Bubble trays efficiencies

Rate of Mass Transfer in Bubble Plates. The Murphree vapor efficiency, much like the height of a transfer unit in packed absorbers, characterizes the rate of mass transfer in the equipment. The value of the efficiency depends on a large number of parameters not normally known, and its prediction is therefore difficult and involved. Correlations have led to widely used empirical relationships, which can be used for rough estimates (109,110). The most fundamental approach for tray efficiency estimation, however, summarizing intensive research on this topic, may be found in reference 111. 

Example 8 Calculation of Rate-Based Distillation The separation of 655 lb mol/h of a bubble-point mixture of 16 mol % toluene, 9.5 mol % methanol, 53.3 mol % styrene, and 21.2 mol % ethylbenzene is to be earned out in a 9.84-ft diameter sieve-tray column having 40 sieve trays with 2-inch high weirs and on 24-inch tray spacing. The column is equipped with a total condenser and a partial reboiler. The feed wiU enter the column on the 21st tray from the top, where the column pressure will be 93 kPa, The bottom-tray pressure is 101 kPa and the top-tray pressure is 86 kPa. The distillate rate wiU be set at 167 lb mol/h in an attempt to obtain a sharp separation between toluene-methanol, which will tend to accumulate in the distillate, and styrene and ethylbenzene. A reflux ratio of 4.8 wiU be used. Plug flow of vapor and complete mixing of liquid wiU be assumed on each tray. K values will be computed from the UNIFAC activity-coefficient method and the Chan-Fair correlation will be used to estimate mass-transfer coefficients. Predict, with a rate-based model, the separation that will be achieved and back-calciilate from the computed tray compositions, the component vapor-phase Miirphree-tray efficiencies. 

As vapor rates decrease, the tray activity also decreases. There eventually comes a point at which some of the active devices (valves or bubble caps) become inactive. Liquid passing these inactive devices gets very little contact with vapor. At very low vapor rates, the vapor activity will concentrate only in certain sections of the tray (or, in the limit, one bubble cap or one valve). At this point, it is possible that liquid may flow across the entire active area without ever contacting a significant amount ot vapor. This will result in very low tray efficiencies for a distillation process. Nothing can be done with a bubble cap tray to compensate for this. 

Column diameter for a particular service is a function of the physical properties of the vapor and liquid at the tray conditions, efficiency and capacity characteristics of the contacting mechanism (bubble trays, sieve trays, etc.) as represented by velocity effects including entrainment, and the pressure of the operation. Unfortunately the interrelationship of these is not clearly understood. Therefore, diameters are determined by relations correlated by empirical factors. The factors influencing bubble cap and similar devices, sieve tray and perforated plate columns are somewhat different. 

A bubble tray blows when the vapor rate is extremely high, regardless of the liquid rate, causing large vapor streams or continuous bubbles to be blown through the liquid. The efficiency and contact is low and entrainment is usually high. Here also low slot seals contribute to the sensitivity of the tray to such action. 

A bubble tray cones when the liquid seal over the slot is low and the vapor rate is so high as to force the liquid completely away from the cap, thus bypassing the liquid entirely. Obviously, efficiency is unsatisfactory. The dynamic slot seals recommended in Table 8-18 normally will prevent such action. 

Figure 8-147 indicates minimum values of Fh to initiate acceptable bubbling tray action. Efficiency at this activation or load point might be expected to be low however Myers results indicate good values at this rate. 

Tray efficiency is as high as for bubble caps and almost as high as sieve trays. It is higher than bubble caps in some systems. Performance indicates a close similarity to sieve trays, since the mechanism of bubble formation is almost identical. The real point of concern is that the efficiency falls off quickly as the flow rate of vapor through the holes is reduced close to the minimum values represented by the dump point, or point of plate initial activation. Efficiency increases as the tray spacing increases for a given throughput. 

American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Bubble Tray Design Manual, Prediction of Fractionation Efficiency, Amer. Inst. Chem. Engrs. (1958). 

To operate the larger column at a reduced rate probably will not be too difficult if a bubble cap is specified. These columns have wide stable operating ranges. The only difficulties are that the tray efficiency may be low and the liquid holdup relatively large. This latter is especially undesirable if, as has been noted, the liquid is flammable, or if some undesired reaction takes place at the elevated temperatures within the column. 

The effects of liquid viscosity on tray efficiency have been studied by Drickamer and Bradford(58) and () Co nt ij. 59- and these are discussed in Section 11.10.5. Surface tension influences operation with sieve trays, in relation both to foaming and to the stability of bubbles. 

As the potentialities of liquid extraction as a separation method were developed, the need for efficient, continuously operated, multistage equipment became apparent. It was natural therefore to turn to devices which had been so successful in other similar fluid-contacting operations, such as the bubble-tray tower and the packed tower of distillation. These devices have proved to be disappointing in liquid-extraction service, however for example, bubble-tray towers provide tray efficiencies in liquid-extraction operations of less than 5% (S7), and conventional packed towers show heights of transfer units of 10 to 20 ft. or more (T3). 

The development of modern fractionating equipment, in which a minimum pressure drop exists across the bubble trays, brought about a further improvement in the efficiency of the separation of oils from the asphaltic materials. Modern vacuum distillation is widely used at the present time for the production of oils of low asphaltic material content. 

AIChE, Bubble tray design manual, Prediction of fractionation efficiency, AIChE, New-York (1958). 

Bubble-cap trays may be operated over a far wider range of vapor flows, without loss of tray efficiency. It is the author s experience that bubble-cap trays fractionate better in commercial service than do perforated (valve, or sieve) trays. Why, then, are bubble-cap trays rarely used in a modern distillation ... 

In spite of all the effort that has been expended on this topic, the prediction of mass transfer efficiency still is not on a satisfactory basis. The relatively elaborate method of the AIChE Bubble-Tray Manual (AIChE, New York, 1958) is based on the two-film theory but has not had a distinguished career. A number of simpler correlations have been proposed and have some value as general guidance. That literature has been surveyed recently by Vital, Grossel, and Olsen [Hyd. Proc., 55-56 (Oct. 1984) 147-153 (Nov. 1984) 75-78 (Dec. 1984)]. 

Some of the available methods for estimating tray efficiencies will be described. A useful summary of the AIChE bubble-cap tray method is in the book of King (1980, pp. 621-626). Some of the literature that has found fault with this method is cited by Vital et al. (1984). 

Aa Active area, same as bubbling area m2 ft2 Erriv. Em z Murphree tray efficiency, gas -/- -/-... 

Theoretical Efficiency Prediction Theoretical tray efficiency prediction is based on the two-film theory and the sequence of steps in Fig. 14-41. Almost all methods evolved from the AIChE model (AIChE Research Committee, Bubble Tray Design Manual, New York, 1958). This model was developed over 5 years in the late 1950s in three universities. Since then, several aspects of the AIChE model have been criticized, corrected, and modified. Reviews are given by Lockett (Distillation Tray Fundamentals, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1986) and Chan and Fair [Ind. Eng. Chem. Proc. 

Data specific to tray type must be established next, but these inputs will be discussed later. The data inputted for the next six prompts are the same for all tray types and are primarily for tray efficiency calculations. If tray efficiency or tray liquid residence time values are not desired, these inputs may be skipped (i.e., remain as zero values). However, for bubble cap and sieve trays, the SURF TENS DYN/CM prompt is for active area tray flood calculation. This value should therefore be inputted. 

Important Note Bubble cap HHD factor is equivalent to the DPntAYi dry pressure drop of valve trays. The bubble cap tray total pressure drop factor DPTRay is equivalent to the HDC2 factor of valve-type trays. You may therefore substitute these bubble cap values in the ETF efficiency equations as given for valve trays to determine bubble cap tray efficiency. 

Figure T.10 Some factors affecting sieve tray efficiency. FRI data, total reflux, DT = 4 It, S = 24 in, hu, = 2 in, dH = 0.5 in. Both parts show a small efficiency rise with pressure. Both parts show little effect of vapor and liquid loads above about 40 percent of flood, (a) Showing efficiency reduction when fractional hole area is increased from 8 to 14 per-cent of the bubbling area (6) emphasizing little effect of vapor and liquid loads, and an efficiency increase with pressure. Af 0.14 (Both parts repeated with permission from T. Yanagi and If. Sakata, lad. Eng. Chan. Proc. Use. Dev. 21, p. 712, copyright 19S2, American Chemical Society.)...

---