Efficiency, tray effect

Errors in relative volatility are the most underrated factor that affects both tray and packing efficiency. The effects are direct when VLE errors affect separation stage requirement at a constant reflux ratio, and indirect when VLE errors affect the reflux ratio requirement (which in turn affects the stage requirement). Since higher relative volatility lowers both stage and reflux requirements (and vice versa), the direct and indirect effects complement each other and do not counteract each other. The discussion below applies to hoth tray and packed towers. 

Determine the effects of the physical properties of the system on column efficiency. Tray efficiency is a function of (1) physical properties of the system, such as viscosity, surface tension, relative volatility, and diffusivity (2) tray hydraulics, such as liquid height, hole size, fraction of tray area open, length of liquid flow path, and weir configuration and (3) degree of separation of the liquid and vapor streams leaving the tray. Overall column efficiency is based on the same factors, but will ordinarily be less than individual-tray efficiency. 

Determine the effects of tray hydraulics on the efficiency. Tray hydraulics will affect efficiency adversely only if submergence, hole size, open tray area, and weir configuration are outside the recommended limits outlined in the previous example. Since that is not the case, no adverse effects need be expected. 

Sakata [180] evaluates the degree of mixing of the liquid as it flows across a tray and its effect on the tray efficiency, Figure 8-30. For plug flow the liquid flows across the tray with no mixing, while for partial or spot mixing as it flow s over the tray, an improved tray efficiency can be expected. For a completely mixed tray liquid, the point efficiency for a small element of the tray, Eog> tray efficiency, E V, are equal. 

Figure 8-31. Typical effect of liquid mixing on tray efficiency. Reprinted by permission, Sakato, M., The American Institute of Chemical Engineers. Chem. Eng. Prog. V. 62., No. 11 (1966), p. 98, all rights reserved reprinted by permission from Lewis, W. K., Jr., Ind. Eng. Chem. V. 28. (1936), p. 399, and by special permission from Fractionation Research, Inc., all rights reserved.

Note that with this procedure, the effect of the number of theoretical plates arailable can be determined. In an existing column where the number of trays are fixed, the theoretical trays can be obtained by evaluating an efficiency for the system. 

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. 

Eduljee s [19] correlation of literature data appears to offer a route to evaluating the effect of entrainment on tray spacing and efficiency. It is suggested as another check on other methods. Figure 8-117 may be used as recommended ... 

The pressure drop of these trays is usually quite low. They can be operated at an effective bubbling condition wnth acceptable efficiencies and low pressure drops. For more efficient operation the clear liquid height on the tray appears to be. similar to the sieve tray, i.e., 1.5-2-in. minimum. This is peculiar to each system, and some operate at 1 in. with as good an efficiency as when a 2-in. is used. When data is not available, 2 in. is recommended as a median design point. 

For new towers, the designs will usually develop to utilize the entire tower cross-section. However, for existing towers with perforated trays being installed to replace bubble caps or packing, the optimum active tray area may not utilize the entire cross-section. If the number of holes required is small compared to available area, it is better to group the holes on 2.5 dg to 3.5 do than to exceed these limits. Holes separated by more than 3 in. are not considered effective in tray action so necessary for good efficiency. Blanking strips may be used to cover some holes when more than required have been perforated in the tray. 

The tray aeration method is a simple, low-maintenance method of aeration that does not use forced air.19 Water is allowed to cascade through several layers of slat trays to increase the exposed surface area for contact with air (Figure 18.9). Tray aeration is capable of removing 10 to 90% of some VOCs, with a usual efficiency of between 40 and 60%.53 This method cannot be used where low effluent concentrations are required, but could be a cost-effective method for reducing a certain amount of VOC concentration prior to activated carbon treatment. 

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. 

The extent of entrainment of the liquid by the vapour rising over a plate has been studied by many workers. The entrainment has been found to vary with the vapour velocity in the slot or perforation, and the spacing used. Strang 60-1, using an air-water system, found that entrainment was small until a critical vapour velocity was reached, above which it increased rapidly. Similar results from Peavy and Baker 6 11 and Colburn 62 have shown the effect on tray efficiency, which is not seriously affected until the entrainment exceeds 0.1 kmol of liquid per kmol of vapour. The entrainment on sieve trays is discussed in Section 11.10.4. 

Theoretical Plate In a distillation column, it is a plate onto which perfect liquid-vapor contact occurs so that the two streams leaving are in equilibrium. It is used to measure and rate the efficiency of a column at separating compounds. The ratio of the number of theoretical plates to the actual number of plates required to perform a separation is used to rate the efficiency of a distillation column. Actual separation trays in refinery distillation units are usually less effective than theoretical plates. 

As might be expected, the vapour phase may offer the controlling resistance to mass transfer in high pressure distillations. Values for tray efficiencies at elevated pressure are scarce [23, 24]. The prediction of tray efficiency may be approached in several ways. One way is to utilize field performance data taken for the same system in very similar equipment. Unfortunately such data are seldom available. When they are available, and can be judged as accurate and representative, they should be used as a basis for efficiency specification [25], Another way is to utilize laboratory-or pilot-plant efficiency data. For example a small laboratory-Oldershaw tray-column can be used with the same system. Of course, the results must be corrected for vapour-and liquid mixing effects to obtain overall tray efficiencies for large-scale design [26], Another approach is the use of empirical or fundamental mass-transfer models [27-30],... 

The net effect of reducing the stripper pressure was to greatly reduce the amount of isobutane in the heavier normal butane bottoms product. Undoubtedly, most of the improvement in fractionation was due to enhanced tray efficiency, which resulted from suppressing tray deck leaking, or dumping. But there was a secondary benefit of reducing tower pressure increased relative volatility. 

A factor that is of concern with bubblecap trays is the development of a liquid gradient from inlet to outlet which results in corresponding variation in vapor flow across the cross section and usually to degradation of the efficiency. With other kinds of trays this effect rarely is serious. Data and procedures for analysis of this behavior are summarized by Bolles (in Smith, 1963, Chap. 14). There also are formulas and a numerical example of the design of all features of bubblecap trays. Although, as mentioned, new installations of such trays are infrequent, many older ones still are in operation and may need to be studied for changed conditions. 

The values of Tables 13.15 and 13.16 probably are not the optima in all cases. The graphs of Figure 13.41 indicate that efficiencies depend markedly on the vapor flow factor, F = u /p, and there often is a peak in the efficiency curve. Figure 13.42 shows the effect of liquid flow rate across the tray and through the downcomer, measured as a percentage of the flow required to fill the downcomer of this particular tray. 

---