32 www.aiche.

org/cep November 2012 CEP

Reactions and Separations
C
hemical plants consume large amounts of energy,
much of which goes into separations, particularly
distillation. Distillation columns also typically process
signifcant quantities of feedstock to produce high volumes of
fnished products with (ideally) a minimal amount of waste.
High energy consumption combined with large processing
volumes makes the distillation process a prime target for
optimization.
One approach to optimizing distillation is to design
green columns. A more-effective approach, however, and
one that is discussed in this article, is to build columns with
smart designs.
In essence, the principles of green design are simple: Use
materials wisely, conserve water and energy, save money
in the long term, and create surroundings that are safe and
healthy. In other words, follow the standards of good engi-
neering (1). This certainly applies to distillation, although
perhaps it could be better stated as good engineering design
with a continual emphasis on green principles. This is what
is meant by the term smart design.
In this article, smart design refers to approaches that
use minimal resources over the life of the process and that
are also safe and environmentally sound. Resources (which
are also referred to as embodied energy), in turn, consist of
materials, feedstocks, energy, effort, etc.
Scope and boundaries
To keep the scope of this topic manageable, we make
three important assumptions, which along with the result-
ing consequences are listed in Table 1. All of these assump-
tions, to some extent, are incorrect, especially the frst one.
Most, if not all, users of chemical-based products could
get by with less. As for the second and third assumptions,
many bright chemical engineers are currently working
to prove them incorrect. Regardless of their accuracy,
these assumptions create a simpler engineering system
in which the impact of distillation column design can
be isolated.
This article focuses on the distillation columns them-
selves and the process and equipment immediately sur-
rounding them. The design of this system is considered in
three stages, which are represented by the concentric circles
in Figure 1. The outer boundary of the design considers the
cradle-to-grave resources consumed by the system, from
column construction through the lifespan of the equipment.
The boundaries narrow as the design progresses.
Optimizing distillation equipment and processes
can improve both the protability
and the greenness of an operation.
Mark Pilling, P.E.
Daniel R. Summers, P.E.
Sulzer Chemtech USA
Be Smart
about Column Design
Table 1. Assumptions simplify the analysis
of smart column designs.
Assumption Consequence for Scope
Production of the various
chemicals from the various
feedstocks is mandatory
Reduction of product
quantities will not be
considered
The process of converting a
certain feedstock into a certain
product is the most effective
way possible
Process optimization or
alteration outside of the
distillation area will not be
considered
Distillation is the most
effective means of separation
for producing the nal product
Processes other than
distillation will not be
considered
Copyright 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
CEP November 2012 www.aiche.org/cep 33
Column sizing
Column sizing is a fundamental aspect of column design.
The size of a column is determined by capacity and eff-
ciency requirements.
To achieve the necessary heat and mass transfer, the
vapor and liquid streams must continually mix and separate
throughout the column. Capacity is set by the allowable
vapor and liquid velocities fowing through the column.
Within a horizontal cross-section of the column, there must
be adequate space for the vapor to fow upward and for the
liquid to fow counter-currently downward.
Based on the physical properties of the fuids, there is a
limit to how much fow can be processed within a column.
Fractionation Research, Inc. (FRI) refers to this as the sys-
tem limit, which is used to calculate the maximum capacity
of a column regardless of the internals (2). The calculation is
based on Stokes Law, and is used to predict the vapor veloc-
ity at which a liquid droplet of a specifc size can no longer
travel downward through that vapor stream. This provides a
practical limit for sizing columns with respect to diameter.
The design of a column and its internals typically
involves a tradeoff between capacity and effciency. Take
structured packing as an example. A structured packing with
a low surface area (e.g., 125 m
2
/m
3
) provides high capac-
ity and low effciency; a column with this packing can be
smaller in diameter, but to achieve the required number of
stages must be taller than a column whose packing has a
much higher surface area (e.g., 750 m
2
/m
3
). A high-surface-
area packing provides less capacity but more effciency,
allowing the column to be shorter, but requiring a larger
diameter. Either column can achieve the same throughput
and the same separation, provided the column geometry and
internals are properly matched.
Level 1: Construction materials and resources
Column materials. To minimize capital costs, columns
are typically constructed with the smallest diameter and
lowest height practical. (Gone are the days when columns
were designed with large amounts of extra capacity.) This
does not mean, however, that the very smallest column
possible with the highest-performance internals should
be selected for a grass-roots application with more than
a minimal life expectancy. Unless there is no reasonable
chance the design will be modifed in the future, some
degree of operational freedom should be factored into the
sizing process.
Column internals, both trays and packings, are made as
thin as is practical to meet the necessary mechanical require-
ments. Great care is taken to minimize the quantity of raw
materials used to construct the distillation equipment. Dur-
ing manufacturing, virtually all unused material is collected
and recycled as scrap.
Until the 1950s, bubble cap trays (Figure 2) were used
for systems with high turndown. The fabrication of bubble
cap trays requires a large amount of metal, and their installa-
tion requires a signifcant amount of labor.
In 1960, Earl Nutter developed moving round valves
(Figure 3) on a tray deck as a more cost-effective alternative
to bubble cap trays. These new
trays require considerably
less material for their
construction (3).
The moving-valve
design evolved to
rectangular valves
Level 3
Internal Design
Optimization
Level 2
Process Design and
Configuration
Level 1
Construction Materials
and Resources
p Figure 1. Concentric circles characterize the narrowing scope of the
design process.
z Figure 2. Bubble
cap trays require a
large amount of metal.
u Figure 3. Round valves
require less material than
bubble caps.
Copyright 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
34 www.aiche.org/cep November 2012 CEP
Reactions and Separations
(Figure 4). A substantial amount of scrap is generated during
the manufacture of round valves, in large part because of
their radially extending legs. In contrast, rectangular valves
are easily formed from a rectangular sheet with little to no
scrap. Thus, rectangular valves are a smarter, more cost-
effective solution.
Today, many tray designs use fxed valves, such as the
one shown in Figure 5. These trays offer better performance
than a conventional sieve or valve tray because the valves
are formed out of the tray deck itself. No additional metal is
added to the tray and no scrap metal is lost, making this the
greenest design from a materials standpoint.
These examples demonstrate that, as designs evolve over
time, good engineering generally improves both perfor-
mance and cost-effectiveness.
Equipment lifespan. Most internals are designed for a
relatively long life, typically in excess of 20 years. There-
fore, selection of the proper metallurgy is vital. Structured
packing that is 0.10 mm thick with process exposure on both
sides is too thin to be designed with a corrosion allowance.
Column internals removed after their useful life are
typically collected, cleaned as necessary, and sent for
scrap recycling. Since column sizes and loads are essen-
tially unique, reuse of internals for different columns is
extremely rare (although reuse of the columns themselves
is not).
Equipment manufacturers, engineering companies, and
operators do everything practical to use as little material as
possible over a lifespan that is as long as possible.
Level 2: Process design and conguration
During process design, two major points of focus are
obtaining the greatest valuable yield from the column as a
percentage of feed, and doing this with the least amount of
energy. On the process side, this can entail sequencing of
multiple columns, as well as modifying the process confgu-
ration itself (e.g., feed/effuent exchanger systems, reboiler
and condenser heat-transfer media, reboiler and condenser
confgurations, optimization of the number of stages vs. duty,
divided-wall columns, and optimized control strategies).
Column sequencing. When multiple separations
and/or columns are required, column sequencing is an
excellent method to minimize the number of column vessels
and energy consumption. Energy savings as high as 48%
have been reported (4).
For a given set of required separations, the number of
sequencing possibilities increases exponentially with the
number of product streams. For example, four streams can
be arranged in 18 different confgurations if no thermal
coupling is considered. For a fve-component system, the
number of possible confgurations increases to 203. When
thermal coupling is considered, this number increases to
nearly 6,000.
Among these confgurations is one that requires the
minimum expenditure of resources. A process engineer
today has the methodology and computing power required to
fnd that ideal confguration during the conceptual phase of
the project. These methods should be used in the design of
any moderate to highly complex column series.
Advanced controls. Advanced process controls provide
many benefts. The goal of most advanced control schemes
is to achieve the desired product rate and purity while using
the least amount of resources, namely feed and energy. By
defnition, these are smart designs.
Adjustable cutpoint control allows operations to be
adjusted in response to changing economic drivers and pro-
duction to be shifted from lower-value products to higher-
value ones. Feed-forward control analyzes the feed composi-
tion upstream of the column and adjusts column operations
to more quickly respond to operational swings or startup
sequences. This helps to stabilize column operation, hope-
fully eliminating off-spec products and minimizing energy
input into the column.
Floodpoint control is another advanced control tool that
has proven to be benefcial. Once a column goes into a food
condition, pressure drop can increase substantially and prod-
uct quality can degrade signifcantly. Columns typically have
specifc operational precursors to food that can be detected
and monitored. This information can be used to adjust
column operation so that it can effectively run near the food
point without experiencing the erratic behavior or off-spec
products associated with fooding conditions (5).
p Figure 4. Rectangular
valves can be manu-
factured with little to no
scrap.
t Figure 5. Fixed valves
are formed from the tray
deck.
Copyright 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
CEP November 2012 www.aiche.org/cep 35
By using the appropriate control instrumentation and
logic, column capacity can be increased and/or energy
consumption can be reduced for highly loaded applications.
This produces the maximum amount of throughput with the
lowest possible resource consumption.
Heat integration. A column should be appropriately
heat-integrated into the process using methods such as pinch
analysis. Processes that can use lower-level sources of heat
or preheat confgurations such as feed/bottoms exchangers
are desired, as long as operational effciency and capital
expenses are not adversely affected.
A good example of this is side reboilers. Since they
operate at a lower temperature than a reboiler, they can use
a cooler heat source than the reboiler, such as a product
stream headed for storage. This pairing serves two benefcial
purposes it provides heat to the column, and it reduces or
eliminates some of the cooling duty that would otherwise be
required for that product stream.
Refnery crude preheat trains are another good example
of heat integration. They utilize several large banks of feed
exchangers that heat the incoming crude prior to distillation
while cooling the hot product streams headed to storage.
When making these modifcations, designers must
ensure that the exchangers and alternative heating sources
are adequate for startup conditions and alternative feed
source conditions.
Heat pumps. Signifcant energy savings up to 90%
can be obtained by compressing the overhead vapor
from a distillation tower to a temperature (and pressure)
suffciently higher than the towers bottom temperature and
using that heat in the columns reboiler. For a heat pump
application to be successful, the difference between the top
and bottom temperatures of the tower should be no more
than about 25F. In addition, the bottom liquids heat of
vaporization and the overhead vapors heat of condensation
ideally should be very close and the pressure drop across the
column internals should be less than about 15 psi. Separa-
tions involving compounds with low relative volatilities are
ideal candidates for vapor-recompression type heat pumps.
C
3
splitters are frequently designed with vapor-recom-
pression heat pumps when suffcient low-energy heat
sources (e.g., steam condensate or waste steam let down
from a high-pressure steam user) are not available. A typical
fow scheme is shown in Figure 6. The heats of vaporiza-
tion of propylene (the overhead product) and propane (the
bottoms product) at 100 psi are nearly identical (157.6 and
151.7 Btu/lb, respectively). The only energy needed for a C
3

splitter heat pump is the compressor duty, which is typically
only 1112% of the total reboiler duty. Therefore, the energy
savings are signifcant.
In addition, C
3
splitter heat pump systems operate at
much lower pressures than conventional columns without
heat pumping. The high-pressure compressor discharge
stream is cooled with cooling water, so the compressor dis-
charge is the same as the conventional towers top pressure.
Since single-wheel compressors typically have a compres-
sion ratio of 1.8:1, the operating pressure of the heat-pumped
C
3
splitter column is 56% (1/1.8) of the conventional C
3

splitter pressure. With a lower operating pressure, the
required thickness of the pressure vessel walls is lower,
which provides a capital cost savings. The lower pressure
also results in a higher relative volatility, so fewer theoretical
stages are required to achieve the separation. This translates
to fewer trays and a shorter column. The result is a smaller
column that uses signifcantly less materials and energy.
Stages vs. duty. A review of stages vs. energy (or col-
umn height vs. column diameter) is an integral part of the
column design and confguration process. An example of
the relationship between reboiler stages and duty is shown
in Figure 7. Reboiler duty decreases as the number of stages
Compressor
Trim
Condenser
Accumulator
Reboiler/
Condenser
Feed
Distillate
Propylene
Bottoms
Propane
p Figure 6. A C
3
splitter with a vapor-recompression heat pump is smaller
and consumes much less energy than a conventional C
3
splitter.
T
h
e
o
r
e
t
i
c
a
l

S
t
a
g
e
s
100
80
60
40
20
0
40 20 10 15 25 35 30
Reboiler Duty, MMBtu/h
Older Designs
Smarter Designs
p Figure 7. A stages vs. duty curve depicts the trade-off between capital
(stages) and operating (energy duty) costs.
Copyright 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
36 www.aiche.org/cep November 2012 CEP
Reactions and Separations
increases. In the past, columns were typically designed
somewhere around the focus point of the hyperbola to
minimize sensitivity to process changes and maximize
design and operational fexibility. In this case, that would
be at approximately 40 theoretical stages with an expected
reboiler duty of 16.5 MMBtu/h. A greener column, how-
ever, might be designed with 50 stages to reduce energy
consumption by about 10%, or even with 60 stages to
obtain a 15% reduction in energy duty.
The price of energy infuences the optimum stages-vs.-
duty design point. The best solution can usually be obtained
by assuming higher energy costs, thereby minimizing energy
consumption.
Figure 8 presents an evaluation of total column capi-
tal and operating costs as a function of energy costs. For
this particular design, at an energy cost of $3/MMBtu, the
optimum number of actual trays is just fewer than 60. How-
ever, if energy costs double, the optimum design becomes
approximately 75 trays. If energy costs double again, the
optimum tray count increases to 90. Clearly, at some point,
it is no longer cost-effective to add more trays, but this dia-
gram does show that many column designs may be far from
the optimal number of stages when they are analyzed from
an energy perspective.
Divided-wall columns. Divided-wall column designs
can be used when there is an excess of the middle-boiling
component and the split between the light and middle com-
ponents is at least as diffcult as the split between the middle
and heavy components. These columns have traditionally
been packed, but many good trayed designs exist as well.
Whether trayed or packed, a divided-wall columns capital
and energy costs can be as much as 30% lower than those of
conventional designs.
Table 2 compares mass balances and energy require-
ments for a conventional column and a divided-wall
column for a benzene-toluene-xylene (BTX) separation (6).
For this particular separation, the divided-wall columns
energy consumption of 80.2 MMBtu/h is 28% lower than
the 112.1 MMBtu/h energy consumption of the conven-
tional design.
Level 3: Internal design and optimization
The physical and transport properties of column internals
have a large infuence on the columns effciency. In services
where the process characteristics favor high effciency (e.g.,
moderate-pressure distillation columns, such as debutanizers
F
i
v
e
-
Y
e
a
r

C
o
l
u
m
n

C
o
s
t
s
,

U
.
S
.
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
10
8
6
4
2
0
120 40 0 20 60 100 80
Actual Number of Trays
140 160 200 180
12
14
$12/MMBtu
$6/MMBtu
$3/MMBtu
Economic Minimums
Shift with Energy Costs
p Figure 8. The optimum stages-vs.-duty design point is a function of
the price of energy.
Table 2. Material balances for a conventional and a divided-wall BTX column.
Component Feed
Conventional Divided-Wall
Benzene Toluene Xylenes Benzene Toluene Xylenes
Hexane and lighter 8.87 42.30 0 0 42.29 0 0
Benzene 7.82 37.25 0.02 0 37.08 0.15 0
Heptane 3.47 14.45 1.54 0 14.6 1.4 0
Methyl cyclohexane 0.15 0.22 0.35 0 0.245 0.34 0
Toluene 30.28 5.66 94.56 4.16 5.66 94.56 4.16
2-Methyl heptane 1.0 0.12 3.32 0.06 0.13 3.34 0.05
Ethylbenzene 5.38 0 0.11 10.62 0 0.1 10.63
p-Xylene 5.67 0 0.04 11.21 0 0.04 11.11
m-Xylene 12.0 0 0.06 23.76 0 0.05 23.78
o-Xylene 7.44 0 0 14.74 0 0 14.74
Trimethyl benzene and higher 17.92 0 0 35.46 0 0 35.53
Total Reboiler Duty 112.1 MMBtu/h 80.2 MMBtu/h
Copyright 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
CEP November 2012 www.aiche.org/cep 37
and depropanizers), either a well-designed
tray set or a well-designed packed bed
can achieve relatively good effciency.
In naturally low-effciency systems (e.g.,
high-relative-volatility separations, such
as strippers and absorbers), both trays and
packings have lower-than-average eff-
ciencies, regardless of how well designed
they are.
You can, however, take steps to maxi-
mize the effciency of whichever column
internals you choose, to get the most out
of what you have available. This is the
essence of a smart design.
Packings. Packing designs have
signifcantly fewer degrees of freedom
than tray designs. The engineer must frst
choose the packing type that is best for
the particular process, and then determine
the packing size that optimizes the bed
height vs. the column diameter. After the
packing type and size have been selected,
the design focus typically shifts to the
liquid distributor. Although the ideal
liquid distributor cannot signifcantly
improve packing performance, a poorly
designed or poorly functioning distributor
can certainly make performance dramati-
cally worse. Spending a little extra time
confrming that the distributor design is
appropriate for the feed and the packing
type is usually a wise choice.
Trays. For trays, the number of variables that can be
changed or adjusted is seemingly infnite. Furthermore, in
many cases, one design is optimal for one set of possible
operating conditions, while another set of conditions has a
different optimal design.
Thus, designers must determine how much of the time
the column will operate under various conditions. They often
then create one tray design for the most prevalent operating
scenario and install that design in the tower; if the operat-
ing conditions change signifcantly, the plant completely
changes out the trays.
A better alternative might be to supply
a single tray design that can perform reli-
ably at various rates and under variable
conditions. This may require slightly
larger tray spacings or a larger tower
diameter to accommodate the wider
operating range. Although this may not be
the most economical short-term solution,
reductions in unit downtime, materials,
and overall energy consumption could
make it the smartest choice.
Tray effciency is affected by vapor
and liquid diffusivities and contact
time. Diffusivities are mainly affected
by pressure, temperature, and viscosity.
Ordinarily, diffusivities are not measured
or reliably calculated, so more-common
variables (e.g., liquid viscosity, relative
volatility, surface tension) are used to pre-
dict diffusivities which, in turn, are used
to predict a system effciency. This system
effciency represents the effciency that
can be expected with a standard internal
design. Engineers then have the interest-
ing task of identifying changes to the
tray design that could enhance effciency
beyond that. Some of these methods are
discussed in the following paragraphs.
Tray spacing. The simplest way to
gain effciency is to increase the number
of trays within a given section by reducing
the spacing between trays. For instance, a
4-for-3 tray revamp (e.g., replacing 18 trays on 24-in. spac-
ings with 24 trays on 18-in. spacings) increases the number
of theoretical stages (NTS) of a section by 33%. Since capac-
ity decreases with lower tray spacing, higher-performance
(i.e., higher-capacity) trays are usually needed to handle the
capacity while delivering the same (or nearly the same) tray
effciency per tray.
In one column revamp project, conventional trays were
replaced with high-performance (HP) trays on lower tray
spacings in the fractionation section and with new packed
beds in the pump-around (PA) sections (Figure 9). These
Original Configuration
Diameter = 7,315 mm
Fractionation Section with Conventional Trays
12 Naphtha/Kerosene (NTS=9)
5 Kerosene/Diesel (NTS=3)
10 Diesel/Atmospheric Residual (NTS=5)
Two PA Sections with 5 + 3 Four-Pass Trays
Bottom Stripping Section with 5 Four-Pass Trays
Constraints on Revamp
Minimum Modification to External Equipment
(Heater, Heat Exchanger, Overhead Condenser)
Revamp Configuration
Fractionation Section with HP Trays
16 Naphtha/Kerosene (NTS=14)
12 Kerosene/Gasoil (NTS=9)
10 Gasoil/Atmospheric Residual (NTS=5)
Two PA Sections with Structured Packing
Bottom Stripping Section with 5 Four-Pass HP Trays
Revamp Results
Capacity +10%, higher than design
Product fractionation better than expected
Estimated energy savings = 14%
Kerosene
Gasoil
Naphtha/
Kerosene
Fractionation
Kerosene/
Gasoil
Fractionation
Gasoil/
Atmospheric
Residual
Fractionation
Stripping
Section
P
a
c
k
e
d
-
B
e
d

P
u
m
p
-
A
r
o
u
n
d

S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
p Figure 9. Increasing the number of trays
by decreasing the tray-to-tray spacing can
increase capacity and reduce energy con-
sumption. Courtesy of Stefano Costanzo.
Copyright 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
38 www.aiche.org/cep November 2012 CEP
Reactions and Separations
modifcations increased column capacity by 10% and
reduced energy consumption by 14%. This is another dem-
onstration of the green principle of getting more with less.
Flow path length. Another important tray design variable
is fow path length, i.e., the distance the liquid fows horizon-
tally across the tray. Tray effciency typically increases with
increasing fow path length. For example, if a 600-mm fow
path length design is varied by 100 mm in either direction,
the longer fow path will have a higher effciency and the
shorter fow path will have a lower effciency. Keep in mind,
though, that effciency is not a linear function of fow path
length i.e., doubling the fow path length does not double
the tray effciency.
The minimum allowable mechanical fow path length
(below which a tray panel can no longer be installed due to
space constraints) is somewhere around 350 mm. The practi-
cal maximum fow path length is around 2 m, assuming that
the design provides uniform liquid distribution, minimal
backmixing of liquid on the tray deck, and no susceptibil-
ity to vapor crossfow channeling. Flow path lengths longer
than 2 m provide no better effciency.
Push valves are a good option for trays with fow paths
longer than 1.5 m. Push valves help to maintain a steady
liquid fow across the tray deck because they counter-
act the tendency of trays to experience retrograde liquid
fow toward the sides of the fow path. In one project (7),
revamping a 2.13-m-dia. acetic acid tower with push valves
increased the measured tray effciency by 23% (Figure 10).
Trays using push valves exclusively have excellent
capacity but reduced effciency due to the extensive pushing
of the valves. As a general rule, medium- to larger-diameter
trayed columns (above 2 m) can often beneft from the addi-
tion of push valves among the standard valve types.
Closing thoughts
Smart column design is primarily a function of under-
standing the process requirements and then using good
process design. Green designs are smart, cost-effective
solutions. There are almost limitless opportunities available
to improve a column design. A good engineer looks for all of
them and then uses those options that make the most sense
for that particular application. u
Water
Removal
Tower
60
Trays
Diameter
84 in. top
102 in. base
Vapor
Feed
160.2C
Acetic Acid
47%
Water
44.5C
607 lb/min
135.6C
64 psig
Q
c
= 45.7 MMBtu/h
65.2 psig
Original Configuration
134 lb/min
1.14 wt% HOAc
Inerts
Balance N
2
saturated with H
2
O
900 lb/min
3.7 wt% O
2
2,259 lb/min
9.32 wt% Water
164.4C
2,828 lb/min
10.94 wt% Water
58%
235 lb/min
1.654 wt% HOAc
52.4C
774 lb/min
138.2C
71 psig
Q
c
= 60.1 MMBtu/h
1,116 lb/min
3.7 wt% O
2
72.2 psig
Revamp Configuration
Tray
Efficiency
Key:
p Figure 10. Push valves improved the efciency of the trays in an
acetic acid tower.
Literature Cited
1. Gorman, J., The Best of Green Design: Overview, Popular
Mechanics, www.popularmechanics.com/science/environ-
ment/4212653 (Oct. 1, 2009).
2. Chen, G. X., System Limit Capacity of Fractionators, Topical
Report 136, Fractionation Research, Inc., Stillwater, OK
(Jan. 2000).
3. Nutter, I. E., Valve Mechanism for Fluid and Liquid Contact
Apparatus, U.S. Patent 3,287,004 (Nov. 1966).
4. Shah, V. H., and R. Agrawal, A Matrix Method for Multi-
component Distillation Sequences, AIChE Journal, 56,
pp. 17591775 (2010).
5. Dzyacky, G., et al., Increasing Distillation Column Through-
put, Petroleum Technology Quarterly, pp. 99104 (Q4 2005).
6. Summers, D. R., Push Valve Experience on Distillation
Trays, Distillation 2005, Topical Conference Proceedings,
AIChE Spring Meeting (Apr. 2005).
7. Summers, D. R., Divided Wall Columns Tray Technology,
presented at the 3rd AIChE Regional Process Technology
Conference, Galveston, TX (Oct. 6, 2011).
MARK PILLING, P.E., is the Manager of Technology for Sulzer Chemtech USA
(Email: mark.pilling@sulzer.com), where he oversees the development
of mass-transfer equipment and specializes in applications for various
process technologies. Within Sulzer, he is responsible for leading tray
research and development projects and is the packing product manager
for North and South America. He is an active member of Fractionation
Research, Inc. (FRI), where he serves as vice chair of the Technical
Committee and chair of the Long-Range Planning Committee. A Fellow
of AIChE, he served as a director of the Separations Div. from 2005
to 2009 and is is currently chair of the Separations Div. A registered
professional engineer in Oklahoma, he holds a BS in chemical engineer-
ing from the Univ. of Oklahoma. He holds several patents related to
distillation tray technology.
DANIEL R. SUMMERS, P.E., is the Tray Technology Manager for Sulzer Chem-
tech, USA. He started his career in Union Carbides Separations Design
Group, and has worked for Praxair, UOP, Stone & Webster Engineering,
and Nutter Engineering. For the past 35 years, he has been involved in
the development, design, operation, and troubleshooting of all forms of
tower internals in the hydrocarbon, specialty chemical, rening, air sep-
aration, and natural gas industries. His specialty is high-capacity tray
devices. He is chair of FRIs Design Practices Committee and co-chair
of AIChEs Tower Internals Testing Procedure rewrite committee, and is
the author of 49 papers on distillation and a listed inventor on two U.S.
patents. He holds a BS in chemical engineering from the State Univ. of
New York, Buffalo, and is a registered professional engineer in New York
and Oklahoma. A Fellow of AIChE, he has been a member of AIChE since
graduation and of AIChEs Separations Div. since its formation.
Copyright 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)