Distillation
Effects of Design on
Tray Efficiency in
Commercial Towers
Henry Z. Kister
Fluor Corp. When designing a new distillation column
or revamping an existing one,
it is important to understand
the factors that affect overall tray efficiency.
D
espite decades of work on tray efficiency, it is still
unclear which design variables affect tray efficien-
cies of commercial columns and to what extent.
Many of the efficiency studies have been contradictory,
and others relied on data derived from laboratory-scale
towers that do not extend to commercial towers. Based on
much experience gathered in the industry over the years,
and a large amount of commercial-scale data recently
released by Fractionation Research Inc. (FRI), it is now
possible to get a clearer picture of the factors that affect
overall tray efficiency.
Previous work showed that errors in vapor-liquid equi-
librium (VLE) data and reflux ratio measurements can have
a major effect on tray efficiency calculations. Past work also
showed that overall tray efficiency increases with lower vis-
cosities and relative volatilities. This article presents an
analysis of FRI data and quantitatively defines the effects of
tower geometry flow path length, fractional hole area,
hole diameter, and weir height on overall tray efficiency
in commercial-scale fractionators.
The pitfalls of obtaining
tray efficiency from test data
Overall column efficiency. The overall column (or
overall tray) efficiency, EOC, is the ratio of the number of
theoretical stages required for the separation (not counting
the reboiler(s) and condenser(s)) to the number of trays in
the tower. Since tray efficiencies may vary from one tower
section to another, the overall column efficiency concept is
often applied separately to the stripping section and the rec-
tifying section. It is easy to apply, and generally provides a
good characterization of tray efficiencies in commercial
towers. This concept is, therefore, preferred by most indus-
trial practitioners. Alternative definitions of tray efficiency
are more often employed to relate tray efficiency to mass-
transfer fundamentals, as discussed by Lockett (1).
Overall column efficiency is normally obtained from
test data by matching a stage-to-stage calculation, usually
by means of a commercial tower simulation, to test data.
Based on the measured mass and component balances,
boilup, reflux, temperatures, pressures and compositions,
the number of stages in the calculation is varied until the
closest match to data is obtained. Good practices for
obtaining reliable test data and for correctly deriving
overall column efficiencies from them are discussed in
Refs. 2 and 3.
Reliability of field and test data. Deriving reliable data
from industrial operating towers is difficult (24); flowme-
ter and analyzer errors present some of the biggest chal-
lenges (4). Tabulations of measured efficiency data obtained
from operating columns are available (e.g., Ref. 5), but their
limitations and reliability are not always well-defined.
An excellent source of commercial-scale test data is
measurements by FRI. For many years, only limited FRI
data have been published in the open literature, but recently
much more data have been released (68). The FRI tests
were conducted in a research facility that permitted close
monitoring, using standard test systems whose physical
properties are well-known. This arrangement overcomes
many of the limitations encountered in the testing of operat-
ing plant towers. Most of the data discussed here was
obtained by FRI.
CEP June 2008 www.aiche.org/cep 39
Distillation
% Error in
Efficiency
= 1.1
50
= 1.2
40
= 1.5
30
= 2.0 20
% Error in
10 Relative Volatility
= 3.0 2 4 6 8
10 8 6 4 2 = 3.0
10
20
30
40
50
Figure 1. Direct effects of errors in relative volatility on tray
efficiency are often not fully appreciated. Reprinted with permis-
sion from Ref. 9, Copyright 1992, McGraw-Hill Companies.
Accuracy of VLE correlations. Errors in the VLE rela-
tionships are the result of inaccuracies in VLE test data, and
are known only within limits based on the source of the
VLE information. This gives rise to uncertainty in both the
VLE data and the resulting stage-to-stage calculations.
Errors in relative volatility are the most under-appreciat-
ed factor affecting tray efficiency. Figure 1 shows the direct
effect of such errors (911). At very low relative volatilities
( < 1.2), small errors in VLE data have a huge impact on
tray efficiency. For instance, at = 1.1, a 3% error gives a
tray efficiency 4050% higher than its true value. Since the
accuracy of VLE data is seldom better than 23%, in low-
volatility systems tray efficiencies become meaningless
unless accompanied by VLE data. Likewise, comparing
efficiencies for a low-volatility system derived by different
sources is misleading unless they use identical VLE data.
This applies to both trayed and packed towers.
Figure 1 also reveals that errors in relative volatility are a
problem only at low relative volatilities. For > 1.5 to 2.0,
VLE errors have small direct impact on tray efficiency.
Most efficiency test data reported in the literature were
obtained at total reflux. This is true of most of FRIs pub-
lished data as well as most of the other data derived from
test columns. The total-reflux test mode is often preferred,
because measurements under total reflux do not suffer from
compounding of inaccuracies due to finite reflux ratios (the
indirect VLE effects, Figure 2), nor do they suffer from
inaccuracies in mass and energy balances. Reflux ratio has
40 www.aiche.org/cep June 2008 CEP
true
50
48
apparent < true
Number of Theoretical Stages
40
30
24
20
10
Nmin
10 R = 80 (~1.2 Rmin)
Rmin Same Reflux
= 2.0 R = 80
= 1.5 0
50 100 150 200
= 1.2
Reflux, Molar Units
= 1.1 Figure 2. In this case, a relatively small VLE error resulted in an
apparent calculated efficiency much higher than the true efficiency.
been reported to have a small effect on tray efficiency (12).
For measurements at finite reflux ratios, the direct effect
of errors in relative volatility () on tray efficiency (depicted
in Figure 1) are compounded by an interaction with the
reflux ratio (R). Consider the case where apparent < true and
test data at a finite reflux are analyzed to calculate tray effi-
ciency. Due to the volatility difference, Rmin,apparent > Rmin,true.
Since the test was conducted at a fixed reflux flowrate,
(R/Rmin)apparent < (R/Rmin)true. A calculation based on the
apparent R/Rmin will yield more theoretical stages than a cal-
culation based on the true R/Rmin, and therefore, a higher
apparent efficiency than the true value. In the case illustrated
in Figure 2, the calculated efficiency was double the true
value due to a relatively small error in VLE.
The indirect effects added to the direct effects of Figure
1 widen the gap between the true efficiency and the appar-
ent efficiency. The indirect effects escalate exponentially as
minimum reflux is approached. Near minimum reflux, even
small errors in R/Rmin induce huge errors in the number of
stages and, therefore, in tray efficiency. Thus, efficiency
data obtained near minimum reflux are meaningless and
potentially misleading.
Accuracy of mass balances and reflux measurements.
Errors in mass balance or reflux measurements affect the
efficiencies derived from test data at finite reflux. This
includes errors in the physical properties (such as densities
and latent heats) that convert external tower mass-flow
measurements into the internal molar flows used in the sim-
ulation. When the measured apparent molar reflux ratio is
less than the true reflux ratio, a calculation based on the
measured reflux ratio will give a higher apparent efficiency
than the true efficiency. As with the indirect VLE effects, the
 160
120 Isobutanen-butane
165 psia
Overall Tray Efficiency, %
Cyclohexanen-heptane
24 psia
80
Cyclohexanen-heptane
5 psia
40
0
0 20 40 60 80
Percent of Flood
Figure 3. Uniform-efficiency plateaus demonstrate that vapor
and liquid loads have little impact on efficiency in the normal
operating range (between excessive weeping and excessive
entrainment). Also shown is the small increase in efficiency with
pressure. FRI data, total reflux, DT = 1.2 m, S = 610 mm,
hw = 50.8 mm, dH = 12.7 mm. Reprinted with permission
from Ref. 13, Copyright 1982, American Chemical Society.
effects of errors in mass balance or reflux measurements on
tray efficiency escalate exponentially as minimum reflux is
approached. In this regard, too, efficiency data obtained near
minimum reflux are meaningless and potentially misleading.
Uniform-efficiency plateaus
in tray efficiency vs. loads plots
Figure 3 is a plot of overall tray efficiencies vs. percent of
flood for three test systems (13) at total reflux. The percent
of flood increases with higher vapor and liquid loads. Figure
3 shows that vapor and liquid loads have a small effect on
overall tray efficiency, as long as no capacity or hydraulic
limits (flood, weep, channeling etc.) are encountered.
The uniform-efficiency plateau on each curve of Figure
3 indicates the range of operation where neither capacity
nor hydraulic limits exist. The fall-off in efficiency at low
percent of flood is due to weeping, and that at high percent
of flood is due to entrainment as flooding is approached.
References 6 and 7 present a multitude of similar plots of
overall tray efficiency vs. load, all of which exhibit efficien-
cy plateaus similar to those of Figure 3. Most of the efficien-
cy test data in Ref. 8 exhibit similar efficiency plateaus when
plotted against percent of flood at total reflux.
Thus, for a given test system and tray geometry, a uni-
form-efficiency plateau exists. This plateau is a function of
Nomenclature
Af = fractional hole area, %
CS = superficial capacity factor (Eq. 1), m/s
DC = downcomer
dH = hole diameter, mm
DT = tower diameter, m
EOC = overall column efficiency, %
FPL = flow path length, mm
hW = outlet weir height, mm
N = number of theoretical stages
R = reflux, kg-mole/h
S = tray spacing, mm
u = vapor velocity, based on a superficial area, m/s
Greek Letters
= relative volatility
= viscosity, cP
= density, kg/m3
Subscripts
100 G = gas
L = liquid
min = minimum
the tray geometry and test system, and (in the absence of
hydraulic limits) is independent of vapor and liquid loads.
This uniform-efficiency plateau is a measure of the efficien-
cy of the system and tray geometry.
This uniform-efficiency plateau concept is applied here to
evaluate the effects of tray geometry on tray efficiency. Test
data reported by FRI and others are averaged into a single
smoothed value for each uniform-efficiency plateau. These
smoothed tray efficiencies then provide comparative informa-
tion on the effects of various geometrical variables. For
instance, the plateaus in Figure 3 indicate efficiencies of 110%
for isobutanen-butane, 82% for cyclohexanen-heptane at
1.65 bar (24 psia), and 71% for cyclohexanen-heptane at
0.3 bar (5 psia).
Effects of tray geometry on efficiency
The literature contains numerous investigations and dis-
cussions on the effects of tray geometry on overall column
efficiency. References 1, 5 and 9 report the current state of
the art. Despite the extensive past work, an understanding
of the effects of tray geometry on efficiency in commercial
columns remains elusive. Evaluating the recently released
FRI data together with the uniform-efficiency plateau con-
cept provides a clearer picture of the effects of tray geome-
try on the overall efficiency of commercial columns.
Most of the FRI data used here were for sieve trays. The
other data, for conventional valve trays (both moving-valve
and fixed-valve trays), appear to be comparable to the sieve
tray data. As noted elsewhere (1, 5, 9), other than with
regard to weeping behavior, sieve and valve trays are com-
parable, and a relationship applying to one type readily
extends to the other. Thus, the discussion presented here
CEP June 2008 www.aiche.org/cep 41
Distillation

(a) should apply to both as well. All FRI sieve-tray data dis-
140 cussed here were obtained for 1.7-mm-thick trays with the
120
rough edge of the holes facing the vapor flow.
Fractional hole area. FRIs tests in commercial-scale
100 towers (6, 13) show an increase in tray efficiency when
Tray Efficiency, %

80 the fractional hole area is decreased. However, there is

much uncertainty about the extent of this effect.
60 5% Figure 4 (6) plots overall tray efficiency against the
8% superficial capacity factor, CS, which is defined as:
40
14%
20 20%
G
CS = u (1)
0
0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 L G
Capacity Factor, Cs, m/s

where u is the vapor velocity (m/s) based on the tower

(b)
120
superficial area, is density (kg/m3), and the subscripts G
and L denote gas and liquid, respectively. Figure 4 shows
100 large variations in the effect of hole area on tray efficiency
among the various test systems.
Tray Efficiency, %

80
When the fractional hole area increased from 5% to 8%,
60
the high-pressure butane system (Figure 4a) experienced a
small increase in efficiency, the atmospheric
40 5% cyclohexanen-heptane system (Figure 4b) experienced lit-
8%
tle change in efficiency, and the vacuum cyclohexanen-
14%
20 heptane system (Figure 4c) experienced a significant reduc-
20%
0
tion in efficiency. Going from a fractional hole area of 8%
0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 to 14% resulted in tray efficiency reductions in all test sys-
Capacity Factor, Cs, m/s tems, ranging from 10% for isobutanen-butane to a much
larger 1520% for cyclohexanen-heptane. (These results
(c) for cyclohexanen-heptane appear significantly higher than
those reported earlier by FRI (13).) Note that the data in
100 Figure 4 for a 20% hole area are not directly comparable to
90
the others, as they were measured for 0-mm (i.e., no weir)
80 and 150-mm-tall outlet weirs, whereas the other data in
Tray Efficiency, %

70 Figure 4 were obtained for 50-mm-tall outlet weirs.

60 An important variable that may have had an unexpected
50 large effect on the comparison in Figure 4 is the tray sup-
40 port rings. In 1960, FRI replaced its leak-prone tray support
30 5% rings by leak-resistant support rings (14). The 14% hole
20 8% area data in Figure 4 were obtained with the leak-resistant
10 14% support rings for the butane system, but with the leak-prone
0 rings for the cyclohexanen-heptane system. Reference 14
0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120
demonstrated that with the 14% fractional hole areas, the
Capacity Factor, Cs, m/s
plateau efficiencies for cyclohexanen-heptane were
1020% higher for trays with the leak-resistant supports
Figure 4. Recently published plots of FRI test data show the than for similar trays tested with the previous leak-prone
effect of hole area on tray efficiency for three systems: supports. If this is factored into the data used to construct
(a) isobutanen-butane at 11.4 bar; (b) cyclohexanen-heptane at Figure 4, the difference in efficiencies between the 8% and
1.65 bar; and (c) cyclohexanen-heptane at 0.28 bar; all operated
at total reflux, with DT = 1.2 m, S = 610 mm, hw = 50.8 mm except 14% fractional hole area trays would have been about 10%
for the 20% data, and dH = 12.7 mm. Source: (6). Reprinted cour- or less for the cyclohexanen-heptane system, which is con-
tesy of FRI. sistent with FRIs earlier work (13). The measured effect of

42 www.aiche.org/cep June 2008 CEP

 120
The scatter in FRIs efficiency data permits only an
approximate evaluation of the effect of fractional hole area on
EOC, Overall Column Efficiency, %

100 tray efficiency. Figure 5 shows that the measured efficiencies

80
60
40 Sieve Valve
20
0 trays with the leak-resistant support rings. Increasing hole
0 2
Figure 5. Uniform-efficiency plateaus show the effect of hole
area on tray efficiency at total reflux, with DT = 1.2 m and 2.4 m,
S = 610 mm, hw = 50.8 mm (except for two of the three valve
trays where hw = 76.2 mm), dH = 12.7 mm (sieve trays), and
FPL = 760 mm. Source: FRI data.
the support ring reveals (14) that at large hole areas, tray
efficiencies become sensitive to tray leakage.
Figure 5 illustrates the effect of fractional hole area on
the uniform-efficiency plateaus. All sieve tray data were
obtained at total reflux for trays with 610-mm spacing,
12.7-mm holes, 50.8-mm outlet weirs, and 760-mm flow
path lengths. Previous data showed that swept-back weirs
have no appreciable effect on efficiency (15), so data for
both 940-mm-long chordal weirs and 1,320-mm-long
swept-back weirs are included in this analysis. Because
valve trays typically have hydraulic diameters of 1015 mm
(16), FRIs valve tray data are also included in Figure 5. At
about 14% hole area, all sieve tray data (except for one data
set) were obtained with the leak-prone support rings.
Isobutanen-Butane, 11.4 bar
Cyclohexanen-Heptane, 1.65 bar
Cyclohexanen-Heptane, 0.3 bar
4 6 8 10 12
Hole Area, % of Active Area
for trays with leak-resistant support rings agree closely well
with the valve tray data (the circled points in Figure 5). The
valve trays were also tested using improved leak-resistant
support rings designed by the tray manufacturers (but these
rings were not available for the early sieve tray tests). The
connecting curves on Figure 5 were drawn through the
1314% hole area efficiencies measured for sieve and valve
14 16 18 area from about 8% to about 14% reduces efficiency by
about 510%. This is much less than depicted in Figure 4.
Tray spacing. As shown in Figure 6, tray spacing has
little effect on tray efficiency plateaus for trays with a hole
area of 8%. This is expected in the absence of weeping and
entrainment. A similar conclusion can be drawn by plotting
FRIs data (8) for 14% hole area trays.
Weir height. Taller weirs raise the liquid level on the
tray in the froth and emulsion regimes. This increases inter-
facial area (17) and vapor contact time, which should theo-
retically enhance efficiency. In the spray regime, weir
height has little effect on liquid holdup (18). In distillation
systems operating in the spray regime the improvement of
tray efficiency due to taller weirs is small, often marginal.
Figure 7 is a plot of FRIs overall column efficiency
data vs. outlet weir height. The data are for sieve trays at
610-mm spacing, containing 12.7-mm holes. The solid and
120
Af = 8.4%
EOC, Overall Column Efficiency, %

Af = 13.7%

100

120 Af = 8.4%
EOC, Overall Column Efficiency, %

Af = 13.7%
100 80
Af = 8.4%
80
Af = 13.7%
60
60
Isobutanen-Butane, 11.4 bar, 8.4% Hole Area
Sieve 8.4% Hole Area 13.7% Hole Area
40 Isobutanen-Butane, 11.4 bar
40 Cyclohexanen-Heptane, 1.65 bar
Cyclohexanen-Heptane, 1.65 bar 8.4% Hole Area 13.7% Hole Area
20 Cyclohexanen-Heptane, 0.3 bar Cyclohexanen-Heptane, 0.3 bar
8.4% Hole Area 13.7% Hole Area
0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 0 50 100
Tray Spacing, mm Weir Height, mm

Figure. 6. Uniform-efficiency plateaus show the effect of tray Figure 7. Uniform-efficiency plateaus show the effect
spacing on tray efficiency at total reflux, with DT = 1.2 m, of weir height on tray efficiency at total reflux, with
Af = 8.4%, hw = 50.8 mm, dH = 12.7 mm, and FPL = 760 mm. DT = 1.2 m, S = 610 mm, Af = 8.4% and 13.7%,
Source: FRI data. dH = 12.7 mm, and FPL = 760 mm. Source: FRI data.

CEP June 2008 www.aiche.org/cep 43

Distillation
Table 1. Effect of weir height on tray efficiency.*
Overall
Column Efficiency
19-mm
Tray Weir
Sieve Tray, 70%
d = 12.7 mm, Af = 12.3%
Valve Tray, Glitsch V1 78%
Venturi Valve Tray, Glitsch V4 72%
Venturi Valve Tray, Koch T9 74%
Perforated Venturi Valve Tray, Koch T9F 77%
* Column Data: Ethylbenzene-Styrene, 100 mm Hg, total reflux,
800-mm tower, 5 trays, 500-mm tray spacing
Average efficiency values reported for tower operating at high loads
Data by Billet, et al. (1922)
dashed curves are for fractional hole areas of 8.4% and
13.7%, respectively, of the active area.
For a fractional hole area of 8.4%, weir height has little
effect on tray efficiency (Figure 7). For a fractional hole
area of 13.7%, weir heights up to 50 mm have little effect
on tray efficiency, whereas a weir height between 50 mm
and 100 mm increases efficiency for the low-pressure
cyclohexanen-heptane system, but not for the high-
pressure butane system (Figure 7).
Note that all the points plotted for fractional hole areas
of 13.7% (except for one point for the 50.8-mm weir) were
measured with the leak-prone support ring mentioned earli-
er. Thus, the trends observed for the 13.7% hole area trays
may be influenced by effects of weir height on tray leakage.
It may be that the higher froth height with the 101.6-mm
weir successfully countered the effect of tray leakage dis-
cussed earlier. The leakage effects would have been more
pronounced with the cyclohexanen-heptane system that
was operated at lower liquid flowrates.
Table 1 summarizes data (1922) for ethylbenzene-styrene
under vacuum. The fractional hole area of the column used
for these tests coincides with the higher fractional hole area
values in the FRI tests. These data reveal some efficiency
increase with increasing weir height. The effect of weir
height on efficiency appears largest for the venturi valve trays
(Glitsch V4 and Koch T9) and perforated-venturi valve tray
(Koch T9F), which generally have high leakage tendencies,
and least in the leak-resistant sharp-orifice trays (Glitsch V1
and sieve). This suggests that at high fractional hole areas
(>13%), increasing the weir heights in some cases slightly
improves tray efficiency, and possibly acts to counter the
detrimental effects of tray leakage on tray efficiency.
Hole diameter. Most sources quoted by Kister (9) and
by Sakata et al. (7) report that hole diameter has a small
effect on tray efficiency, with smaller holes tending to have
44 www.aiche.org/cep June 2008 CEP
120
EOC, Overall Column Efficiency, %
38-mm 100
Weir
72% 80
82% 60
82%
80% 40
83% Isobutanen-Butane, 11.4 bar
20 Cyclohexanen-Heptane, 1.65 bar
Cyclohexanen-Heptane, 0.3 bar
0
0 10 20 30 40
Hole Diameter, mm
Figure 8. Uniform-efficiency plateaus show the effect
of hole diameter on tray efficiency at total reflux, with
DT = 1.2 m, S = 610 mm, Af = 8.4%, hw = 50.8 mm, and
FPL = 760 mm. Source: FRI data.
slightly higher efficiencies in distillation.
Recently reported FRI data (7) show an increase in tray
efficiency on the order of 510% when hole diameter
increased from 4.8 mm to 12.7 mm. Little change in effi-
ciency resulted upon further increase to a hole diameter of
2025 mm. An increase to 67-mm holes decreased tray effi-
ciency. The data reported were for sieve trays with 610-mm
tray spacing, 50.8-mm outlet weirs and 14% fractional areas.
Figure 8 plots equivalent FRI data for the same test sys-
tems for trays with 8.4% fractional hole areas. The trends in
Figure 8 are identical to those reported by FRI (7). The effi-
ciency of trays with 12.7-mm holes was about 10% higher
than that of trays with 3.1-mm holes. Increasing the hole
diameter from 12.7 mm to 25 mm has little effect on tray
efficiency. Increasing the hole diameter further to 38.1 mm
leads to a 10% reduction in tray efficiency.
FRI did not propose an explanation for the observed
maxima in tray efficiency vs. hole diameter plots, which
appear in the range of 1025-mm hole diameters. One
explanation is that there are two competing effects: smaller
holes generate more contact area, but less turbulence. With
smaller holes, the turbulence is more important, so larger
holes improve efficiency. With larger holes, contact area
between the phases becomes limiting.
Length of liquid flow path. Longer liquid flow paths
enhance the liquid-vapor contact time and the significance
of liquid plug flow, and, therefore, raise efficiency.
Experience has shown that, typically, doubling the flow
path length (such as going from two-pass to one-pass or
from four-pass to two-pass trays at a constant tower diame-
ter) raises tray efficiency by 515%.
 120
100
EOC, Overall Column Efficiency, %
80
60
40
Cyclohexanen-Heptane, 1.65 bar
Cyclohexanen-Heptane, 0.3 bar
20
IPA-Water, 1 bar
0
250 500 750 1,000
Flow Path Length, mm
Figure 9. Uniform-efficiency plateaus show the effect of flow
path length on tray efficiency at low pressures
This experience is validated by Figures 9 and 10, which
plot FRI tray efficiency data vs. flow path length for trays
with 610-mm tray spacing, 12.7-mm holes, 50.8-mm weirs,
and 8.4% fractional hole areas. The high-pressure (11 to 28
bar) data in Figure 10 confirm an efficiency increase on the
order of 515% upon doubling the flow path length. At
lower pressures (0.3 to 1.7 bar), Figure 9 shows that with
short path lengths, the effect of doubling flow path length
on tray efficiency is even larger than previously thought,
possibly on the order of 1020%.
Liquid flow patterns on large trays. The most popular
theoretical models (1, 9) postulate that liquid crosses the
tray in plug flow with superimposed backmixing and that
the vapor is perfectly mixed. Increasing tray diameter pro-
motes liquid plug flow and suppresses liquid backmixing,
but also tends to promote vapor plug flow.
The presence of stagnant zones on large-diameter distil-
lation trays is well established (Figure 11), but the associat-
ed efficiency loss is poorly understood. In some cases, sig-
nificant efficiency losses, presumably due to stagnant zones,
were reported (23), while in other cases, no efficiency dif-
ference was observed (24). Several techniques are available
for eliminating stagnant regions (some are discussed in Ref.
9). For example, on modern high-capacity trays, it is com-
mon to see devices such as push valves (5), which blow
some of the vapor horizontally to move liquid toward the
stagnant zones. However, the efficiency gains (if any) attrib-
utable to these devices are unknown.
Maldistribution on multi-pass trays. Maldistribution
can significantly reduce efficiency in multi-pass (more than
two passes) trays. Vapor distribution between the passes is
determined by the hole area, while liquid distribution is pri-
marily a function of the weir height and length and the
140
EOC, Overall Column Efficiency, %
120
100
Isobutanen-butane
11.4 bar
80 20.7 bar
27.6 bar
1,250 1,500 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500
Flow Path Length, mm
Figure 10. and at high presures at total reflux, with DT =
1.2 m and 2.4m, S = 610 mm, Af = 8.4%, hw = 50.8 mm, and dH =
12.7 mm. Source: FRI data.
downcomer clearance. When the geometry of the passes
and feed piping is identical (typically the case in two-pass
trays), the vapor and liquid are generally well-distributed.
When the number of passes exceeds two, the panels are not
identical and maldistribution can set in.
Bolles (25) correlated the reduction in efficiency in terms
of the maldistribution ratio, (i.e., the maximum-pass L/V
ratio divided by the minimum-pass L/V ratio). The L/V ratio
for each pass is determined by applying the normal pressure
balance and hydraulic relationships to each pass. Bolles
determined that if the maldistribution ratio is kept below 1.2,
the effect of maldistribution on tray efficiency is negligible,
whereas at high maldistribution ratios, considerable reduc-
tion in tray efficiency occurs. Jaguste and Kelkar (26)
extended this model into a set of equations and provided
guidelines for balancing flows to the passes. Pilling (27)
provides practical guidelines for pass balancing, and presents
various options available for optimizing this balancing.
Effect of pressure and
physical properties on tray efficiency
Viscosity and relative volatility. Efficiency increases
as liquid viscosity and relative volatility decrease.
Viscosity is important because lower liquid viscosity
means higher liquid diffusivity, more-turbulent mass trans-
fer, thinner liquid and vapor films, and better liquid mass-
transfer coefficients (28). The viscosity effect is a key
variable in the correlations of Bradford and Drickamer
(28) and OConnell (29). The effects of liquid viscosity
and relative volatility are represented by the OConnell
correlation, which has been the industry standard for effi-
ciency prediction in commercial columns:
CEP June 2008 www.aiche.org/cep 45
Distillation
Inlet Inlet
21
19 52
17 68
15 64
14
7 89 13 9 87 68 60
12 56 76
11 72 60
10 76 64 72
Outlet a Outlet b
Figure 11. Experimentally measured residence time profiles
identify U-shaped central flow profile with wide peripheral stagnant
zones on large (2.4-m) distillation trays. Sources: (33, 34).
EOC = 0.492(L)0.245 (2)
Further theoretical validation of these parameters was provid-
ed by Chen and Chuang (30), who showed that the OConnell
correlation can be derived from theory if one assumes that dis-
tillation mass transfer is controlled by the liquid phase.
Pressure. Tray efficiency slightly increases with pressure
(Figure 3), reflecting the increase in efficiency associated
with the reductions in liquid viscosity and in relative volatili-
ty that generally accompany a distillation pressure increase.
At pressures exceeding 10 bar, especially at high liquid
flowrates, vapor entrainment into the downcomer liquid
becomes important, and tray efficiency decreases with fur-
ther increases in pressure (31). This is well-illustrated in
Figures 10 and 12 using FRI data for the isobutanen-butane
system at pressures from 11.4 bar to 27.6 bar. The decrease
in efficiency over this pressure range is on the order of
1520%. The curves in Figure 11 represent different down-
HIGHLIGHTS
ast work showed that errors in the VLE correlations have a
Pmajor effect on measured and calculated tray efficiency for low-
volatility systems and in those operated close to minimum reflux.
Efficiencies for low-volatility systems are meaningless unless
accompanied by the VLE data. Efficiency data obtained near mini-
mum reflux are also meaningless and potentially misleading.
Past work also shows that lower liquid viscosities and lower
relative volatilities improve overall tray efficiencies. As distillation
pressure increases, tray efficiency first rises due to the lower vis-
cosity and relative volatility. At pressures exceeding 10 bar, how-
ever, efficiency declines with a rise in tower pressure, probably
due to vapor recycle in the downcomers.
Our data survey found that in the absence of hydraulic limita-
tions, such as weeping, entrainment or channeling, the percent of
flood has little effect on tray efficiency. On this basis, we define the
uniform-efficiency plateau, which is the flat portion of the overall
tray efficiency vs. percent of flood plot. This uniform-efficiency
plateau is a measure of the efficiency of the system and tray
geometry in the absence of hydraulic issues, and was used to
compare test data for various systems and tray geometries.
The current survey and data analysis identified the main geo-
metric variables affecting tray efficiency:
46 www.aiche.org/cep June 2008 CEP
120
EOC, Overall Column Efficiency, %
100
80
60
40 Isobutanen-Butane
FPL = 760, 13% DC, S = 610
FPL = 610, 30%/7.5% DC, S = 610 mm
20
FPL = 610, 30%/7.5% DC, S = 914 mm
0
10 20 30
Pressure, bar abs.
Figure 12. Uniform-efficiency plateaus show the effect
of pressure (at high presures) on tray efficiency for
isobutanen-butane; all operated at total reflux, with
DT = 1.2 m, Af = 8.4%, dH = 12.7 mm, and hw = 50.8 mm.
Red curve: FPL = 760 mm, 13% (of tower cross-sectional area)
straight downcomer, S = 610 mm.
Green curve: FPL = 610 mm, sloped (30% top/7.5% bottom)
downcomer, S = 610 mm.
Blue curve: FPL = 610 mm, sloped (30% top/7.5% bottom)
downcomer, S = 914 mm. Source: FRI data.
comer geometries and different tray spacings. The efficiency
decrease is of the same order for the different geometries.
Surface tension. The literature contains extensive dis-
cussion regarding the effect of surface tension on tray effi-
ciency, but no consensus has been reached. More-detailed
discussions are available elsewhere (1, 9, 32). Often, several
physical properties vary from one test system to another, so
it is difficult to divorce the surface tension effects from
those of other physical properties. CEP
Flow path length is the primary geometric factor affecting
tray efficiency. Increasing the number of passes from one to two
or from two to four can reduce tray efficiency by as much as
1020% at lower pressures (0.3 to 1.7 bar) and by 515% at
higher pressures (1128 bar).
Increasing the fractional hole area on trays from 5% to 8%
of the active area has a minor effect on tray efficiency, but a fur-
ther increase to 14% reduces tray efficiency by 510%. At the
larger hole areas, there may also be an increased sensitivity to
leakage at the support rings.
Changes in tray spacing have a minor effect on tray efficiency.
As hole diameter increases from 3 mm to 13 mm, tray
efficiency increases by 510%. At diameters between 13 mm and
25 mm, tray efficiency remains constant. Further increases in hole
diameter cause the tray efficiency to decline.
At fractional hole areas of 8-9%, taller weirs have a minor
effect on tray efficiency. At hole areas around 14%, taller weirs
may slightly enhance efficiency.
Experience and recent literature show that maldistribution
in multi-pass trays may lead to further major reductions in tray
efficiency.
 Literature Cited
1. Lockett, M. J., Distillation Tray Fundamentals, Cambridge
Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K. (1986).
2. AIChE Equipment Testing Procedures Committee,
AIChE Equipment Testing Procedure Tray Distillation
Columns, 2nd. ed., AIChE, New York, NY (1987).
3. Kister, H. Z., Distillation Operation, McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY (1990).
4. Kister, H. Z., Can We Believe the Simulation Results?,
Chem. Eng. Progress, 98 (10), pp. 5258 (Oct. 2002).
5. Perry, R. H., and D. Green, Chemical Engineers
Handbook, 8th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (2008).
6. Shariat, A., M. Sakata, T. Yanagi, T. J. Kai, and G. X.
Chen, The Effect of Open Area on Sieve Tray
Performance, in Distillation 2007: Topical Conference
Proceedings, AIChE Spring National Meeting, Houston, TX,
pp. 367390 (Apr. 2226, 2007).
7. Sakata, M., T. Yanagi, D. W. King, T. J. Kai, and G. X.
Chen, The Effect of Hole Size on Sieve Tray Performance,
in Distillation 2007: Topical Conference Proceedings,
AIChE Spring National Meeting, Houston, TX, pp. 319346
(Apr. 2226, 2007).
8. Fractionation Research, Inc., Research Progress Reports
for Jan., Feb., Mar., Aug., Sept., Nov. 1957; Jan., Mar., July,
Oct. 1958; Jan., July, Dec. 1959; Aug., Sept., Dec. 1960;
June, July 1961; Mar., July, Aug. 1962; May, Oct. 1963; Mar.,
July 1964; Mar., Apr., July 1965; Jan., Feb., June, July 1966;
Aug. 1968; Feb., July, Sept., Dec. 1969, and Topical
Reports 10 (Aug. 1956), 15 (Sept. 1958), 19 (Sept. 1959), 31
(July 1964), and 41 (Nov. 1967), FRI, Stillwater, OK, avail-
able on request from Oklahoma State Univ. archives,
Stillwater, OK.
9. Kister, H. Z., Distillation Design, McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY (1992).
10. Deibele, L., and H. W. Brandt, Fehlerbetrachtung bei der
Messung der theoretischen Bodenzahl von Destillations-
kolonnen, Chem. Ing. Tech., 57 (5), pp. 439442 (1985).
11. Roy, P., and G. K. Hobson, The Selection and Use of VLE
Methods and Data, Inst. Chem. E. Symp. Series, 104, pp.
A273A290 (Sept. 1987).
12. Van Winkle, M., Distillation, McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY (1967).
13. Yanagi, T., and M. Sakata, Performance of a Commercial-
Scale 14% Hole Area Sieve Tray, Ind. Eng. Chem. Proc.
Des. Dev., 21, pp. 712717 (1982).
14. Silvey, F. C., and T. Yanagi, Fractionation Research, Inc.
Progress Report for Dec. 1960, FRI, Stillwater, OK, avail-
able on request from Oklahoma State Univ. archives,
Stillwater, OK.
15. Keller, G. J., and F. W. Winn, Fractionation Research, Inc.,
Progress Report for Sept. 1957, FRI, Stillwater, OK, avail-
able on request from Oklahoma State Univ. archives,
Stillwater, OK.
HENRY Z. KISTER is a Fluor Corp. senior fellow and director of fractionation
technology at Fluor Corp. (Phone: (949) 349-4679, E-mail:
henry.kister@fluor.com). He has over 30 years of experience in design,
troubleshooting, revamping, field consulting, control and startup of
fractionation processes and equipment. He is the author of three books,
the distillation equipment chapter in Perrys Handbook, and more than 80
articles, and has taught the IChemE-sponsored Practical Distillation
Technology course more than 300 times. A recipient of several awards,
Kister obtained his BE and ME degrees from the Univ. of New South Wales
in Australia. He is a Fellow of IChemE and AIChE, and serves on the FRI
Technical Advisory and Design Practices Committees.
16. Kister, H. Z., and J. R. Haas, Predict Entrainment Flooding
on Sieve and Valve Trays, Chem. Eng. Progress, 86 (9), pp.
6369 (Sept. 1990).
17. Calderbank, P. H., and J. Pereira, Chem. Eng. Sci., 32,
pp. 1427 (1977).
18. Pinczewski, W. V., and C. J. D. Fell, Froth to Spray
Transition on Sieve Trays, Ind. Eng. Chem. Proc. Des. Dev.,
21 (4), pp. 774776 (1982).
19. Billet, R., Distillation Engineering, Chemical Publishing
Co., New York, NY (1979).
20. Billet, R., S. Conrad, and C. M. Grubb, Some Aspects of
the Choice of Distillation Equipment, I. Chem. E. Symp.
Series, 32, pp. 5:1115:126 (Sept. 810, 1969).
21. Billet, R., Development and Progress in the Design and
Performance of Valve Trays, Brit. Chem. Eng., 14 (4), pp.
489493 (1969).
22. Raichle, L., and R. Billet, Trennwirkung, Belastbarkeit, und
Druckvelust von Thormann Austauschboden, Chem. Ing.
Tech., 35 (12), pp. 831836 (1963).
23. Smith, V. C., and W. V. Delnicki, Optimum Sieve Tray
Design, Chem. Eng. Progress, 71 (8), pp. 6873 (Aug.1975).
24. T. Yanagi and B. D. Scott, Effect of Liquid Mixing on Sieve
Trays, Chem. Eng. Progress, 69 (10), pp. 7576 (Oct. 1973).
25. Bolles, W. L., Multipass Flow Distribution and Mass
Transfer Efficiency for Distillation Plates, AIChE J., 22 (1),
pp. 153158 (Jan. 1976).
26. Jaguste, S. D., and J. V. Kelkar, Optimize Separation
Efficiency for Multi-Pass Trays, Hydrocarbon Processing,
85 (3), pp. 8590 (Mar. 2006).
27. Pilling, M., Ensure Proper Design and Operation of Multi-Pass
Trays, Chem. Eng. Progress, 101 (6), pp. 2227 (June 2005).
28. Drickamer, H. G., and J. R. Bradford, Overall Plate
Efficiency of Commercial Hydrocarbon Fractionating
Columns as a Function of Viscosity, Trans. AIChE, 39, pp.
319360 (1943).
29. OConnell, H. E., Plate Efficiency of Fractionating
Columns, Trans. AIChE, 42, pp.741755 (1946).
30. Chen, G. X., Liquid Phase Resistance to Mass Transfer on
Distillation Trays, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 34 (9), pp.
30783082 (1995).
31. Zuiderweg, F. J., Influence of the Two-Phase Flow Regimes
on the Separation Performance of Sieve Plates, Int. Chem.
Eng., 26 (1), pp. 110 (Jan. 1986).
32. Chen, G. X., A. Afcan, and K. T. Chuang, Effect of
Surface Tension on Tray Point Efficiency, Can. J. Chem.
Eng., 72, pp. 614621 (Aug. 1994).
33. Bell, R. L., Residence Time and Fluid Mixing on
Commercial-Scale Sieve Trays, AIChE Journal, 18 (3), pp.
498505 (May 1972).
34. Yanagi, T., and B. Scott, Effect of Liquid Mixing on
Commercial-Scale Sieve Tray Efficiency, paper presented at
the AIChE National Meeting, New Orleans, LA (Mar. 1973).
Acknowledgment
The author is grateful to Fluors Walter Stupin and Matthew Olsson and
to consultant (and former FRI expert) Tak Yanagi for reviewing this work
and for useful discussions and insights into the data interpretation and
analysis. Many of their ideas are reflected in this article.
This article is based on the paper, Impact of Tray Design on Overall Tray
Efficiency, by H. Z. Kizter, presented at the Distillation 2008 Topical
Conference, AIChE Spring National Meeting, New Orleans, LA,
Apr. 610, 2008.
CEP June 2008 www.aiche.org/cep 47