Sizing of sieve-tray columns: the column diameter is primarily fixed by which vapor-related criterion?

Introduction / Context:
For trayed distillation/absorption columns, diameter selection is driven by hydraulics. Excess vapor velocity causes entrainment and flooding, while too low a velocity yields poor mass transfer efficiency and weeping. Balancing these constraints sets the operating window; the upper limit usually governs diameter.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Sieve (perforated) trays with typical weir and downcomer geometry.
• Continuous operation targeting normal turndown and peak loads.

Concept / Approach:
Column cross-sectional area A is chosen so that superficial vapor velocity U remains below a design fraction of the flooding velocity. Since vapor volumetric rate dictates U = V/A, ensuring U ≤ U_max (from flooding correlations) fixes the required area and therefore diameter. Hole size and plate spacing are secondary design choices affecting efficiency and pressure drop, but do not primarily set diameter.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Tray rating methods and vendor software confirm diameter determined mainly by vapor hydraulic constraints; sensitivity checks with hole size/spacing show smaller impact on required diameter.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Lower limit of vapor velocity sets weeping limit and turndown, not initial diameter.
• Hole diameter and plate spacing influence efficiency/pressure drop but do not dominate diameter sizing.

Common Pitfalls:
Ignoring liquid handling (downcomer flooding) and assuming a single “vapor-only” criterion; both vapor and liquid hydraulics must be checked, but the upper vapor limit predominates for diameter.

Final Answer:
Upper limit of vapor velocity (to avoid flooding/entrainment)