Full Paper

Efficiencies of Sieve Tray Distillation Columns by CFD

Simulation
By Rahbar Rahimi*, Mahmood Reza Rahimi, Farhad Shahraki, and Mortaza Zivdar

DOI: 10.1002/ceat.200500285

A 3-D two-fluid CFD model in the Eulerian-Eulerian framework was developed to predict the hydrodynamics and heat and
mass transfer of sieve trays. Interaction between the two phases occurs via interphase momentum and heat and mass transfer.
The tray geometries are based on the large rectangular tray of Dribika and Biddulph and FRI commercial-scale sieve tray of
Yanagi and Sakata. In this work a CFD simulation is developed to give predictions of the fluid flow patterns, hydraulics, and
mass transfer efficiency of distillation sieve trays including a downcomer. The main objective has been to find the extent to
which CFD can be used as a design and prediction tool for real behavior, concentration and temperature distributions, and
efficiencies of industrial trays. Despite the use of simple correlations for closure models, the efficiencies obtained are very
close to experimental data. The results show that values of point efficiency vary with position on the tray because of variation
of affecting parameters, such as velocities, temperature and concentration gradients, and interfacial area. The simulation
results show that CFD can be used as a powerful tool in tray design and analysis, and can be considered as a new approach
for efficiency calculations and as a new tool for testing mixing models in both phases. CFD can be used as a virtual experi-
ment to simulate tray behavior under operating conditions.

1 Introduction The best and surest method of tray efficiency calculation

Distillation is a separation process of major importance in
chemical and petroleum industries. The worldwide through-
put of distillation columns in 1992 was estimated as [1]: Oil
refining: 3.7 Billion tonnes/year; chemicals and petrochem-
icals: 130 Million tonnes/year; and natural gas processing
1.4 Billion tonnes/year. Porter [2] estimated that the
throughput of distillation columns is at least $ 500 billion/
year. Increasing separation efficiency as well as its prediction
has been a major task in design and operation of distillation
columns. Efforts to maximize the efficiency of distillation
columns are still justified on economic grounds [3].
Determination of the theoretical stages required for a
desired separation is the first stage of distillation column
design, thereafter, by using column efficiency, the actual
number of trays is determined. This column efficiency is
calculated from the Murphree tray efficiency, and this effi-
ciency is calculated from the point efficiency. Therefore,
knowledge of the point efficiency is essential for design of
trayed distillation columns.
The predication of industrial tray efficiencies on distilla-
tion columns is usually done by the following procedures [4]:
Comparison with the tray efficiency of similar operating
columns.
Scaling-up from laboratory columns.
Empirical correlation.
Theoretical to semi-theoretical mass transfer methods.
[*] R. Rahimi (author to whom correspondence should be addressed,
rahimi@hamoon.usb.ac.ir), M. R. Rahimi, F. Shahraki, M. Zivdar,
Department of Chemical Engineering, Sistan and Baluchistan University,
Zahedan, 98164, Iran.
to date is to use the value of a similar column as a reference
[4]. Unfortunately, such data are seldom available, though
where they do exist they should be used as the basis for effi-
ciency of separation [4].
On the other hand, the prediction of point efficiency re-
mains uncertain, and little real progress has been achieved
since the AIChE Bubble Tray design Manual [5] was pub-
lished. The AIChE semi-empirical correlation was based on
the assumption that point efficiencies were real and measur-
able. However, it is clear that direct measurement of this
quantity is difficult. Various methods were found to over-
come this problem. Klemola [4] lists references for tray effi-
ciency correlations. For each of these methods, the conver-
sion of point efficiency to tray efficiency relies on the choice
of the mixing model to be used. The liquid mixing on the
tray has been modeled using several approaches [58]. More
recent works have introduced mixing models of increasing
complexity [911]. The correct prediction of point efficien-
cies is subject to question and there is not a unified model to
predict its variation along the tray. Point efficiency should be
properly based on vapor-liquid mass transfer fundamentals
and transport between phases in the turbulent two phase
dispersion.
Sieve trays are widely used in distillation, absorption, and
liquid-liquid extraction columns for their simplicity, and
hence low construction cost. There have been few attempts
to model sieve tray hydrodynamics using CFD simulation
[1219]. Gesit, et al. [12] developed a 3-D CFD model to
predict the flow patterns and hydraulics of commercial-scale
sieve trays. Wang et al. [19] used a 3-D pseudo-single-phase
CFD model for liquid-phase velocity and concentration dis-
tribution on a distillation column tray. The column (overall)
efficiency of a ten-trayed column was estimated. Their

326 2006 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim Chem. Eng. Technol. 2006, 29, No. 3
 Full Paper

model does not predict point efficiency and vapor-phase SLG is the rate of mass transfer from the liquid phase to
concentration distribution, and used constant values for the Gas phase and vice versa. Mass transfer between phases
vapor (and liquid) volume fractions. Rahimi et al. [20] stud- must satisfy the local balance condition:
ied the hydrodynamics of sieve trays by means of a 3-D two
fluid CFD simulation. The velocity, concentration, and SLG = SGL (3)
temperature distributions were determined [21].
In this work, a CFD simulation is developed to give pre-
dictions of the fluid flow patterns, hydraulics, and mass 2.2 Momentum Conservation
transfer efficiency of distillation sieve trays including a
downcomer. The main objective has been to find the extent Gas phase:
to which CFD can be used as a design and prediction tool
for real behavior, concentration and temperature distribu-
r q V :rG qG VG VG
tions, and efficiencies of industrial trays. Therefore, at first, t G G G (4)
CFD predictions of temperature and concentration profiles T
rG PG :rG leff;G VG VG rG qG g MGL
of rectangular trays were used for calculation of the Mur-
phree point and tray efficiencies, and results were compared
Liquid phase:
against the experimental data of Dribika and Biddulph [22].
Then the model was used to predict efficiencies of the
r q V :rL qL VL VL
commercial-scale tray FRI used in Yanagi and Sakatas t L L L (5)
experiments [23]. T
rL PL :rL leff;L VL VL rL qL g MGL
The simulation results show that CFD can be used as a
powerful tool in tray design and analysis, and can be consid-
ered as a new approach for efficiency calculations. This MGL describes the interfacial forces acting on each phase
simulation can be used as a virtual experiment instead of due to the presence of the other phase.
warm measurements, which are very expensive and time
consuming. CFD can be used as a tool for testing mixing
models in liquid and vapor phases. 2.3 Volume Conservation Equation

This is simply the constraint that the volume fractions sum

2 Model Equations to unity:

The dispersed gas and the continuous liquid are modeled
in the Eulerian frame work as two interpenetrating phases
having separate transport equations. Thus, for each phase
the time and volume averaged conservation equations are
numerically solved. The basic derivation of the multiphase
flow transport equations has been reported elsewhere
[24, 25] and therefore will not be described further in this ar-
ticle.
The two-fluid conservation equations for adiabatic two-
phase flow are as follows1):
rL + rG = 1 (6)
2.4 Pressure Constraint
The complete set of hydrodynamic equations represent
nine (4NP + 1) equations in the ten (5NP) unknowns: VL,
UL, WL, rL, PL, VG, UG, WG, rG, PG. We need one (NP 1)
more equation to close the system. This is given by con-
straint on the pressure, namely that the two phases share the
same pressure field: PL = PG = P.

2.1 Continuity Equations

2.5 Energy Conservation
Gas phase:
Gas phase:

r q :rG qG VG SLG 0 (1)

t G G
r q h :rG qG VG hG
t G G G
Liquid phase: (7)
:q QLG SLG hLG

r q :rL qL VL SLG 0 (2)

t L L
Liquid phase:

r q h :rL qL VL hL :q QLG SLG hLG
t L L L
1) List of symbols at the end of the paper.
(8)

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2006, 29, No. 3 2006 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim http://www.cet-journal.com 327
 Full Paper

hL and hG are the specific enthalpies of phases L and G, re- to 25 mm in diameter with rise velocity of about 0.25 m/s
spectively. The first term in parentheses on the right hand [27]. Therefore, an equation for CD that is independent of
side of the above equations is the energy transfer between bubble diameter seems most appropriate. Krishna et al. [17]
phases, and the second term is the energy transfer associated have used an equation for the drag term that was developed
with the mass transfer between phases. Heat transfer be- from their studies on the bubble column.
tween the phases must satisfy the local balance condition: The drag coefficient CD has been estimated using the drag
correlation of Krishna et al. [28], a relation proposed for the
QLG = QGL (9) rise of a swarm of large bubbles in the churn-turbulent re-
gime:
4 qL qG 1
2.6 Mass Transfer Equations CD gdG 2 (14)
3 qL Vslip

Transport equations for the mass fraction of light compo- Where the slip velocity, Vslip = |VGVL| , is estimated from
nent A can be written: the gas superficial velocity Vs and the average gas holdup
Gas phase: fraction in the froth region:
Vs
r q Y :rG qG VG YA qG DAG YA SLG 0 Vslip (15)
t G G A rG
(10)
For the average gas holdup fraction, Bennett et al. [29]
Liquid phase: considered the correlation:
"  r0:91 #
qG
r q X : rL qL VL XA qL DAL XA SLG 0 rG 1 exp 12:55 Vs (16)
t L L A qL qG
(11)
From Eqs. (1315) the interphase momentum transfer
term as a function of local variables becomes [17]:
2.7 Closure Models rG 2
MGL gqL qG rG rL jVG VL jVG VL
1:0 rG V2s
The closure models are required for interphase transfer (17)
quantities, momentum, heat and mass transfer, and turbulent
viscosities. The turbulence viscosities were related to the This relation is independent of bubble diameter and is
mean flow variables by using the standard ke model. suitable for CFD use.
The rate of energy transfer between phases can be written: A vast amount of data for the mass transfer coefficient is
not available in the case of sieve trays; in addition, the avail-
QLG = bLG ae (TL TG) (12) able data are average values and therefore are not suitable
for rigorous CFD studies of mass transfer on sieve trays of
bLG represents the heat transfer coefficient between distillation columns.
phases. An appropriate value of the heat transfer coefficient The mass transfer rate can be calculated by one of the fol-
can be obtained by using suitable correlations of the Nusselt lowing two equations:
number [26].
In the absence of sufficient reliable data, the effect of SLG kL ae MA xA xIA (18)
other transport phenomena on the momentum transfer (cou-
pling) was neglected. The interphase momentum transfer
term MGL is basically the interphase drag force per unit vol- SLG kG ae MA yIA yA (19)
ume. With the gas as the disperse phase, the equation for
MGL is: The interfacial concentrations xIA and yIA are in equilibri-
um:
3 CD
MGL r q jV VL jVG VL (13)
4 dG G L G yIA mxIA (20)
CD is the drag coefficient. Its value for the case of distilla-
tion is not well known. However, Fisher and Quarini [14] The value of m was determined from the equilibrium data
assumed a constant value of 0.44. This value is appropriate [22].
for large bubbles of spherical cap shape. However, for the Combining Eqs. (1820) results in deleting the interface
froth flow regime, which is the dominant region in distilla- concentrations xIA, yIA :
tion, it is not applicable. Further, the bubbles are from
1020 mm in diameter with a bubble rise velocity of 1.5 m/s SLG KOG ae MA yA yA KOL ae MA xA xA (21)

328 http://www.cet-journal.com 2006 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim Chem. Eng. Technol. 2006, 29, No. 3

Where KOG = 1/(1/kG + m/kL), KOL = 1/(1/mkG + 1/kL),
and yA mxA is the vapor composition in equilibrium with
xA. The local mass transfer rate SLG is calculated from the
above equation.
Higbie penetration theory [30] has been widely used to
simulate the gas-liquid mass transfer in distillation columns
[9, 22, 31, 32]. In all of these works the time averaged values
Full Paper
A set of conditions must be used at the interface. The con-
tinuity at the interface for transport quantities, and correla-
tion between parameters at the interface were mentioned by
a set of conditions used at the vapor-liquid interface:
Ki xi ji yi ji (26a)
of mass transfer coefficients were used in steady-state pro-  
TL i TV i (26b)
cesses.
The Higbie model assumes that the composition of the  
film does not stay stagnant as in the film model. The expo- NLA i NV 
A i (26c)
sure time is determined by the hydrodynamic properties of
the system and is the only parameter required to account for  
EL i EV i (26d)
their effect on the transfer coefficient KL. During this short
time, the element of liquid absorbs the same amount of gas
per unit area as thought it were stagnant and infinitely deep. VS jVG VL j (26e)
Higbie [30] deduced that the time averaged liquid and gas
mass transfer coefficients take the form: At the vapor-liquid interface we assume phase equilibri-
s
DAL um, described by Eqs. (26a) and (26b). Furthermore, the
kL 2 (22) fluxes of mass NA and energy E are continuous across the
phL
s interface, by Eqs. (26c) and (26d), and the velocities of the
DAG two phases are related by Eq (26e). The above conditions
kG 2 (23) were considered to obtain the correlations of this CFD work.
phG
Eqs. (26b) and d) were considered in the interphase energy
DAL and DAG are diffusion coefficients in the liquid and transfer term, Eq. (26e) in the interphase momentum trans-
gas phases, respectively. The contact time for vapor in fer term, and Eqs. (26a) and c) in the interphase mass trans-
d
the froth region hG is defined as hG G , where VP is the fer term. Therefore, the interface conditions were automati-
VP
velocity of vapor through the tray perforations. The contact cally considered and included in the correlations of this
d CFD model.
time for liquid hL is G , where the average rise velocity VR of
VR
bubbles through the froth is given by:
 
AP 3 Flow Geometries
VP
Vs AB
VR (24)
1 aL 1 aL In this work, the proposed simulation was first used to
AP/AB is the perforated area to total bubbling area ratio. emulate the data of Dribika and Biddulph [22] using a large
Taylor and Krishna [27] mentioned that only 10 % of mass rectangular sieve tray, for determination of hydraulic param-
transfer occurs by bubbles of small size, whilst 90 % of mass eters, temperature, and concentration profiles. The simula-
transfer is due to bubbles of large size. Hence, in one ap- tion results were compared against the experimental data,
proach, the characteristic length dG may be assumed to be after which the FRI tray used by Yanagi and Sakata [23] was
equal to the mean diameter of the bubbles. The effective va- simulated.
por-liquid interfacial area can be determined directly from The experimental rig of Dribika and Biddulph [22] con-
the liquid holdup and the mean bubble diameter by the fol- sists of three rectangular distillation trays having dimensions
lowing equation: of 1067 by 89 mm, the middle one being the test-tray. The
test-tray was designed with six equally spaced points for
61 aL sampling and temperature measurement along the center-
ae (25)
dG line, indicated by points S in Fig. 1, details of the tray are
It is known that closure models have important effects on given in Tab. 1. The column was operated at total reflux and
the accuracy of the final results of a CFD simulation. There- atmospheric pressure, with a vapor phase Fs factor of
fore, their determination is the most important part in each 0.4 m/s (kg/m3)1/2, and covered a wide range of compositions.
CFD simulation. But, unfortunately, in the case of sieve
trays these models are not presented or not tested for CFD
application. Therefore, further improvement and refinement
of the closure models is required, in order that if more
refined experimental data on flow and concentration distri-
butions become available they can be the subject of future
investigations. Figure 1. Details of rectangular tray showing sample/temperature points.

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2006, 29, No. 3 2006 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim http://www.cet-journal.com 329
 Full Paper

Table 1. Tray specifications.

a) Rectangular tray b) Circular tray

Weir length 83 mm Diameter 1.2

2
Liquid flow path 991 mm Downcomer area,m 0.14

Tray spacing 154 mm Hole area, m2 0.118

Hole diameter 1.8 mm Hole diameter and spacing, mm mm 12.7 30.2

Percentage free area 8% Perforated sheet, material 316 SS

Outlet weir height 25 mm Perforated sheet, thickness, mm 1.5

Inlet weir height 4.8 mm Outlet weir, height length, mm mm 25.4, 50.8 940

Inlet weir none

Tray spacing, mm 610

2
Effective bubbling area, m 0.859

Edge of hole facing vapor flow sharp

Clearance under downcomer, mm 22, 38

All the hot surfaces of the equipment are insulated with
50 mm thick glass fiber material and aluminum cladding,
therefore the column is adiabatic, and the adiabatic form of
the CFD equations is applicable. A schematic of the test tray
is shown in Fig. 1. The details of the FRI 1.2 m circular tray
are given in Tab. 1.
are considered as fully developed in velocity, temperature,
and concentration. The normal direction gradients of tem-
perature and concentration at the walls are zero.
The mathematical forms of all above boundary conditions
are described in full in the CFX Manual [33], and hence they
are not repeated here.

5 Simulation Results and Discussion

4 Wall and Boundary Conditions
In this steady state simulation, the following boundary
conditions are specified. Uniform liquid inlet velocity, tem-
perature, and concentration profiles are used and liquid is
considered as a pure phase, meaning that only liquid enters
through the downcomer clearance. This is a good approxi-
mation for rectangular trays, because at this F factor (0.4)
the entrainment was found to be less than 0.02 and this value
would have negligible effect on the flow rates [22]. In addi-
tion, negligible weeping was observed by the investigators.
For the circular tray these assumptions were used in the hy-
drodynamics study [12, 20].
The gas volume fraction at the inlet holes was specified to
be unity. The liquid- and vapor-outlet boundaries were speci-
fied as mass flow boundaries with fractional mass flux speci-
fications. At the liquid outlet, only liquid was assumed to
leave the flow geometry and only gas was assumed to exit
through the vapor outlet. These specifications are in agree-
ment with the specifications at the gas inlet and liquid inlet,
where only one phase was assumed to enter.
A no-slip wall boundary condition was specified for the
liquid phase and a free slip wall boundary condition was
used for the gas phase. The flow conditions at the outlet weir
Most of the simulations were conducted using high speed
dual processor machines (2 2.4 GHz) run in parallel. The
details of numerical methods for transient simulations were
presented by Rahimi et al. [20]. CFD analysis was carried
out using a CFX5.7 of Ansys, Inc. Simulations were con-
ducted with CPU times per CFD simulations, for conver-
gence, varying from as low as 16 h to about three weeks.
5.1 Rectangular Tray
5.1.1 Compositions Profiles
Dribika and Biddulph [22] have presented the liquid con-
centration and temperature profiles at various compositions
at Fs = 0.4 and total reflux. The simulation results for con-
centration and temperature were compared against their ex-
perimental data.
The tray length was divided into six sections in order to
compare CFD results with experimental data. The mean liq-
uid composition (concentration), for each section was deter-
mined by integration. Unfortunately, the exact position and
geometry of the probes was not mentioned in the Biddulph

330 http://www.cet-journal.com 2006 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim Chem. Eng. Technol. 2006, 29, No. 3

and coworkers series of papers. This may be a source of dif-
ference between experimental data and simulation results.
In Fig. 2 the predicted composition profiles using the CFD
model for MeOH/nPrOH and EtOH/nPrOH pairs were
compared against experimental data [12]. The obtained re-
sults are in close agreement with the experimental data, and
the trend of the CFD results fits exactly. Since the column
was operated under total reflux conditions, the vapor com-
positions are related to the liquid compositions according to
the equation yn+1 = xn; the CFD results are generally in
good agreement with this equation. The mean average error
is about 0.005, which may be due to truncation errors and
uncertainties in the closure models used in these simula-
tions.
a)
0,75
Liquid composition,X
0,6
0,45
0,3
0,15
0 and Biddulphs experiments the mixed liquid flow in the
0 0,2 0,4 0,6
dimensionless coordinate,x/L
b)
Figure 2. Centerline liquid composition and liquid composition profiles for the
rectangular tray, MeOH/nPrOH binary system. a) xm = 0.2790, b) xm = 0.7710.
5.1.2 Liquid Temperature Profiles
The predicted liquid temperature profiles for MeOH/
nPrOH and EtOH/nPrOH systems, respectively, are shown
in Fig. 3 and compared with experimental data of Dribika
Chem. Eng. Technol. 2006, 29, No. 3
Full Paper
and Biddulph [22]. The predictions are generally in very
close agreement with the experimental data. The mean tem-
perature in each cell is calculated by integration. The tem-
perature in the downcomer was very close to the bubble-
point temperatures. In the case of the MeOH/nPrOH system
there is slight vaporization in the downcomers, probably due
to large temperature differences in this system [22]. The ef-
fect of this phenomenon on the point efficiency is small.
Lockett and Ahmed [34] and Ellis and Shelton [35], who
used methanol-water systems, observed a similar phenome-
non, heat transfer produced due to variation of the tempera-
ture from tray to tray. The temperature profiles of the
MeOH/nPrOH system illustrate that the effect of this phe-
nomenon on the efficiency is small, the average difference
between experimental and predicted values is about 2 % and
agrees with the conclusions of Lockett and Ahmed [34].
367
363
TK 359
Exp. data
CFD
355
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1
Dimensionless lenth,x/L
Exp. data
CFD
Figure 3. Centerline temperature and temperature profiles for the rectangular
tray, EtOH/nPrOH binary system, (xm = 0.4960).
The results confirm that under the conditions of Dribika
0,8 1 transverse direction is acceptable, but in large diameter trays
the variation of liquid concentration in the transverse direc-
tion may be important.
5.1.3 Point and Tray Efficiencies
When the concentration and temperature of the whole
tray is determined, Murphree point and tray efficiencies can
be calculated directly from CFD results by related defini-
tions as follows.
The tray was divided into six cells in the liquid flow direc-
tion. By integration on the y and z directions (see Fig. 1),
the average value of temperature and concentration was cal-
culated for each cell, then each cell efficiency was calculated
by the following equations.
For each cell (n, i), the point efficiency for vapor was cal-
culated as follows:
2006 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim http://www.cet-journal.com 331
 Full Paper
yni yn 1;i
EPni (27) Where mn for each tray is calculated as:
yni yn 1;i
Z1
1 X
Ncell
mn mni dw m (35)
Ncell i1 ni
yni mni :xni (28) 0

The value of mni was calculated from the equilibrium data In Fig. 4 the variation of point efficiency and liquid
of Dribika and Biddulph [22]. The value yn1,i was calculated composition profile along the centerline of the tray for the
by surface integration, just below the tray n and value of MeOH/nPrOH binary system, at a run corresponding to the
yni and just above the froth of the cell i of the tray n. mean liquid composition xm = 0.771, is presented. Dribika
The average outlet liquid concentration of the cell (n, i) was and Biddulph [22] used a constant value for point efficiency,
calculated by integration on a liquid outlet face of the cell. as a function of liquid concentration, for each run. With
Dribika and Biddulph used a plug flow model for vapor reference to the results of this study; this is not a good
and mixed model for liquid. The results of this work show assumption for long flow path trays and for high aspect ratio
that this is a good representation of tray hydrodynamics in trays.
this case, and this is confirmed by the velocity profiles of this
tray, because these profiles show that the gas encounters al- 78 1
most no sideways force and appears to flow in an approxi-
77,8
0,9
mately straight path. Likewise, no (or small) vertical
0,8
displacement of the liquid streamlines are seen at this gas 77,6
0,7
flow rate (Fs = 0.4). The work of Dribika and Biddulph was 0,6
77,4
done at low to moderate gas flow rates (Fs = 0.20.4), hence 0,5
the assumption of a plug flow regime for the gas phase is Ep
77,2
0,4
reasonable. 77 0,3
For each tray the Murphree tray efficiencies were calcu- CFD Efficiency 0,2
76,8
lated from the definition: CFD X 0,1
76,6 0
yn yn1
EMV (29) 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1
n
yn yn1 Dimensionless length, x/L

Figure 4. Point efficiency and liquid composition profile along the centerline
Where: of the rectangular tray, MeOH/nPrOH binary system (xm = 0.771).

yni mn :xn (30)

The value of m was determined from the equilibrium data The results confirm that under the conditions of Dribika
of Dribika and Biddulph [22]. and Biddulphs experiments the mixed liquid flow in the
Considering a column operated at total reflux, no product transverse direction is acceptable, but in large diameter trays
is withdrawn from the column; therefore, the mass balance the variation of liquid concentration in the transverse direc-
of any component performed around any tray is: tion may be important.
In this study each point of mean liquid composition
Vn1 :yn1 Ln :xn (31) belongs to a computer run. The average (mean) liquid and
vapor compositions in each run were determined as dis-
And the overall mass balance is: cussed previously, and then related values of efficiencies
were calculated as described above. The predicted and ex-
Vn+1 = Ln (32)
perimental tray efficiencies are shown against the mean liq-
Hence: uid compositions in Fig. 5. All the experimental runs (for
the two binary systems) were made under conditions such
yn+1 = xn (33) that the vapor phase Fs factor was about 0.4. At this F factor
the entrainment was found to be less than 0.02, and this val-
The same result is obtained for the stripping section. The
ue would have a negligible effect on the efficiency [22]. In
values of xn and yn+1 are averaged values for the liquid and
addition, negligible weeping was observed [22]. These
vapor phases, and are calculated by integration of related
conditions are in agreement with the initial assumptions that
profiles at the outlet weir and just below the tray n, respec-
each phase is pure and entered into the tray as a single
tively. Combining Eqs. (29), (30), and (33):
phase.
yn xn y =x 1 With reference to Fig. 5, it can be observed that higher
EMV n n (34)
n
mn :xn xn mn 1 tray efficiencies were obtained at the lower concentration
range of the more volatile component. In addition, in the
middle to higher range of composition used in the two sys-
tems, the tray efficiencies for the EtOH/nPrOH system are

332 http://www.cet-journal.com 2006 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim Chem. Eng. Technol. 2006, 29, No. 3
 Full Paper

a) CFD results b )
145 Exp. data
130 Exp. data
Dribika model
Dribika model
130 CFD results

Emv
Emv
110 115

100

90 85
0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9
Mean liquid composition Mean Liquid Composition,X

Figure 5. Murphree tray efficiency vs. mean liquid composition, a) MeOH/nPrOH binary system, b) EtOH/nPrOH.

higher than for the MeOH/nPrOH system; this effect was shown in Fig. 7 and compared with the experimental data of
observed and discussed by Dribika and Biddulph [22]. In the Yanagi and Sakata [23].
composition range of the experiments the slope of equilibri-
um curves is similar for the two binary systems, therefore,
the higher tray efficiencies were probably due to the higher
1
point efficiencies in the system EtOH/nPrOH, Dribika and
0.9 cC6-nC7
Biddulph [22] observed this effect, too.

5.2 Circular Tray
The proposed model can be used for circular trays, too.
Yanagi and Sakata [23] studied the performance of the FRI
commercial-scale sieve tray, 1.2 m diameter, under total re-
flux conditions. The CFD model was solved for this column.
The calculation procedure for circular trays is similar to that
for rectangular trays. Two cases were used. The first one is a
single tray with a symmetry boundary condition for velocity,
temperature and concentration at the tray center used in
order to reduce the calculation domain. The liquid composi-
tion profile for the Yanagi and Sakata [23] tray is shown in
Fig. 6. The second case is a column with ten trays under total
reflux conditions. In the latter case, the liquid concentration
and temperature at the output of each tray was calculated at
the outlet weir location by averaging the liquid flow at the
plane perpendicular to the liquid flow. The input vapor con-
centration entered to each tray was obtained by averaging
on a plane parallel to the tray floor just below the tray.
According to this model, mass transfer does not take place
outside the dispersion; therefore, this vapor composition is
equal to the outlet vapor composition from the tray below.
Murphree tray efficiencies were calculated by related defini-
tions. The efficiencies calculated from the CFD results are
Figure 6. Liquid composition profile for Yanagi and Sakata [23] sieve tray.
Tray efficiency
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5 experimental data
0.4 CFD results
0.3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Tray no.
Figure 7. Tray efficiency for a column having ten trays, as used by Yanagi and
Sakata [23].
6 Conclusion
A 3-D two-fluid CFD model was developed in the Euler-
ian framework to predict the hydrodynamics and heat and
mass transfer performance of sieve trays. The tray geome-
tries are based on the large rectangular tray of Dribika and
Biddulph [22] and FRI commercial-scale sieve tray [23]. The
hydraulics parameters, such as clear liquid height, froth
height, holdup of both phases, velocity, and temperature and
concentration distributions, were determined. The Murphree
point efficiencies and tray efficiencies were calculated. The
CFD predictions are in good agreement with the experimen-
tal data.
This study has shown that CFD can be used as a powerful
tool for sieve tray design, simulation, and visualization. By
means of CFD a virtual experiment can be developed to
evaluate the tray performance. CFD can be used as a trou-
bleshooting tool, also. Calculation of point and Murphree
tray efficiencies by CFD is a first effort to develop a new ap-
proach in this way. CFD is the best and surest method of tray
efficiency calculation, and can be considered as a new proce-
dure that has the ability to overcome the last frontier of
efficiency prediction.

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2006, 29, No. 3 2006 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim http://www.cet-journal.com 333
 Full Paper

As predicted by Gesit et al. [12] and mentioned by Rahimi T [s] time

et al. [20], inclusion of interphase mass (and heat) transfer T [K] temperature
relations in the CFD model gives much more accurate U [m/s] x-component of velocity
results. The results of the CFD model are dependent on the V [m/s] y-component of velocity
closure models. But, unfortunately, these models are not VG [m/s] gas-phase velocity vector
available in the case of distillation; therefore, there is clearly VL [m/s] liquid-phase velocity vector
room for further improvement in this field. Future works VP [m/s] vapor velocity through the tray
can be focused on development and refinement of closure perforations
laws for interphase momentum, heat and mass transfer, and VR [m/s] bubble rise velocity
coupling between them, and development of the required VS [m/s] gas phase superficial velocity based
correlations based on bubble diameter. on bubbling area
Received: August 31, 2005 Vslip [m/s] slip velocity
W [m/s] z-component of velocity
w [] dimensionless distance from tray
Symbols used inlet
XA [] mass fraction of A in liquid phase
AB [m2] tray bubbling area YA [] mass fraction of A in gas phase
AH [m2] total area of holes xA [] mole fraction of A in liquid phase
AP [m2] perforated area xm [] mean liquid mole fraction
ae [m1] effective interfacial area per unit xA [] equilibrium mole fraction
volume xIA [] interfacial mol fraction in liquid
CD [] drag coefficient phase
dG [m] mean bubble diameter yA [] mole fraction of A in gas phase
DAG [m/s2] diffusion coefficient of A in gas yA [] equilibrium mole fraction
phase yIA [] interfacial mol fraction in gas phase
DAL [m/s2] diffusion coefficient of A in liquid x, y, z [m] coordinates, distance from origin
phase p
FLV [] flow parameter = L/G qG =qL, L, G
= liquid, gas mass flow rate,
respectively Greek symbols
p
FS [m/s2] F factor = VS qG
g [m/s2] gravity acceleration bL,G [W/m2 K] heat transfer coefficient between
g [m/s2] gravity vector Liquid and Gas phase
hG [kJ/kg] specific enthalpy of gas meff,G [kg m1 s1] effective viscosity of gas
hL [kJ/kg] specific enthalpy of liquid meff,L [kg m1 s1] effective viscosity of liquid
hLG [] (hL hG) qG [kg/m3] gas-phase density
kL [m/s] liquid phase mass transfer coefficient qL [kg/m3] liquid-phase density
kG [m/s] gas phase mass transfer coefficient hG [s] gas contact time
KOG [m/s] gas phase overall mass transfer hL [s] liquid contact time
coefficient
KOL [m/s] liquid phase overall mass transfer
coefficient
MGL [kg m2 s2] interphase momentum transfer Subscripts and Superscripts
MA [g mol1] molecular weight of component A
M [] slope of equilibrium line A component A
P [N m2] total pressure I interface
PG [N m2] gas-phase pressure L liquid phase
PL [N m2] liquid-phase pressure G gas phase
Q [W/m2] flux of enthalpy * equilibrium
QL [m3/s] liquid volumetric flow rate
QLG [W/m3] energy transfer between liquid and
gas phases References
rG [] gas-phase volume fraction
rG [] average gas holdup fraction in froth [1] S. I. Kirbaslar, A. Aydin, U. Dramur, Eng. Environ. Sci. 1998, 22, 255.
[2] K. E. Porter, Trans. I. Chem. E 1995, 73, 357.
rL [] liquid-phase volume fraction
[3] J. R. Fair, AIChE Symp. Ser. 1983, 235, 1.
SLG [kg/m3s] rate of interphase mass transfer [4] K. T. Kelemola, J. K. Ilme, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1996, 35, 4579.

334 http://www.cet-journal.com 2006 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim Chem. Eng. Technol. 2006, 29, No. 3

[5] AIChE Bubble Tray Design Manual, Am. Inst. Chem. Engrs., New York
1958.
[6] W. K. Lewis, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 1936, 28, 399.
[7] M. F. Gautreaux, H. E. OConnell, Chem. Eng. Prog. 1955, 51, 232.
[8] A. S. Foss, J. A. Gerster, R. L. Pigford, AIChE J. 1958, 4, 231.
[9] D. L. Bennet, D. N. Waston, M. A. Wiescinski, AIChE J. 1997, 43, 1611.
[10] M. Prado, J. R. Fair, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1990, 29, 1031.
[11] J. Garcia, J. R. Fair, Ind. Chem. Eng. Res. 2000, 39, 1818.
[12] G. K. Gesit, K. Nandakumar, K. T. Chuang, AIChE J. 2003, 49, 910.
[13] B. Mehta, K. T. Chuang, K. Nandakumar, Chem. Eng. Res. Des., Trans.
Inst. Chem. Eng. 1998, 76, 843.
[14] C. H. Fischer, J. L. Quarini, AIChE Meeting, Miami Beach, FL, Novem-
ber 1998.
[15] K. T. Yu, X. G. Yuan, X. G. You, C. T. Liu, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 1999,
77a, 554.
[16] C. J. Liu, X. G. Yuan, K. T. Yu, X. J. Zhu, Chem. Eng. Sci. 1999, 55,
2287.
[17] R. Krishna et al., Chem. Eng. Res. Des., Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 1999a,
77, 639.
[18] J. M. van Baten, R. Krishna, Chem. Eng. J. 2000, 77, 143.
[19] X. L. Wang, C. J. Liu, X. G. Yuan, K. T. Yu, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2004,
43, 2556.
______________________
Chem. Eng. Technol. 2006, 29, No. 3 2006 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Full Paper
[20] R. Rahimi, M. R. Rahimi, F. Shahraki, M. Zivdar, Iranian J. Chem.
Chem. Eng. 2005, 24 (2).
[21] M. R. Rahimi, Ph.D. Thesis, Sistan and Baluchistan University 2005.
[22] M. M. Dribika, M. W. Biddulph, AIChE J. 1986, 32, 1864.
[23] T. Yanagi, M. Sakata, Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 1982, 21, 712.
[24] H. A. Jacobsen, B. H. Sanaes, S. Grevskott, H. F. Svendson, Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 1997, 36, 4052.
[25] V. V. Ranade, Computational Flow Modeling for Chemical Reactor En-
gineering, Academic Press, San Diego, CA 2002.
[26] W. R. Marshall, Chem. Eng. Prog. Monogr. Ser. 1954, 2, 87, AIChE pub-
lications.
[27] R. Taylor, R. Krishna, Multicomponent Mass Transfer, John Wiley &
Sons, New York 1993.
[28] R. Krishna, M. I. Urseanu, J. M. van Baten, J. Ellenberger, Chem. Eng.
Sci. 1999b, 54, 171.
[29] D. L. Bennett, R. Agrawal, P. J. Cook, AIChE J. 1983, 29, 434.
[30] R. Higbie, Trans. AIChE 1935, 31, 365.
[31] G. A. Hughmark, AIChE 1971, 17, 1295.
[32] G. X. Chen, K. T. Chuang, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1993, 32, 701.
[33] CFX User Manual, Ansys, Inc. Modeling, CFX 5.7: solver.
[34] M. J. Lockett, I. S. Ahmed, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 1983, 61, 110.
[35] S. R. M. Ellis, J. T. Shelton, Int. Chem. Eng. Symp. Ser. 1960, 6, 171.
http://www.cet-journal.com 335