacting that
occurs in the upflow portion of the vapor-lift tube provides
closer approaches to thermal and compositional equilibrium than
would be achieved in the chimney tray. Another problem
commonly seen in the industry is plugging by coke or corrosion
products. The vapor-lift tube is less vulnerable compared to
perforated plates and chimney trays to fouling because the high
gas velocities in the slot would tend to clean and remove coke
and corrosion products.
3. Quench Box
In a cocurrent downflow trickle-bed reactor, the liquid phase
is typically mixed with a gas or vapor phase and the mixture is
passed over a particulate catalyst maintained in a packed bed
in a downflow reactor. Because of chemical reaction, heat is
produced and reactant is depleted from the vapor phase and
becomes rich with additional components along the reactor
length. So it is required to quench the effluent and to add reactant
at different locations. The quench box is provided in between
two beds for liquid cross mixing, distribution correction, and
product side-draws. The key component of the quench box are
(a) a quench box conduit with a sparger, (b) a quench tray or
collection tray, (c) a mixing chamber, and (d) distributor trays.
A typical quench box system is shown in Figure 17.
Although some disclosures of quench box design are available
in the patent literature, a compact quench box design still needs
to be developed to promote the required intimate mixing
between the quench stream and the hot reaction two-phase fluid
stream while reducing capital investment or unit downtime
during catalyst change out. The savings on reactor height can
be used to load an incremental catalyst volume to improve the
performance of the reactor or to reduce the total weight or the
capital investment of the reactor.
Scott29 disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 4,133,645 (Figure 18) a
method and a distributor device for effecting the uniform
distribution of a mixed-phase vapor/liquid reactant stream across
the fixed bed of catalyst particles. Mixed-phase reactants or
components are first separated into a principally vapor phase
and a principally liquid phase. These separated phases are then
remixed in a manner that creates vapor/liquid froth, with the
latter being redistributed to the upper surface of the bed of
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 19, 2007 6175
Figure 18. Distributor/redistributor or quench box system (from U.S. Patent
No. 4,133,64529).
Figure 19. Distributor/redistributor or quench box system (from U.S. Patent
No. 4,836,98912).
catalyst particles. Briefly, the distributor comprises three an-
nular-form catalyst-free volumes zones. In the vapor-liquid
separation zone, the mixed phase is separated into an upwardly
flowing substantially liquid-free vapor phase and a downwardly
flowing liquid phase. The flow of the liquid phase is reversed
upwardly and a quasi-stagnant pool is formed by overflowing
a cylindrical wall or weir onto a horizontal perforated plate.
Vapor-phase flow is also reversed, to assume a downward
direction into the catalyst-free area below the quasi-stagnant
liquid pool. The vapor passes upwardly through the perforations
and through the liquid pool to form a vapor-liquid froth and
the area of the device is called the remixing zone. Vapor quench
stream is injected through a perforated toroidal ring into the
separated vapor-phase proximate towards to the locus of vapor-
flow reversal. The froth is directed through the downcomer of
the tray to the catalyst bed below.
As disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 4,836,989, Aly et al.12
developed a distributor system with an improved vapor/liquid
contact and distribution. As shown in Figure 19, a collection
tray beneath the catalyst support grid is there to collect the liquid
leaving the upper catalyst bed. The vapor is injected though a
spider-type distributor to provide a uniform initial distribution
of the injected vapor. Spillways are provided in a collector tray
to permit a pool of liquid to accumulate on the tray before
passing through the spillways into the mixing chamber. The
spillways comprise upstanding downcomers, which provide a
passage for the downflowing liquid as well as for the vapor.
The spillways have outlets beneath the collector tray, which
face sideways and tangentially into an annular mixing chamber.
6176 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 19, 2007
Figure 20. Distributor/redistributor or quench box system (from U.S. Patent No. 5,462,71930).
Figure 21. Sensitivity of different distributors with changes in liquid flow
rate.35
The mixing chamber comprises a cylindrical, vertical-wall
portion, which is fixed to the collection tray and a lower, annular
tray with an upstanding rim for providing a pool of liquid in
the mixing chamber. The side-facing outlets of spillways impart
a rotary or swirling motion to the liquid in the mixing chamber,
which promotes good intermixing and temperature equilibrium
of the liquid at this point. The liquid spills over the edge or rim
and falls downward onto the deflector fixed to the rough
distributor tray. The disclosed design does not provide for a
compact quench box design in view of the requirement for the
bend of the quench pipe at the centerline of the reactor and the
two-tray assembly for the distributor system.
Pedersen et al.30 disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 5,462,719 a
method and apparatus for mixing and distributing fluids in a
reactor (Figure 20) where the ratio of liquid to vapor is relatively
low. The apparatus forms a mixing zone in the column into
which a first reactant (e.g., a process stream having both gas
and liquid phases) flows vertically downward. The second
reactant (e.g., quench gas) is introduced into the mixing zone
and flows radially to intercept the downflowing process stream.
Because of the construction of the mixing zone, a tortuous path
is provided that thoroughly mixes the different gas phases and
the liquid phase by several different mechanisms, i.e., (a) radial
jet mixing; (b) perpendicular mixing of the liquid and gas
phases; (c) jet/turbulent mixing; (d) high-velocity swirl jet
mixing and atomizing of the liquid phase; (e) turbulent swirl
mixing after the liquid is atomized; (f) additional turbulent jet
mixing; and (g) energy dissipation of the flow as the mixed
stream is distributed radially outward across the column through
first a sieve tray and then a riser tray.
Jacobs et al.25 disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 6,098,965 a reactor
distribution apparatus and quench zone mixing apparatus. A
quench zone mixing apparatus that occupies a low vertical height
Figure 22. Industrial vapor-liquid distributors improvements.36
and has an improved mixing efficiency and fluid distribution
across the catalyst surface includes a swirl chamber, a rough
distribution network, and a distribution apparatus. In the swirl
chamber, reactant fluid from a catalyst bed above is thoroughly
mixed with a quench fluid by a swirling action. The mixed fluids
exit the swirl chamber through an aperture to the rough
distribution system where the fluids are radially distributed
outward across the vessel to the distribution apparatus. The
distribution apparatus includes a plate with a number of bubble
caps and associated drip trays that multiply the liquid drip stream
from the bubble caps to further symmetrically distribute the
fluids across the catalyst surface. Alternatively, deflector baffles
may be associated with the bubble caps to provide a wider and
more uniform liquid distribution below the plate. The distribu-
tion apparatus can be used in the reaction vessel without the
swirl chamber and rough distribution system, e.g., at the top of
a vessel.
Chou31 disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 20020172632 a compact
quench box design for a cocurrent downflow fixed-bed reactor.
It comprises quench pipe assembly for gas injection, a collection
tray fitted with ramps, a mixing chamber, and a distribution
tray. Ramps help in radial mixing of the two phases and bring
the liquid from the collection tray to the mixing chamber. Vapor
coming out of the mixing chamber redistributes radially onto
the final distributor tray from the center of the reactor. In this
design, the location of the quench gas assembly is away from
the centerline of the reactor, which eliminates the need to
disassemble the quench distributor during the unloading of the
catalyst.
Nelson et al.27 disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 6,984,365 a
quench zone mixing apparatus with improved mixing efficiency.
They have put baffles inside the swirl chamber to stabilize the
vapor- and liquid-phase vortices. This reduces the required
overall height of the swirl chamber, provides a wide operating
 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 19, 2007 6177

Figure 23. Distributor for upflow reactor (a) distributor in details and (b) quench (U.S. Patent No. 6,554,99438).

Figure 24. Liquid mass velocity contours of a radial slice at a 5 ft depth (11 ft diameter reactor) for (a) riser tray, (b) conventional bubble cap tray, and
(c) modified bubble cap tray (from Jacobs and Milliken49).

Figure 25. Liquid mass velocity contours of a radial slice at a 40 ft depth (11 ft diameter reactor) for (a) riser tray, (b) conventional bubble cap tray, and
(c) modified bubble cap tray (from Jacobs and Milliken49).

range for vapor and liquid throughput, and promotes turbulence/
mixing within each of the fluid phases.
Breivik et al.32 disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 20060257300 a
quench box comprising gas injection line, a collector tray,
spillway collectors, a mixing chamber, and an impingement plate
below the mixing chamber followed by distributor trays to
improve the distribution, quenching, and gas-liquid mixing.
A pool of liquid accumulates in the collector tray and is
transferred to spillways, which are provided with outlets that
impart a rotary movement to the exiting fluid. The vortex mixing
chamber mixes the reactant fluids in a compartment where the
fluids are swirled together. The fluids exit the mixing chamber
by overflow in a weir and pass through a central orifice at the
bottom. The fluids then drop onto the impingement plate, which
redirects the flow radially underneath the mixing chamber. The
impingement plate is located at a distance above the first
distributor tray to provide free flow of liquid underneath.
3.1. What is Happening after the Distributor. The use of
inert layer particles as the top layer is common in commercial
packed columns,33 which attempts to compensate for poor liquid
distribution and prevents disruption of the upper surface of the
catalyst bed. The inert layer is basically chemically inert granular
material, and hence, the character of the material depends on
the nature of the reaction prevailing in the reactor bed.
Tasochatzidis et al.34 detected a slight improvement of liquid
distribution by means of a conductance probe using two layers
of large-size inert material (12 mm and 10 mm alumina ball)
as the top layer in a bed of 3 cm cylindrical particles. Any
uneven distribution due to the distributor or the top layer can
cause a change in the downstream flow pattern.
6178 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 19, 2007

Table 2. Comparison of Distributors

distributor level liquid flexibility liquid/vapor
distributor type spacing density sensitivity turndown ratio vapor/liquid ratio mixing capability
perforated plate best worst worst worst worst
simple chimney average poor poor poor poor
multiport chimney average average average average poor
bubble cap worst average good good best
gas-lift best best best best best

Table 3. Liquid Dispersion for Different Distributors

distributor type riser conventional bubble cap tray modified bubble cap tray
layout
pitch (in) 20.3 cm 17 cm 17 cm
pattern square triangular triangular
no. of distributors
2.4 m diameter reactor 90 151 171
3.35 m diameter reactor 184 301 345
4.26 m diameter reactor 304 499 559
liquid discharge pattern uniformly over 2.5 cm 50% uniformly over 3.8 cm diameter circle; uniformly over 10 cm diameter
diameter circle 50% uniformly over surrounding annular ring 0.25 cm wide
2.0 cm annular ring

Table 4. Distributors Used in Lab Scale

authors distributor details
Herskowitz and capillary tubes; 86 tubes (0.1 cm i.d.)
Smith52 arranged uniformlyover the
cross section; the tubes were
1 cm long and located 0.5 cm
above the top of the bed
Levec et al.53 capillary tubes; their distributor
consists of the capillaries that
were placed between two Pertinax
plates; 550 capillaries at 6.0 mm
pitch with 0.9 mm i.d. nd 3.0 cm
length through which water was
pumped into the column
Ravindra et al.54 99 stainless steel capillary
tubes were used
Saroha et al.55 ladder type; the liquid distributor
was made of 6.4 mm i.d.
stainless steel tubes to which
3.2 mm i.d. tubes were attached;
there were 37 1.5 mm holes
arranged in a square pitch of
2 cm
Li et al.56 121 tubes 2 mm diameter, which
were supported by two plates;
the upper plate was perforated
with 121 holes, and the lower
one was perforated with
180 holes
column and packing details flow range,kg/m2 s phase distribution
column diameter/height (mm): L ) 1-5; the gas through the annulus
40.8,114/260-700; packing G ) 0.0014-0.07 surrounding the central
diameter (mm): granular, liquid feed tube
2.52-11.1; spherical, 3.0-9.5;
cylindrical, 3.8-8.9
plexiglas column; diameter/height G ) 0.0-0.37; the bottom plate had circular holes
(cm) ) 17.2/130; D/dp ) 28-57 L ) 0.06-25.7 around the capillaries; the air
introduced to the chamber
formed between the plates
and it exited the distributor
through these holes
rectangular (60 mm × 80 mm); L ) 1-8; to introduce liquid as a point
height ) 200 mm; packing G ) 0.05 inlet; stainless steel tube of
diameter (mm) ) 1.6-6.3; 0.4 cm was employed
glass beads and alumina instead of capillary tubes
particles
column diameter/height L ) 0.7-5; both gas and liquid flow through
(mm) ) 152/550; G ) 0-0.027 distributor
packing diameter (mm):
1.5extrudates
rectangular (120 × 120 mm) UG ) 0-35 mm/s; liquid and gas flowed through
height ) variable up to 500 mm; UL ) 2.3 mm/s the tubes and the remaining
packing diameter (mm) ) 1.5 holes
polypropylene trilobe, spheres

4. Comparison of Distributors 5. Internals for Upflow Reactors

4.1. Sensitivity. All known distributors fall into two types,
gravity and gas-lift type distributors. Because of the different
operating principles, the two types would have different
characteristics, as shown in Figure 21.35 It could be seen from
Figure 21 that the vapor-lift distributor shows excellent sensitiv-
ity over a wide operating range, i.e., overflow at high liquid
rates can be avoided by the gas-lift principle.
4.2. Performance. Patel et al.36 compared the advantages and
disadvantages (Table 2) of various distributors with respect to
distributor spacing density, level sensitivity, liquid turndown
ratio, flexibility to vapor/liquid ratio, and liquid/vapor mixing
capability. The vapor-lift tube was found to be much better than
others. It is also observed that more and more gas-lift distributors
are being used, and use is expected to be increased in the future,
as shown in Figure 22.36
Sometimes cocurrent upflow reactors are used because of
numerous advantages over downflow reactors, especially when
it necessary to ensure complete external wetting at the same
time as having high liquid holdup for a liquid-limited reaction
(Dudukovic et al.37). However, it is not widely practiced
commercially because of the difficulty in designing and manag-
ing such a system. Reynolds38 disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 6,-
554,994 a fluid distributing means and quench system for
cocurrent upflow of gas and liquid in a fixed-bed hydrotreater
with layered catalyst (Figure 23). The fluid distribution means
may take a number of forms, for example, screens, grids,
perforated plates, etc. The fluid distribution means serves two
primary functions. It is intended to distribute the fluids passing
upwardly through the reactor evenly across the horizontal plane
of the catalyst layer. It also serves to ensure the break-up of

Figure 26. Different type of lab distributors (a) capillary tubes used by
Levec et al.53 and Ravindra et al.; 54 and (b) ladder type used by Saroha et
al.55
large gas bubbles and the optimal mixing of the fluids.
Preferably, it also is designed to serve the secondary functions
of supporting the catalyst layer and preventing the mixing of
the catalyst particles at the interface between any two adjacent
catalyst layers.
The fluid distribution plate is perforated with a numbers of
holes with tubes or risers that have a deflector on their lower
ends to prevent the direct passage of large gas bubbles into the
bore of the riser, assuring optimal distribution of the fluids. Each
riser has at least one opening in its sidewall. Vapor passes into
the bore of the riser through the openings and the liquid around
the deflector and through the opening at the bottom of the risers,
up through the perforations in the fluid distribution plate, into
the space, and upward through the catalyst support grid into
the immediately adjacent layer of catalyst. Since many of the
reactions taking place in the bed of catalyst are exothermic,
there is a quench line into the catalyst bed in an optimal location,
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 19, 2007 6179
i.e., directly below the fluid distributing means, to ensure the
even distribution of quench fluids in each catalyst layer to
prevent hot spots.
Hatem and Corinne39 disclosed in Patent No. WO2004033084
a distributor system for a fixed-bed upflow reactor to produce
bisphenol from acetone and phenol. The distributor comprises
a manifold and distribution arms extended laterally from
manifold. The manifold and distribution arms have perforations
for fluid distribution.
6. Applications of CFD in Distributor Studies
A liquid distributor located above the packed bed is used to
distribute liquid and gas uniformly, thereby dictating how and
where the downflowing liquid enters the top of the catalyst
surface. Various distributor designs have been developed in an
attempt to obtain a uniform distribution of liquid for optimum
packing performance based on drip point density distribution
and geometric uniformity.40-42 The distributor tray designs are
mostly influenced by hardware used in packed and trayed
fractionation columns. The design of the distributor is commonly
extrapolated from experiments carried out at small scale with
fluids at low pressure and low temperature, usually air and water
at ambient conditions, which do not correspond to industrial
conditions and may not be representative. Numerical modeling
is used to fill the gap between cold-flow experiments and real
process conditions. Stanek et al.43 formulated a mathematical
model of the effect of flow distribution on the progress of
catalytic reaction with heat effects. The numerical solution was
obtained by the finite difference method and predicted that the
entrance-region flow pattern plays a significant role in affecting
conversion. Stanek44 analyzed the impact of nonuniformity of
initial velocity and pressure field on maldistribution of liquid,
mass transfer, heat transfer, etc. by formulating a mathematical
model. It was observed that these effects should be interpreted
correctly and appropriate measures should be taken in the design
of equipment for cost savings.
In the past decade, the CFD model has been significantly
enhanced and calculation speed has been greatly increased, so
that CFD has actually been more and more used to simulate
hydrodynamics in complex flow systems such as a bubble
column and a fluidized bed. Sapre et al.45 have also developed
a novel flow-distribution technique to measure the point-to-point
flow in a hot reactor, which could be used for verification and
validation of numerical results. Fewer works have been pub-
lished for flow behavior occurring within internals like distribut-
ing trays or mixing boxes. Van Baten and Krishna46 have
simulated the flows on sieve trays in the Eulerian framework.
Their simulations could capture chaotic tray hydrodynamics and
reveal several liquid circulation patterns. Raynal and Harter47
studied two-phase flow through a downcomer (chimney type)
experimentally and numerically. They used both 2D and 3D
simulations using the volume of fluid (VOF) approach to capture
two-phase flow with an interface clearly identified. They
observed good agreement between simulated and experimental
flow pictures captured through a high-magnification charge-
coupled device (CCD) camera.
Some authors also studied the impact of two-phase flow
distributors on catalyst utilization depending on drip point
spacing, liquid discharge pattern, and wall coverage. The effect
of feed distribution on the macroscopic flow structure was
studied using the numerical simulations by several authors.48-51
Jiang et al.50-51 have simulated numerically the impact of initial
liquid entry from a single-point source, a two-point source, and
uniform distribution, using the discrete cell model approach
6180 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 19, 2007
(DCM) in trickle-bed reactors. They predicted that the number
of liquid channels formed in the nonprewetted bed corresponds
to the number of liquid point sources. They evaluated behavior
of the packed bed with initial uniform liquid distribution. It was
also observed that, although initial distribution was uniform,
after a few particle diameters of axial distance, the channel
formation starts.
Jacobs and Milliken49 quantified the impact of center-to-center
spacing, wall coverage, and liquid-discharge pattern on catalyst
utilization using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for some
of the recent advanced gas-liquid distributors. These distributors
are riser tray, conventional bubble cap tray, and modified bubble
cap type, and these trays differed for their liquid discharge
pattern, pitch, and numbers of distributor points. They evaluated
three tray designs, i.e., riser tray, conventional bubble cap tray,
and modified bubble cap tray with assumed liquid discharge
pattern. The trays were evaluated for reactor diameters of 2.4,
3.35, and 4.26 m to cover the majority of installations. They
assumed different discharge patterns (shown in Table 3) for
different distributors. Using CFD modeling, contour plots were
obtained for different liquid dispersions. Figures 24 and 25
represent extent of liquid dispersion at inerts/catalyst interface
at different bed depths. Homogeneity represents plug flow; dark
represents no flow, and spotted is for local flow. Because of
the ring-shaped discharge pattern and increased wall coverage,
the modified bubble cap tray design quickly approaches plug
flow, in comparison with the other two designs. The design of
a distributor optimized within laboratory standard experimental
ranges may not match the design requirements for industrial
flow conditions. CFD has become mature to capture flow
behavior and guide for design strategy.
7. Laboratory Scale
Distributors used in laboratory-scale reactors are mostly for
cold-flow studies. The only purpose of these is to ensure uniform
liquid distribution because they are free from other criteria that
occur for large-scale reactors. Different types of small but simple
distributors have been reported by several authors for generation
of experimental data (Herskowitz,52 Levec et al.,53 Ravindra et
al.,54 Saroha et al.,55 and Li and co-workers56,57). These are
mainly (i) capillary type, where provisions are made for liquid
and gas flow separately, (ii) ladder type, with a perforation in
the branch tube for mixed-phase flow or perforated plate (Figure
26). Table 4 shows some details about the various types of
distributors used in different studies.
8. Conclusions
From the foregoing, the following conclusions regarding
liquid distribution and flow texture can be drawn:
• A good liquid distributor at the top of the catalyst bed is
vital for uniform liquid distribution, which is influenced by
distributor spacing, liquid discharge pattern, and off-pitch
distributor placement near the wall.
• Mainly four types of distributors are used, namely,
perforated plate, multiport chimney, bubble cap, and vapor-lift
tube.
• A perforated plate or sieve tray is simple to construct and
is capable of providing the maximum number of drip points,
but it is very sensitive to tray levelness, is vulnerable to dirt
deposits, is less flexible to liquid load, and has a tendency to
run dry toward the end of the cycle.
• The most commonly used distributor in the past for less
critical service is the multiport chimney type. Vapor is allowed
to pass through the top opening and liquid passes through weep
holes cut into the side of the riser. This tray has less sensitivity
to tray levelness, increased tolerance to dirt deposits, greater
flexibility to changing vapor/liquid ratio, and fewer chances to
run dry toward the end of the cycle. Sometimes attachment of
a liquid conduit to the chimney improves performance over that
of a conventional chimney.
• Sizing of the multiport downcomers can be done following
the design methodology as outlined by Muldowney et al.20
• Some of the key design components of a multiport chimney
distributor are number of chimneys, apertures around the
perimeter of the chimney, the cross-sectional area of each
aperture, the top opening of the chimney, the centerline of the
aperture above the tray, the liquid level on the tray, the pitch
of the aperture, etc.
• Sometimes, a spray-generating device such as a helical
ribbon is attached at the end of downcomer to produce a conical
spray. The mixed fluid stream from one spray-generating device
will overlap with the spray from an adjacent spray-generating
device. The angle of the spread of the conical spray pattern is
controlled by the choice of ribbon pitch, diameter width, and
length. The angle of the spray and overlap determines the
appropriate distance between the tray carrying the spray device
and the catalyst bed.
• In a bubble cap distributor, vapor passing through slots cut
in the bubble cap aspirates liquid held up on the tray, carrying
it over a central downcomer. It shows stable sensitivity over a
broad range of liquid loadings compared to the case of the
chimney tray. However, the only disadvantage is the size of
the bubble cap, which introduces wider spacing between drip
points and a lower number of drip points, causing less catalyst
utilization.
• The performance of a gas-lift distributor is found to be more
promising compared to other distributors because it provides
intimate mixing of vapor and liquid, is less vulnerable to fouling,
is insensitive to tray levelness, can distribute liquid uniformly
at large turndown ratio, and can accommodate a larger number
of drip points compared to the case of the bubble cap distributor.
With proper design, the vapor-lift tube device will reduce the
liquid flow difference between vapor-lift tubes at different
elevations better than what can be achieved with chimney type
and bubble cap designs. The most commonly installed distributor
in the industry today is the gas-lift distributor, especially for
applications where optimal catalyst performance is mandatory.
• In a cocurrent downflow trickle-bed reactor, because of
chemical reaction, heat is produced and reactant is depleted from
the vapor phase and becomes rich with additional components
along the reactor length. So it is required to quench the effluent
and to add reactant at different locations. A quench box is
provided in between two beds for liquid cross mixing, distribu-
tion correction, and product side-draws. The key component of
the quench box are a quench box conduit with a sparger, a
quench tray or collection tray, a mixing chamber, rough
distributor trays, and trays for final distribution.
• In the case of an upflow packed-bed reactor, a perforated
plate fitted with a number of riser tubes is used to produce a
uniform distribution of fluids. Also, the quench fluid is used
through the perforated quench tube between the beds to prevent
hot spots.
• Very few studies have been reported for CFD analysis of
distributors. Uniform liquid distribution is influenced by dis-
tributor spacing, liquid discharge pattern, and off-pitch distribu-
tor placement near the wall. A modified bubble cap type
distributor, simulated using CFD, results in the highest catalyst

utilization because of improved ring-shaped discharge pattern
and increased wall coverage. Using 2/3 layers of large-size inert
material as the top layer in the bed and a redistributor in the
bed improves the liquid distribution.
• Various types of distributors, simple in nature and with
provision of separate gas and liquid entry, are used in small
laboratory-scale reactors to ensure uniform distribution of liquid.
• Various types of distributors were compared with their
advantages and disadvantages. It is found that gas-lift tubes are
best with respect to distributor spacing density, level sensitivity,
liquid turndown ratio, flexibility to vapor/liquid ratio, liquid/
vapor mixing capability, and level sensitivity. The vapor-lift
tube was found to be much better than the others.
9. Recommendations for Future Work
• A high-quality distributor should be developed based on
cold-flow modeling and supported by CFD calculations for
commercial operating range with special emphasis on the
discharge pattern.
• The distributor with a spray-generating device at the
downcomer end should be developed using a cold-flow study
and backup support with CFD.
• The advantages of a vapor-lift distributor over a chimney
type design are significant. More work with this type of design
should be done with cold-flow testing as well as with CFD
application.
• A design methodology should be developed for the vapor-
lift tube distributor.
• CFD studies are recommended to be performed for the
quench box.
We hope that the above conclusions will further help in
designing/choosing internals, especially distributors, and recom-
mendations made for future work will further demystify the flow
distribution in trickle-bed reactors. Both these aspects (conclu-
sions and recommendations for future work) taken together will
provide a holistic approach in the design of good distributors
for uniform distribution of two phases in a cocurrent trickle-
bed reactor. We strongly feel that the quality of transportation
fuel has to be further improved beyond EURO III and IV (5-
10 ppmw) to have a much cleaner and greener environment.
We hope that the present manuscript focuses our attention to
further understanding of microlevel phenomena in TBRs, which
will facilitate uniform liquid distribution to meet the stringent
sulfur specification in the future (5-10 ppmw) in transportation
fuel.
Acknowledgment
We wish to acknowledge the support of Center for High
Technology, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Govern-
ment of India, for providing research facilities in the area of
trickle-bed reactors (TBRs).
Nomenclature
a ) effective interfacial area per volume of bed
as ) packing specific area per volume of bed
A ) total area of the hole(s) at an elevation
D ) diameter of tube
g ) acceleration due to gravity
h ) liquid height above top surface of tray
H ) height of hole center above top surface of tray
L ) local liquid velocity
QL ) liquid volume flow rates per downpipe
QG ) gas volume flow rates per downpipe
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 19, 2007 6181
NF ) Froude no. (V/(g D)0.5)
V ) superficial liquid velocity in the downcomers
Greek Letters
FL ) liquid densities
FG ) gas densities
σL ) liquid surface tension
Subscripts
L ) liquid
G ) gas
Literature Cited
(1) Saroha, A. K.; Nigam, K. D. P. Trickle Bed Reactors. ReV. Chem.
Eng. 1996, 12, 207-347.
(2) Larachi, F.; Cassanello, M.; Laurent, A. Gas liquid interfacial mass
transfer in trickle-bed reactors at elevated pressures. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
1998, 37, 718-33.
(3) Kundu, A.; Nigam, K. D. P.; Verma, R. P. Catalyst wetting
characteristics in trickle-bed reactors. AIChE J. 2003, 49, 2253-63.
(4) Maiti, R. N.; Sen, P. K.; Nigam, K. D. P. Trickle-bed reactors: Liquid
distribution and flow texture. ReV. Chem. Eng. 2004, 20, 57-111.
(5) Sie, S. T.; Krishna, R. Process development and scale up. III. Scale-
up and scale-down of trickle bed processes. ReV. Chem. Eng. 1998, 14,
203-252.
(6) Ng, K. M.; Chu, C. F. Trickle-bed reactors. Chem. Eng. Prog. 1987,
83, 55-63.
(7) Christensen, G.; McGovern, S. G.; Sundaresan, S. Cocurrent
downflow of air and water in a two-dimensional packed column. AIChE J.
1986, 32, 1677-89.
(8) Szady, M. J.; Sundaresan, S. Effect of boundaries on trickle-bed
hydrodynamics. AIChE J. 1991, 37, 1237-41.
(9) Marchot, P.; Crine, M.; L’Homme, G. A. Rational description of
trickle flow through packed beds. Part I: Liquid distribution far from the
distributor. Chem. Eng. J. 1992, 48, 49-59.
(10) Marchot, P.; Crine, M.; L’Homme, G. A. Rational description of
trickle flow through packed beds. Part II: Liquid distribution far from the
distributor. Chem. Eng. J. 1992, 48, 61-70.
(11) Smith, R.; Stricland, J. C.; Sanwald, J. W.; Jones, H. B. Vertical
reactor for two-phase vapor liquid reaction charge. U.S. Patent 3824081,
1974.
(12) Aly, F. A.; Graven, R. G.; Lewis, D. W. Distribution system for
downflow reactors. U.S. Patent 4,836,989, 1989.
(13) Grott, J. R.; Bunting, R. L.; Hoehn, R. K.; Goodspeed, R. F.
Hydroprocessing reactor mixer/distributor. U.S. Patent 5,837,208, 1998.
(14) Riopelle, J. E.; Scarsdale, N. Y. Bed reactor with quench deck.
U.S. Patent 3,353,924, 1967.
(15) Effron, E.; Hochman, J. M. Mixed phase flow distributor for packed
beds. U.S. Patent 3,524,731, 1970.
(16) Grosboll, M. P.; Edison, R. R.; Dresser, T. Apparatus and process
for distributing a mixed phase through solids. U.S. Patent 4,126,540, 1978.
(17) Derr, J.; Walter, R.; Gallagher, L. E.; Haddad, J. H.; McGovern,
S. J.; Schatz, K. W.; Smith, F. A. Method and arrangement of apparatus
for hydrogenating hydrocarbons. U.S. Patent 4,126,539, 1978.
(18) Campagnolo, J. F.; Chou, T.-S.; Heaney, W. F.; Ruggles, J. D.
Inlet distributor for fixed bed catalytic reactor. U.S. Patent 4,788,040, 1988.
(19) Koros, R. M.; Wong, Y. W.; Wyatt, J. T.; Dankworth, D. C. Mixed
phase fixed bed reactor distributor. U.S. Patent 5,403,561, 1995.
(20) Muldowney, G. P.; Weiss, R. A.; Wolfenbarger, J. A. Two-phase
distributor system for downflow reactors. U.S. Patent 5,484,578, 1996.
(21) Wrisberg, J. Distributor means and method. U.S. Patent 5,688,-
445, 1997.
(22) Muller, M. Distribution device for two-phase concurrent downflow.
U.S. Patent 20060163758, 2006.
(23) Ballard, J. H.; Hines, J. E. Vapor liquid distribution method and
apparatus for the conversion of hydrocarbons. U.S. Patent 3,218,249, 1965.
(24) Shih, C.-C. J.; Christolini, B. A. Vapor-liquid distribution method
and apparatus. U.S. Patent 5,158,714, 1992.
(25) Jacobs, G. E.; Stupin, S. W.; Kuskie, R. W.; Logman, R. A. Reactor
distribution apparatus and quench zone mixing apparatus. U.S. Patent 6,-
098,965, 2000.
(26) Muller, M. Two-phase distribution apparatus and process. U.S.
Patent 6,769,672, 2004.
(27) Nelson, D. E.; Kuskie, R. W.; Bingham, F. E. Reactor distribution
apparatus and quench zone mixing apparatus. U.S. Patent 6,984,365, 2006.
6182 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 19, 2007
(28) Gamborg, M. M.; Jensen, B. N. Two-phase downflow liquid
distribution device. U.S. Patent 5,942,162, 1999.
(29) Scott, N. H. Vapor/liquid distributor for fixed-bed catalytic reaction
chambers. U.S. Patent 4,133,645, 1979.
(30) Pedersen, M. J.; Sampath, V. R.; Litchfield, J. F. Method and
apparatus for mixing and distributing fluids in a reactor. U.S. Patent 5,-
462,719, 1995.
(31) Chou, T.-S. Quench box for a multi-bed, mixed-phase cocurrent
downflow fixed-bed reactor. U.S. Patent 20020172632, 2002.
(32) Breivik, R.; Mogensen, J.; Hansen, T. O. Distributor system for
downflow reactors. U.S. Patent 20060257300, 2006.
(33) Moller, L. B.; Halken, C.; Hansen, J. A.; Bartholdy, J. Liquid and
gas distribution in trickle-bed reactors. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1996, 35, 926-
30.
(34) Tasochatzidis, N. A.; Karabelas, A. J.; Giakoumakis, D.; Huff, G.
A. An investigation of liquid maldistribution in trickle beds. Chem. Eng.
Sci. 2002, 57, 3543-55.
(35) Hensen, T. Hydrocracking reactor internals. Personal communica-
tion from Haldor Topsoe, Inc., 2007.
(36) Patel, R. H.; Bingham, E.; Christensen, P.; Muller, M. Hydropro-
cessing reactor and process design to optimize catalyst performance.
Presented at The First Indian Refining Roundtable, New Delhi, India, Dec
1-2, 1998.
(37) Dudukovic, M. P.; Larachi, F.; Mills, P. L. Multiphase catalytic
reactors: A perspective on current knowledge and future trends. Catal. ReV.
2002, 123-246.
(38) Reynolds, B. E.; Antezana, F. J. Upflow reactor system with layered
catalyst bed for hydrotreating heavy feedstock. U.S. Patent 6,554,994, 2003.
(39) Hatem, B.; Corinne, D. Fixed bed reactor with a fluid distributor
and a fluid collector. Patent WO 2004033084, 2004.
(40) Albright, M. A. Packed tower distributors tested. Hydrocarbon
Process. 1984, 63 (9), 173-77.
(41) Perry, D.; Nutter, D. E.; Hale, A. Liquid distribution for optimum
packing performance. Chem. Eng. Prog. 1990, 86, 30-5.
(42) Bonilla, J. A. Don’t neglect liquid distributors. Chem. Eng. Prog.
1993, 89, 47-61.
(43) Stanek, V.; Hanika, J.; Hlavacek, V.; Trnka, O. The effect of liquid
flow distribution on the behavior of a trickle bed reactor. Chem. Eng. Sci.
1981, 36, 1045-67.
(44) Stanek, V. Fixed bed operations: Flow distribution and efficiency.
Ph.D. Thesis, Institute of chemical process fundamentals, Academy of
science of the Czech Republic, Prague, Ellis Horwood, 1994.
(45) Sapre, A. V.; Anderson, D. H.; Krambeck, F. J. Heater probe
technique to measure flow maldistribution in large scale trickle bed reactors.
Chem. Eng. Sci. 1990, 45, 2263-8.
(46) van Baten, J. M.; Krishna, R. Modeling sieve tray hydraulics using
computational fluid dynamics. Chem. Eng. J. 2001, 77, 143-51.
(47) Raynal, L.; Harter, I. Studies of gas-liquid flow through reactors
internals using VOF simulations. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2001, 56, 6385-91.
(48) Anderson, D. H.; Sapre, A. V. Trickle bed reactor flow simulation.
AIChE J. 1991, 37, 377-82.
(49) Jacobs, G. E.; Milliken, A. S. Evaluating liquid distributorsin
hydroprocessing reactors. Hydrocarbon Process. 2000, NoV, 76-84.
(50) Jiang, Y.; Khadilkar, M. R.; Al-Dahhan, M. H.; Dudukovic, M. P.
Two-phase flow distribution in 2D trickle-bed reactors. Chem. Eng. Sci.
1999, 54, 2409-19.
(51) Jiang, Y.; Khadilkar, M. R.; Al-Dahhan, M. H.; Dudukovic, M. P.
CFD of multiphase flow in packed-bed reactors: II. Results and applications.
AIChE J. 2002, 48, 716-30.
(52) Herskowitz, M.; Smith, J. M. Liquid distribution in trickle-bed
reactors: Part 1: Flow measurements, and Part II: Tracer studies. AIChE
J. 1978, 24, 439-50.
(53) Levec, J.; Saez, A. E.; Carbonell, R. G. The hydrodynamics of
trickling flow in packed beds. Part II: Experimental observation. AIChE J.
1986, 32, 369-80.
(54) Ravindra, P. V.; Rao, D. P.; Rao, M. S. Liquid flow texture in
trickle-bed reactors: An experimental study. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1997,
36, 5133-45.
(55) Saroha, A. K.; Nigam, K. D. P.; Saxena, A. K.; Kapoor, V. K.
Liquid distribution in trickle-bed reactors. AIChE J. 1998, 44, 2044-52.
(56) Li, M.; Bando, Y.; Suzuki, K.; Yasuda, K.; Nakamura, M. Liquid
Flow Rate Distribution in Trickle Bed with Non-uniformly Packed Structure.
J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 2000, 33, 211-16.
(57) Li, M.; Iida, N.; Yasuda, K.; Bando, Y.; Nakamura, M. Effect of
orientation of packing structure on liquid flow distribution in trickle bed.
J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 2000, 33, 811-14.
ReceiVed for reView February 18, 2007
ReVised manuscript receiVed May 31, 2007
Accepted June 21, 2007
IE070255M