Q: Cylindrical pressure vessel sizing: a vessel of internal volume 6π m³ (length/diameter = 3) must withstand 10 atm internal pressure. Using allowable stress 125 N/mm² and 2 mm corrosion allowance, estimate the required wall thickness.

Introduction / Context: This is a classic thin-cylinder design estimate for a welded cylindrical pressure vessel. Given the internal volume, the length-to-diameter ratio, the design pressure, and the allowable stress, we can quickly approximate the shell thickness and then add corrosion allowance. Such back-of-the-envelope checks are common in preliminary mechanical design before detailed code calculations. Given Data / Assumptions: Internal volume V = 6π m³. Length/diameter ratio L/D = 3 (cylindrical shell only). Maximum internal pressure P ≈ 10 atm ≈ 1.013 MPa. Allowable design stress σ_allow = 125 N/mm² = 125 MPa. Corrosion allowance CA = 2 mm. Joint efficiency and other factors assumed unity for this estimate (preliminary sizing). Concept / Approach: First determine cylinder diameter D from the volume and L/D relation, then apply the thin-cylinder hoop-stress relation t = (P * D) / (2 * σ_allow) for a first-pass thickness. Finally, add corrosion allowance to obtain nominal thickness. Step-by-Step Solution: Volume relation: V = (π/4) * D² * L, with L = 3D → V = (3π/4) * D³.Set (3π/4) * D³ = 6π → (3/4) * D³ = 6 → D³ = 8 → D = 2 m.Hoop thickness (no CA): t_req = P * D / (2 * σ_allow) = 1.013 MPa * 2 m / (2 * 125 MPa) ≈ 0.0081 m = 8.1 mm.Add CA = 2 mm → t_nominal ≈ 8.1 + 2 ≈ 10.1 mm → choose 10 mm. Verification / Alternative check: If we included joint efficiency less than 1, thickness would increase. For a quick sizing, 10 mm aligns with expectations for this pressure, diameter, and allowable stress. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 5 or 6 mm: Too thin; violates hoop stress criterion. 8 mm: Roughly the net thickness before corrosion; does not include the 2 mm allowance. Common Pitfalls: Confusing absolute and gauge pressure; forgetting to add corrosion allowance; ignoring longitudinal stress check (typically smaller) and code-required minimums. Final Answer: 10 mm

Q: Storage practice for volatile liquids (e.g., naphtha): which roof configuration is commonly used on cylindrical tanks to minimize vapor losses and reduce emissions?

Introduction / Context: Volatile hydrocarbons like naphtha generate significant vapor above the liquid surface. Managing these vapors is essential to reduce product losses and atmospheric emissions. Tank roof design is therefore a key environmental and safety control in storage terminals and refineries. Given Data / Assumptions: Cylindrical atmospheric storage tank. Stored liquid is volatile (high vapor pressure). Goal is to minimize breathing and working losses from vapor space. Concept / Approach: A floating roof (either external or internal) rests directly on the liquid surface, keeping vapor space volume minimal across operating levels. This reduces vapor-generation area and limits evaporation and emissions. By contrast, fixed or conical/flat roofs leave a vapor space whose composition changes with temperature and liquid level, causing greater breathing losses. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the dominant loss mechanisms: breathing and working losses.Select a roof type that tracks the liquid level to shrink vapor space.Floating roof tanks best satisfy these aims for volatile liquids like naphtha. Verification / Alternative check: Industry guidance and emission inventories consistently show lower losses for floating roof tanks compared to fixed roof tanks storing high-volatility products. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Conical, flat, or generic fixed roofs maintain a headspace, increasing vapor losses unless combined with internal floating covers and vapor control systems. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring rim-seal integrity and deck fittings (sources of residual emissions); overlooking wind effects on external floating roofs; not considering internal floating roofs under fixed covers in strict-weather locations. Final Answer: Floating

Q: Mechanical supports: lug support is primarily intended for which class of vessels in process equipment layout?

Introduction / Context: Vessel supports must safely transfer loads to foundations while accommodating thermal expansion and maintenance. Common support types include skirts (for tall vertical vessels), saddles (for horizontal drums), and lugs (pads or brackets welded to the shell). Selecting the right support type is a standard mechanical design decision. Given Data / Assumptions: Vessels operating at moderate pressure/temperature. Focus on generic, widely used support schemes. Objective: identify which class of vessels is typically supported by lugs. Concept / Approach: Lug supports are welded brackets attached to the vessel shell, typically used to suspend or anchor small vessels (often small vertical drums or columns) to structural steel. For larger or heavier vessels, local shell stresses at lugs become excessive; therefore, skirts (vertical) or saddles (horizontal) are preferred to distribute loads and reduce stress concentrations. Step-by-Step Solution: Consider load path and shell stress concentration at lugs.Recognize practicality: lugs are simple and economical for small vessels.Conclude that lug supports are primarily used for small vessels. Verification / Alternative check: Vendor catalogs and design manuals show lug-supported filters, small receivers, and small reactors mounted to frames, while large towers use skirts and horizontal drums use saddles. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Large horizontal cylindrical: typically require saddle supports to spread loads. Tall or thick-walled tall vessels: normally use skirts to manage overturning and thermal expansion. Common Pitfalls: Overusing lugs on heavier vessels causing local overstress; neglecting proper pad reinforcement; not allowing for thermal expansion at the steelwork interface. Final Answer: Small

Q: When estimating the overall design heat-transfer coefficient, in which situation must a fouling factor definitely be included?

Introduction / Context: Fouling is the unwanted accumulation of deposits (scale, biofilm, particulates) on heat-transfer surfaces. It adds thermal resistance and increases pressure drop. A realistic fouling allowance is built into the overall design heat-transfer coefficient U to ensure adequate thermal performance over time and reasonable cleaning intervals. Given Data / Assumptions: Conventional shell-and-tube or plate heat exchanger design. Service may contain suspended solids. Design objective is reliable long-term heat duty with manageable maintenance frequency. Concept / Approach: Suspended solids at low velocity tend to settle or adhere more readily, promoting deposit growth. Conversely, high velocities provide a scouring action that mitigates fouling formation (within erosion limits). While viscosity and specific gravity affect film coefficients and hydraulics, they are not primary determinants for invoking a fouling factor; the risk is fundamentally tied to deposit propensity and local shear. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify fouling risk: suspended solids ↔ deposition potential.Assess hydrodynamics: low velocity → low shear → higher fouling rate.Conclude that a fouling factor must be included for low-velocity, solids-bearing service. Verification / Alternative check: Operating data routinely shows higher U degradation in low-velocity solids service; design handbooks assign larger fouling resistances for dirty, slow-moving streams. Why Other Options Are Wrong: High velocity reduces fouling via scouring. High viscosity or high specific gravity affect heat transfer coefficients but do not, by themselves, mandate a fouling allowance without fouling tendency. Common Pitfalls: Overlooking asymmetry between shell and tube side fouling; ignoring seasonality or biogrowth; setting velocities too low to save pump power at the expense of severe fouling. Final Answer: Liquid containing suspended solids flows at low velocity.

Q: Tower internals and packing/tray practice: identify the incorrect statement among common sizing guidelines for columns and trays.

Introduction / Context: Distillation column internals are sized using a blend of hydraulic limits, mechanical constraints, and practical fabrication limits. Rules-of-thumb guide preliminary choices for cap sizes, packing heights, and sieve tray hole diameters before detailed rating is performed. Recognizing incorrect statements helps avoid operability problems like weeping, excessive entrainment, or high pressure drop. Given Data / Assumptions: Conventional hydrocarbon or aqueous service. Standard materials and fabrication methods. Focus on preliminary guidelines, not vendor-specific exceptions. Concept / Approach: Sieve trays require a minimum hole diameter sufficiently larger than the plate thickness to ensure proper jet formation and to avoid weeping/plugging. A typical practice is hole diameter roughly 1.5–2.5 times the tray thickness (material-dependent). Equating hole diameter to the plate thickness is far below practical limits and leads to poor performance. Step-by-Step Solution: Review each statement against accepted practice.(c) Minimum hole diameter = tray thickness → incorrect; too small for reliable jetting.Other statements reflect common ranges used during early design (with vendor refinement later). Verification / Alternative check: Open literature and vendor guidance specify minimum hole diameters exceeding plate thickness; undersized holes promote weeping and fabrication difficulties. Why Other Options Are Wrong (brief appraisal): (a) and (b) describe common preliminary selections. (d) is a material-specific rule seen in some conservative practices; regardless, (c) is unequivocally incorrect. Common Pitfalls: Assuming one-size-fits-all rules; ignoring material differences (carbon steel vs. stainless); neglecting fouling and corrosion margins when choosing hole sizes. Final Answer: In a sieve tray, the minimum hole diameter equals the tray thickness.

Question 1

Sieve (seive) tray drilling practice: the normal hole pitch is what multiple of the hole diameter to achieve the desired open area?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Sieve trays control vapor distribution through the liquid on a tray using a grid of perforations. The open area and the geometric pitch-to-diameter ratio drive vapor velocity through holes, weeping tendency, pressure drop, and overall contacting efficiency. Designers commonly use standardized multiples of hole diameter for layout convenience and repeatable hydraulics. Given Data / Assumptions: Hole sizes from about 2.5 to 12 mm are typical; 5 mm is a widely used baseline. We assume non-foaming or mildly foaming systems under typical refinery/petrochemical conditions. Concept / Approach: The pitch must be large enough to maintain mechanical strength and proper ligament while providing sufficient open area. Empirical practice converges around a pitch between 2.5 and 4.0 times the hole diameter for common services. This achieves a target open fraction while preserving tray rigidity and manageable pressure drop. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify typical industrial pitch recommendations.Relate pitch to target open area, vapor load, and mechanical integrity.Select the 2.5–4.0 multiple as the standard range. Verification / Alternative check: Vendor design manuals present similar guidance to hit open areas often in the range of roughly 8–12% for sieve trays, depending on duty and hydraulics. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 0.5–1.5: Too tight; insufficient ligament and likely structural weakness. 5–10 or 10–15: Too wide; open area becomes too low for common vapor rates, risking weeping and low capacity. Common Pitfalls: Focusing only on percent open area without checking tray stiffness, downcomer design, and weir loading; ignoring fouling propensity which may require larger holes or altered pitch. Final Answer: 2.5 to 4.0 times the hole diameter

Question 2

Shell-and-tube baffles: which is the most commonly used baffle type in industrial service?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Baffles in shell-and-tube heat exchangers direct shell-side flow across the tube bundle, raise crossflow velocity, suppress bypassing, and support tubes mechanically. While many baffle schemes exist, one type is overwhelmingly used due to its balance of heat-transfer enhancement, pressure drop, fabrication simplicity, and fouling tolerance. Given Data / Assumptions: General-purpose exchangers handling clean to moderately fouling services. Single- or multi-pass shell configurations with standard TEMA-style construction. Concept / Approach: The single-segmental (one-cut) baffle with about 25% cut provides strong crossflow and good heat-transfer coefficients with acceptable pressure drop and widely available design correlations. Larger cuts (e.g., 75%) reduce flow redirection and crossflow velocity, thereby lowering heat-transfer performance. Alternatives (orifice, disk-and-doughnut) are used for special constraints (e.g., very low pressure drop or vibration mitigation) but are less common overall. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify typical industry standard: single-segmental ~25% cut.Compare with 75% cut (lower crossflow, less common) and specialized baffles.Select 25% cut segmental as the prevalent choice. Verification / Alternative check: TEMA recommendations and vendor catalogs confirm the dominance of single-segmental baffles with cuts around 20–35%, with 25% as a common default. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 75% cut: Lower performance; used when pressure drop limits dominate. Orifice, disk-and-doughnut: Special-purpose designs; not the most common. Common Pitfalls: Assuming baffle selection is purely thermal; vibration, erosion, and cleaning requirements often drive spacing and cut choice. Final Answer: 25% cut segmental baffle

Question 3

Evaporator configurations: in which unit is heating steam inside the tubes while the process liquor flows on the tube exterior (shell side)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Evaporator selection depends on viscosity, fouling tendency, temperature difference, and required residence time. A key configurational distinction is whether heating steam flows inside tubes or on the shell side. Recognizing where steam is inside the tubes helps in predicting film behavior, heat-transfer coefficients, and maintenance needs. Given Data / Assumptions: Conventional industrial evaporators without exotic internal enhancements. Steam heating and sensible/latent boiling of the liquor in standard arrangements. Concept / Approach: Horizontal-tube evaporators classically pass heating steam through the horizontal tubes while the liquor wets and boils on the outside (shell side). In contrast, long- and short-tube vertical designs commonly place steam in the shell and liquor inside the tubes, enabling vigorous two-phase upflow and high heat-transfer coefficients in the tubes. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the unit that uses steam inside tubes and liquor on the outside.Recall: horizontal-tube designs meet this description, while vertical-tube designs usually reverse it.Select “Horizontal-tube evaporator.” Verification / Alternative check: Standard schematics show steam channeled through tube sheets into tubes in horizontal units, with liquor boiling as a shell-side pool or film around tubes. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Long-tube vertical and short-tube vertical typically place steam on shell side and liquor inside tubes. “None of these” is incorrect because one option matches the configuration. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “liquor inside the tube” (vertical units) with “liquor outside” (horizontal units); overlooking the cleaning and fouling implications of external boiling films. Final Answer: Horizontal-tube evaporator

Question 4

Minimum ligament (metal between holes) for square-pitch tube layout in heat exchangers: what is the recommended minimum?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In tube-sheet drilling for heat exchangers, the “ligament” is the narrow strip of metal between adjacent holes. Adequate ligament is crucial for mechanical strength, machining integrity, gasket sealing, and resistance to tube-sheet distortion. Designers therefore adhere to minimum ligament rules tied to pitch, tube O.D., and fabrication realities. Given Data / Assumptions: Square-pitch layouts with common tube sizes (e.g., 3/4 in O.D.) and standard tube-sheet materials. General-purpose exchangers designed to TEMA-like practices. Concept / Approach: Too small a ligament weakens the tube sheet and risks drilling breakouts; too large a ligament wastes space, reduces heat-transfer area, and increases exchanger size. A widely adopted practical minimum ligament for square pitch is about 6.5 mm (roughly 1/4 in), balancing structural adequacy with compact layouts. Step-by-Step Solution: Relate tube pitch to tube O.D. to compute ligament = pitch − O.D.Apply a minimum practical ligament of about 6.5 mm for square-pitch drilling.Select the numerical minimum that reflects common shop practice. Verification / Alternative check: Fabrication guides and exchanger standards commonly cite minimum ligaments on the order of 6–7 mm for carbon steel tube sheets to prevent breakthrough and ensure gasket seating. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 6.5 cm: Far too large; would produce overly sparse layouts. Ligament equal to I.D. or O.D.: Not a recognized “minimum”; ligament depends on pitch selection, not equality to tube diameters. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring strength reduction from pass partition cuts; overlooking corrosion allowance that further reduces effective ligament; forgetting expanded tube deformation. Final Answer: 6.5 mm

Question 5

What primarily causes a liquid gradient (height difference) across a distillation tray during operation?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Liquid does not flow perfectly level across a trayed distillation column stage. A liquid “gradient” from inlet (downcomer outlet) to outlet (weir) forms due to hydraulic resistance and vapor–liquid interaction. Understanding the origin of this gradient is important for tray sizing (weir height, weir length) and ensuring adequate residence time without excessive weir crest or entrainment. Given Data / Assumptions: Standard sieve, valve, or bubble-cap trays with downcomers and outlet weirs. Normal operating vapor and liquid rates below flooding. Concept / Approach: As liquid crossflows over the active area, it encounters frictional resistance (from tray deck, valves/caps, risers) and a counter-current momentum exchange from vapor bubbling up through holes/slots. Both effects raise the static head required to drive liquid toward the outlet. The result is a higher height near the inlet and a lower height toward the outlet (superimposed on the outlet weir crest), i.e., a measurable gradient. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify hydraulic resistances: deck roughness, valves/caps, risers.Account for vapor–liquid interaction: vapor bubbling induces momentum exchange, adding to head loss.Conclude that these combined resistances establish the liquid head gradient across the tray. Verification / Alternative check: Tray design correlations use gradient allowance in the overall tray pressure balance; vendors often include “gradient” or “static head loss” terms when sizing weirs and downcomers. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Low gas velocity: Typically reduces interaction; not a primary cause of a larger gradient. Large plate spacing: A geometric parameter; it affects disengagement, not the fundamental gradient driver. Large reflux ratio: Alters liquid rate, but the gradient cause is resistance and vapor interaction, not reflux ratio alone. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring increased gradient at higher vapor loads (approaching loading/flooding) or when caps/valves are fouled; neglecting gradient allowances in downcomer sizing can lead to back-up and weeping issues. Final Answer: Resistance to liquid flow caused by caps and risers, combined with opposing vapor flow through the tray.

Question 6

Wind loading on tall vertical vessels: the resultant force depends on which geometric factors?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: External wind loads are a primary lateral design consideration for columns, towers, and stacks. The overturning moment and shear on supports and foundations arise from the integrated wind pressure over the projected area. Accurate appreciation of what drives wind forces is crucial for mechanical integrity and anchorage design in accordance with structural codes. Given Data / Assumptions: Straight cylindrical shells with typical platforms and nozzles. Wind pressure is a function of wind speed and exposure category; here, we focus on geometry dependencies. Concept / Approach: Wind force F_wind ≈ p_wind * A_projected * C_d, where A_projected is the projected area normal to wind, and C_d is a drag coefficient that depends on shape. For a vertical vessel, A_projected depends on height and diameter. The shape (including appurtenances, ladders, platforms) affects the drag coefficient, altering the resultant force and moment. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify projected area = height * diameter (for a cylinder) plus areas of attachments.Recognize that drag coefficient depends on shape/streamlining.Conclude that shape, diameter, and height all influence wind load and thus the design forces. Verification / Alternative check: Structural standards compute wind loads using shape factors (C_d), gust factors, and terrain categories; each term multiplies the projected area—explicitly height and diameter—and depends on geometry. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each individual factor (a), (b), or (c) alone is incomplete; all together determine the load. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring platform and piping contributions; neglecting dynamic effects (vortex shedding) that depend on diameter-to-height ratio and attachments; not checking local reinforcement at high-wind appurtenances. Final Answer: All of the above

Question 7

In storage tank design for petroleum or liquid fuels: for tanks with capacity greater than 45 kilolitres, what is the recommended safe upper limit on the height-to-diameter ratio (h/d)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: For above-ground petroleum and liquid fuel storage tanks, geometric proportions directly affect stability, seismic/wind response, sloshing, and shell stresses. A common siting and design practice is to keep the tank squat (i.e., height not greatly exceeding diameter) to improve stability and minimize overturning moments. Hence, designers often specify a safe limit for the height-to-diameter ratio (h/d) for larger capacities (> 45 kilolitres). Given Data / Assumptions: Tank stores petroleum or similar liquid fuels. Capacity is greater than 45 kilolitres. Typical atmospheric, fixed or floating roof tank design; standard wind and seismic considerations. Concept / Approach: The h/d ratio controls the center of gravity location and shell buckling susceptibility. Lower h/d provides a broader base and lower overturning lever arm, which reduces risk under wind and seismic loads. For common field-erected tanks, conservative guidance places a practical upper limit on h/d around unity (i.e., less than 1) for large-capacity tanks to maintain stability and manageable shell courses. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize that higher h/d increases slenderness and overturning moment.Industry practice for large fuel tanks favors squat proportions (h/d less than 1).Thus, the recommended safe upper limit for h/d in this range is < 1. Verification / Alternative check: Qualitative checks from stability equations show that overturning moment from wind scales with projected height; reducing h/d reduces base shear and foundation demands. Shell buckling margins also improve with squat geometries. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 2, 3, 3.5: These imply relatively tall, slender tanks, which are less stable and more demanding structurally for large capacities. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring local codes; not accounting for seismic zone; overlooking roof type (fixed vs. floating) that may change sloshing and freeboard needs; using tall narrow tanks merely to save plot area. Final Answer: 1

Question 8

Cylindrical pressure vessel sizing: a vessel of internal volume 6π m³ (length/diameter = 3) must withstand 10 atm internal pressure. Using allowable stress 125 N/mm² and 2 mm corrosion allowance, estimate the required wall thickness.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a classic thin-cylinder design estimate for a welded cylindrical pressure vessel. Given the internal volume, the length-to-diameter ratio, the design pressure, and the allowable stress, we can quickly approximate the shell thickness and then add corrosion allowance. Such back-of-the-envelope checks are common in preliminary mechanical design before detailed code calculations. Given Data / Assumptions: Internal volume V = 6π m³. Length/diameter ratio L/D = 3 (cylindrical shell only). Maximum internal pressure P ≈ 10 atm ≈ 1.013 MPa. Allowable design stress σ_allow = 125 N/mm² = 125 MPa. Corrosion allowance CA = 2 mm. Joint efficiency and other factors assumed unity for this estimate (preliminary sizing). Concept / Approach: First determine cylinder diameter D from the volume and L/D relation, then apply the thin-cylinder hoop-stress relation t = (P * D) / (2 * σ_allow) for a first-pass thickness. Finally, add corrosion allowance to obtain nominal thickness. Step-by-Step Solution: Volume relation: V = (π/4) * D² * L, with L = 3D → V = (3π/4) * D³.Set (3π/4) * D³ = 6π → (3/4) * D³ = 6 → D³ = 8 → D = 2 m.Hoop thickness (no CA): t_req = P * D / (2 * σ_allow) = 1.013 MPa * 2 m / (2 * 125 MPa) ≈ 0.0081 m = 8.1 mm.Add CA = 2 mm → t_nominal ≈ 8.1 + 2 ≈ 10.1 mm → choose 10 mm. Verification / Alternative check: If we included joint efficiency less than 1, thickness would increase. For a quick sizing, 10 mm aligns with expectations for this pressure, diameter, and allowable stress. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 5 or 6 mm: Too thin; violates hoop stress criterion. 8 mm: Roughly the net thickness before corrosion; does not include the 2 mm allowance. Common Pitfalls: Confusing absolute and gauge pressure; forgetting to add corrosion allowance; ignoring longitudinal stress check (typically smaller) and code-required minimums. Final Answer: 10 mm

Question 9

Storage practice for volatile liquids (e.g., naphtha): which roof configuration is commonly used on cylindrical tanks to minimize vapor losses and reduce emissions?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Volatile hydrocarbons like naphtha generate significant vapor above the liquid surface. Managing these vapors is essential to reduce product losses and atmospheric emissions. Tank roof design is therefore a key environmental and safety control in storage terminals and refineries. Given Data / Assumptions: Cylindrical atmospheric storage tank. Stored liquid is volatile (high vapor pressure). Goal is to minimize breathing and working losses from vapor space. Concept / Approach: A floating roof (either external or internal) rests directly on the liquid surface, keeping vapor space volume minimal across operating levels. This reduces vapor-generation area and limits evaporation and emissions. By contrast, fixed or conical/flat roofs leave a vapor space whose composition changes with temperature and liquid level, causing greater breathing losses. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the dominant loss mechanisms: breathing and working losses.Select a roof type that tracks the liquid level to shrink vapor space.Floating roof tanks best satisfy these aims for volatile liquids like naphtha. Verification / Alternative check: Industry guidance and emission inventories consistently show lower losses for floating roof tanks compared to fixed roof tanks storing high-volatility products. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Conical, flat, or generic fixed roofs maintain a headspace, increasing vapor losses unless combined with internal floating covers and vapor control systems. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring rim-seal integrity and deck fittings (sources of residual emissions); overlooking wind effects on external floating roofs; not considering internal floating roofs under fixed covers in strict-weather locations. Final Answer: Floating

Question 10

Mechanical supports: lug support is primarily intended for which class of vessels in process equipment layout?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Vessel supports must safely transfer loads to foundations while accommodating thermal expansion and maintenance. Common support types include skirts (for tall vertical vessels), saddles (for horizontal drums), and lugs (pads or brackets welded to the shell). Selecting the right support type is a standard mechanical design decision. Given Data / Assumptions: Vessels operating at moderate pressure/temperature. Focus on generic, widely used support schemes. Objective: identify which class of vessels is typically supported by lugs. Concept / Approach: Lug supports are welded brackets attached to the vessel shell, typically used to suspend or anchor small vessels (often small vertical drums or columns) to structural steel. For larger or heavier vessels, local shell stresses at lugs become excessive; therefore, skirts (vertical) or saddles (horizontal) are preferred to distribute loads and reduce stress concentrations. Step-by-Step Solution: Consider load path and shell stress concentration at lugs.Recognize practicality: lugs are simple and economical for small vessels.Conclude that lug supports are primarily used for small vessels. Verification / Alternative check: Vendor catalogs and design manuals show lug-supported filters, small receivers, and small reactors mounted to frames, while large towers use skirts and horizontal drums use saddles. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Large horizontal cylindrical: typically require saddle supports to spread loads. Tall or thick-walled tall vessels: normally use skirts to manage overturning and thermal expansion. Common Pitfalls: Overusing lugs on heavier vessels causing local overstress; neglecting proper pad reinforcement; not allowing for thermal expansion at the steelwork interface. Final Answer: Small

Question 11

When estimating the overall design heat-transfer coefficient, in which situation must a fouling factor definitely be included?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Fouling is the unwanted accumulation of deposits (scale, biofilm, particulates) on heat-transfer surfaces. It adds thermal resistance and increases pressure drop. A realistic fouling allowance is built into the overall design heat-transfer coefficient U to ensure adequate thermal performance over time and reasonable cleaning intervals. Given Data / Assumptions: Conventional shell-and-tube or plate heat exchanger design. Service may contain suspended solids. Design objective is reliable long-term heat duty with manageable maintenance frequency. Concept / Approach: Suspended solids at low velocity tend to settle or adhere more readily, promoting deposit growth. Conversely, high velocities provide a scouring action that mitigates fouling formation (within erosion limits). While viscosity and specific gravity affect film coefficients and hydraulics, they are not primary determinants for invoking a fouling factor; the risk is fundamentally tied to deposit propensity and local shear. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify fouling risk: suspended solids ↔ deposition potential.Assess hydrodynamics: low velocity → low shear → higher fouling rate.Conclude that a fouling factor must be included for low-velocity, solids-bearing service. Verification / Alternative check: Operating data routinely shows higher U degradation in low-velocity solids service; design handbooks assign larger fouling resistances for dirty, slow-moving streams. Why Other Options Are Wrong: High velocity reduces fouling via scouring. High viscosity or high specific gravity affect heat transfer coefficients but do not, by themselves, mandate a fouling allowance without fouling tendency. Common Pitfalls: Overlooking asymmetry between shell and tube side fouling; ignoring seasonality or biogrowth; setting velocities too low to save pump power at the expense of severe fouling. Final Answer: Liquid containing suspended solids flows at low velocity.

Question 12

Tower internals and packing/tray practice: identify the incorrect statement among common sizing guidelines for columns and trays.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Distillation column internals are sized using a blend of hydraulic limits, mechanical constraints, and practical fabrication limits. Rules-of-thumb guide preliminary choices for cap sizes, packing heights, and sieve tray hole diameters before detailed rating is performed. Recognizing incorrect statements helps avoid operability problems like weeping, excessive entrainment, or high pressure drop. Given Data / Assumptions: Conventional hydrocarbon or aqueous service. Standard materials and fabrication methods. Focus on preliminary guidelines, not vendor-specific exceptions. Concept / Approach: Sieve trays require a minimum hole diameter sufficiently larger than the plate thickness to ensure proper jet formation and to avoid weeping/plugging. A typical practice is hole diameter roughly 1.5–2.5 times the tray thickness (material-dependent). Equating hole diameter to the plate thickness is far below practical limits and leads to poor performance. Step-by-Step Solution: Review each statement against accepted practice.(c) Minimum hole diameter = tray thickness → incorrect; too small for reliable jetting.Other statements reflect common ranges used during early design (with vendor refinement later). Verification / Alternative check: Open literature and vendor guidance specify minimum hole diameters exceeding plate thickness; undersized holes promote weeping and fabrication difficulties. Why Other Options Are Wrong (brief appraisal): (a) and (b) describe common preliminary selections. (d) is a material-specific rule seen in some conservative practices; regardless, (c) is unequivocally incorrect. Common Pitfalls: Assuming one-size-fits-all rules; ignoring material differences (carbon steel vs. stainless); neglecting fouling and corrosion margins when choosing hole sizes. Final Answer: In a sieve tray, the minimum hole diameter equals the tray thickness.

Question 13

Packed tower efficiency: which packing shape generally provides the highest mass-transfer performance among the choices given?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Random packings provide interfacial area and promote contact between gas and liquid in absorption, stripping, and distillation operations. Their geometry affects surface area per volume, wetting characteristics, pressure drop, and mass-transfer coefficients. Comparing classic shapes helps understand performance trends. Given Data / Assumptions: Random packings of similar nominal size under comparable service conditions. Focus on classic ceramic/metal forms: Raschig, Lessing, and cross-partition rings. Performance judged by effective interfacial area and mass-transfer rate at similar pressure drop. Concept / Approach: Raschig rings are simple cylinders; they offer moderate area but can suffer from channeling. Lessing rings introduce internal partitions and improved geometry to increase surface area and liquid redistribution, thereby increasing effective area and mass transfer. Cross-partition rings improve over plain Raschig rings but typically provide less performance than well-designed Lessing rings of the same size. Step-by-Step Solution: Compare geometry: added internal webs in Lessing rings increase area and promote wetting.Infer higher effective area → higher k*a and better mass transfer.Select Lessing rings as the highest-performing option among those listed. Verification / Alternative check: Empirical tower tests often show capacity-efficiency curves where Lessing rings outperform Raschig rings of equal size, with cross-partition rings in between. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Raschig rings: baseline geometry, generally lower a_eff. Cross-partition rings: improved but typically not as high-performing as Lessing rings. “All the same” is incorrect; geometry matters markedly. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring material/size effects; comparing at different pressure drops; not accounting for fouling or liquid distribution quality in real columns. Final Answer: Lessing rings

Question 14

Riveted joint sizing: according to Unwin’s formula, how are rivet-hole diameter (d, mm) and plate thickness (t, mm) related?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Riveted joint design historically relied on empirical rules to choose rivet-hole diameters compatible with plate thickness, manufacturing, and structural integrity. Unwin’s formula is a widely cited relation that provides a quick estimate for preliminary design. Given Data / Assumptions: Plate thickness t in millimetres. Rivet-hole diameter d to be sized for general structural use. Standard ductile plate materials and fabrication methods. Concept / Approach: Unwin’s rule of thumb relates hole diameter linearly to plate thickness, ensuring adequate shear area of the rivet, acceptable bearing stresses in the plate, and practical hole manufacture. For many common ranges of t, d is taken as roughly 1.5 t, with variants (e.g., 1.75 t) used for thicker plates or different materials. Step-by-Step Solution: Recall Unwin’s relation: d ≈ 1.5 t (typical range for moderate thickness).Check plausibility: ensures rivet shear and plate bearing capacity are commensurate.Select d = 1.5 t as the formula stated in the options. Verification / Alternative check: Design texts show families of empirical relations; d = 1.5 t is a standard value within common thickness ranges and matches drill/punch practicality. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 1.1 t: too small, risks tearing/bearing issues. 1.6 t: possible variant but not the classic Unwin value given in many sources. 3 t: unrealistically large, poor material utilization. Common Pitfalls: Using a single factor outside its applicable thickness/material range; not checking edge distances or pitch that also govern joint efficiency. Final Answer: d = 1.5 t

Question 15

Material behavior: the ratio of linear (normal) stress to linear (normal) strain within the elastic limit is defined as which modulus?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Stress–strain relationships describe how materials deform under load. Within the elastic range, deformation is reversible and a proportionality exists between stress and strain. The constant of proportionality for normal (tensile/compressive) loading defines a fundamental material property used in structural and pressure equipment design. Given Data / Assumptions: Small deformations within the elastic limit (Hookean behavior). Uniaxial normal loading producing normal strain. Isotropic, homogeneous material for simplicity. Concept / Approach: Young’s modulus (modulus of elasticity, E) is defined as E = σ/ε for linear elastic behavior in tension or compression. Other moduli describe different loading modes: modulus of rigidity (G) relates shear stress to shear strain, while bulk modulus (K) relates volumetric stress to volumetric strain (hydrostatic loading). Step-by-Step Solution: Identify loading mode: normal stress and normal strain.Apply Hooke’s law for uniaxial elasticity: σ = E * ε.Therefore, the ratio σ/ε equals the modulus of elasticity (Young’s modulus). Verification / Alternative check: Interrelations E, G, and K exist for isotropic materials: E = 2G(1 + ν) and E = 3K(1 − 2ν), where ν is Poisson’s ratio, confirming distinct meanings of each modulus. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Modulus of rigidity applies to shear, not normal loading. Bulk modulus applies to volumetric compression under hydrostatic pressure. Common Pitfalls: Confusing G and E; using tangent or secant moduli outside the strictly linear region; ignoring temperature dependence of elastic properties. Final Answer: Modulus of elasticity

Question 16

Bubble-cap internals: for distillation columns with diameter roughly 1.5 to 4.5 metres, a typical bubble-cap diameter used in practice is approximately what value?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Bubble caps are classic tray internals that distribute vapor through slots into the liquid on each tray. While many sizes exist, industry practice gravitates toward a few standard diameters that balance fabrication, capacity, and hydraulic performance for mid-size columns. Given Data / Assumptions: Column diameter in the 1.5–4.5 m range. Round bubble caps used in conventional services. Typical operating pressures and vapor rates for refinery/petrochemical duties. Concept / Approach: Cap diameter influences riser area, slot area, jet velocity, and pressure drop. Too small a cap leads to excessive numbers of caps and layout congestion; too large reduces flexibility and can compromise distribution. Around 100 mm (about 4 inches) is a widely used standard cap diameter for such column sizes, offering a practical compromise across many services. Step-by-Step Solution: Relate column size to feasible cap count and pitch.Select a cap diameter common in vendor catalogs for mid-size columns.100 mm meets hydraulic and layout needs in this diameter band. Verification / Alternative check: Design handbooks list cap diameters in the 75–125 mm range for many services; 100 mm sits near the center of this practical spectrum. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 10 mm or 50 mm: too small for practical throughput; would require excessive cap count. 150 mm: feasible in some cases, but 100 mm is more typical for the stated column size range. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring foaming tendencies and slot velocities; crowding caps and starving downcomer area; neglecting maintenance/cleaning access between caps. Final Answer: 100 mm

Question 17

Pressure vessel design context: for a cylindrical vessel intended to operate at high pressure (> 15 atm), which formed head profile is considered the most economical in terms of strength-to-thickness and material usage?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Pressure vessel heads close the ends of cylindrical shells and must resist internal pressure safely. For high-pressure service, the selection of head geometry directly affects required thickness, weight, and cost. This question checks understanding of which head type is most economical when pressure exceeds about 15 atm, focusing on strength-to-thickness efficiency rather than fabrication convenience alone. Given Data / Assumptions: Cylindrical pressure vessel operating at pressures greater than 15 atm. Comparison among common head shapes: hemispherical, ellipsoidal (2:1), torispherical/dished, conical, and flat. Economy refers to material efficiency for a given allowable stress (lower required thickness for the same diameter and pressure). Concept / Approach: Membrane theory shows that the hemispherical head develops uniform membrane stress with no knuckle stress intensification, thus requiring the least thickness among common head types for the same internal pressure and diameter. Lower thickness translates to lower material mass, which is the principal basis for calling it most economical for high-pressure duty, despite potentially higher fabrication complexity. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize that required head thickness scales with geometry-dependent stress.Hemispherical heads have the best stress distribution → minimal thickness for given P and D.Less thickness → less material → economical for high pressure.Therefore, select hemispherical as the most economical for > 15 atm service. Verification / Alternative check: Comparative design formulas show: t_hemisphere < t_ellipsoidal (2:1) < t_torispherical for the same P, D, allowable stress; flat heads have far greater thickness and are not used for high pressure. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Dished (torispherical): needs greater thickness than hemispherical at the same pressure. Ellipsoidal (2:1): efficient but still thicker than hemispherical for equal conditions. Conical: requires reinforcement and often larger thickness near the knuckle region. Flat: impractical for high pressure due to excessive thickness requirement. Common Pitfalls: Confusing fabrication cost with material economy; assuming ellipsoidal is always most economical without considering very high-pressure regimes where thickness dominates cost. Final Answer: Hemispherical

Question 18

Distillation tray hydraulics: the vertical distance between the top of the bubble-cap slots and the quiescent liquid level when the static liquid is just about to flow over the overflow weir is called what?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Understanding the terminology of tray hydraulics is essential for designing and troubleshooting distillation columns. One key geometric parameter is the liquid level relative to the bubble-cap slots and the overflow weir under static (no vapor) conditions. This affects start-up behavior and the degree of slot coverage at incipient flow. Given Data / Assumptions: Bubble-cap tray with an overflow weir and downcomer. “Static” refers to conditions without vapor flow, just before liquid begins to spill over the weir. Interest is in the specific distance from slot tops to the liquid surface at that moment. Concept / Approach: The term for the distance between slot tops and the quiescent liquid level as the liquid is about to flow over the weir is known as the static submergence. It indicates how much of the cap slot is covered at rest, influencing vapor–liquid contact upon vapor introduction and the potential for weeping at low loads. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify geometry: slot top elevation, liquid level at incipient overflow, weir height.Definition: static submergence = liquid height above slot tops under static condition at weir crest initiation.Relate to operation: adequate submergence suppresses weeping at low vapor rates.Conclude the correct term: static submergence. Verification / Alternative check: Tray hydraulics glossaries and design texts define static submergence exactly in this manner for bubble-cap trays. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Downcomer liquid seal: refers to the height sealing the downcomer, not slot coverage. Skirt clearance: mechanical clearance of cap skirt, unrelated to level definition. Foam height: pertains to froth during operation, not static condition. Weir crest height: fixed mechanical weir height, not the static coverage distance. Common Pitfalls: Confusing static submergence with operating froth height; mixing terms used for sieve/valve trays versus bubble-cap trays. Final Answer: Static submergence

Question 19

Agitation system guideline: for general mixing service, the approximate operating liquid depth (working height) in a stirred tank is typically what proportion of the tank diameter d?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Preliminary sizing rules for mixing tanks help process engineers make quick, consistent decisions before detailed mechanical design. One frequently used rule is the relationship between working liquid height and vessel diameter, which affects power number scaling, impeller placement, and baffle design. Given Data / Assumptions: Cylindrical, baffled mixing tank with flat or dished bottom. General-purpose liquid–liquid or solid–liquid mixing (not specialized tall reactors). Seeking a widely used preliminary proportion, not a strict code requirement. Concept / Approach: A common heuristic is to select the working liquid height approximately equal to the tank diameter (H ≈ d). This ratio balances mixing performance, structural practicality, and headroom for gas disengagement or foam. It also simplifies impeller submergence and multiple-impeller spacing when required. Step-by-Step Solution: Define d = tank diameter; H = working liquid height.Apply the preliminary design rule: H ≈ d for general service.This proportion supports effective bulk circulation with standard impeller clearances.Therefore, choose H = d. Verification / Alternative check: Many vendor guides and handbooks suggest H/d in the 0.8–1.2 range; choosing H = d is a standard baseline. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 0.5 d or 0.75 d: short tanks can limit circulation and may require special impeller placement. 2 d or 1.25 d: tall tanks are used for special duties; not the general baseline. Common Pitfalls: Applying H = d to gas–liquid mass transfer systems with foaming; ignoring headspace required for vapor disengagement in exothermic reactions. Final Answer: d

Question 20

Tube count scaling: keeping number of passes, tube pitch, and tube outer diameter constant, if the shell inside diameter is tripled, the maximum number of tubes that fit is approximately how many times the original?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Quick scaling estimates are useful when comparing exchanger sizes. If pitch and tube diameter remain fixed, the number of tubes that can be accommodated in a circular bundle is roughly proportional to the cross-sectional area available for tubes, and hence to the square of shell diameter. Given Data / Assumptions: Number of passes, pitch, and tube outer diameter are unchanged. Tube layout and clearances remain similar (same packing fraction). Shell inside diameter increases from D to 3D. Concept / Approach: Available tube bundle area scales with D^2. Tripling D increases area by 3^2 = 9. With similar layout and pitch, the tube count scales approximately with area, so the maximum tube count is about 9 times the original, allowing for minor edge effects that are negligible in this estimate. Step-by-Step Solution: Original shell I.D. = D → area proportional to D^2.New shell I.D. = 3D → area proportional to (3D)^2 = 9D^2.Tube count ∝ area (pitch, Do constant) → factor ≈ 9.Therefore, select “about 9.” Verification / Alternative check: Handy design charts for tube count vs. shell I.D. show near-quadratic scaling, validating the factor-of-nine approximation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: About 3 or 6: underestimates because count scales with area, not diameter. Considerably less/more than 9: contradicts geometric scaling when layout consistency is preserved. Common Pitfalls: Forgetting that pitch must remain constant; mixing area and diameter proportionalities; ignoring pass-partition and tie-rod space (small corrections only). Final Answer: About 9

Process Equipment and Plant Design Questions