This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]

On: 15 October 2014, At: 17:58

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK

Chemical Engineering
Communications
Publication details, including instructions
for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcec20

Hydraulics and efficiency

of screen trays for
distillation
A. Afacan , G. X. Chen , N. Yang & K. T.
Chuang
Published online: 09 Sep 2010.

To cite this article: A. Afacan , G. X. Chen , N. Yang & K. T. Chuang

(2002) Hydraulics and efficiency of screen trays for distillation, Chemical
Engineering Communications, 189:1, 41-60, DOI: 10.1080/00986440211828

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00986440211828

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of

all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications
on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our
licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are
the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or
endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should
not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary
sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,
damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused
arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
 This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in
any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of
access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/
terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 17:58 15 October 2014
 Chem. Eng. Comm ., 2002, Vol. 189(1), pp. 41±60
Reprints available directly from the publisher
Photocopying permitted by license only

HYDRAULICS AND EFFICIENCY

OF SCREEN TRAYS
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 17:58 15 October 2014

FOR DISTILLATION

A. AFACAN, G. X. CHEN, N. YANG and K. T. CHUANG*

Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

(Received 3 June 1999; In ®nal form 7 November 2000)

Screen trays are proprietary devices similar to sieve trays which are used in distillation and
absorption applications. The pressure drop, liquid holdup and entrainment are measured for
screen trays in an air/water column and compared to results obtained with sieve trays. The
eciencies of both types of trays were compared in a distillation column using systems of
various physical properties (methanol/water, acetic acid/water and cyclohexane/n-heptane
mixtures). It was found that the screen tray has a lower dry pressure drop, higher liquid holdup,
lower entrainment and weeping, and higher jet ¯ooding capacity than the sieve tray. However,
the eciencies of both trays are similar for the systems studied.
A model was developed for predicting total pressure drop for screen trays using an air/water
column. The model was tested using results for methanol/water, cyclohexane/n-heptane and
acetic acid/water systems at total re¯ux. The deviations are within 6 20% for 90% of the data
points.
The e€ect of a bed of mesh packing on the screen tray was also studied. It was found that the
packing led to a higher tray eciency, but resulted in a higher tray pressure drop.
Keywords: Screen tray; Packed screen tray; Re¯ux; Pressure drop; Liquid holdup

INTRODUCTION

Sieve trays are an important contacting device used in distillation and

absorption columns. Since 1950, extensive research has been carried out to
understand and improve the tray performance. The capacity of the sieve
tray is frequently limited by the onset of entrainment or jet ¯ooding if the
downcomer is properly sized. Excessive entrainment also adversely a€ects
the tray eciency. When entrainment exceeds about 5% of the liquid
¯owrate, remedial steps have to be taken at the design stage (Lockett, 1986).
*Corresponding author. Tel.: 780-492-4676, Fax: 780-492-2881, e-mail: karlt.chuang@
ualberta.ca
41
 42 A. AFACAN et al.
One of the steps includes the reduction of hole diameter, which was found to
increase capacity appreciably (Lemieux and Scotti, 1969). The application of
sieve trays are limited by the expense of manufacturing trays with holes
smaller than 2mm and the diculty in avoiding clogging of small holes. To
overcome these diculties, a di€erent kind of tray, screen tray, was
developed by Glitsch Inc. The screen tray is constructed from closely spaced
rods of trapezoidal cross section. It was suggested that venturi-shaped
throats between the rods should reduce tray pressure drop. The screen tray
can operate in the froth regime over a wide range of operating conditions
and therefore has a lower entrainment and higher jet ¯ooding capacity. A
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 17:58 15 October 2014

comprehensive study of the screen tray performance can contribute

signi®cantly to the distillation technology.
Previous studies on the performance of sieve trays with a bed of mesh
packing (Chen et al., 1990; Chen et al., 1992 and Xu et al., 1995) showed
that the mesh packing can increase the sieve tray jet ¯ooding capacity and
eciency. Therefore, it is interesting to determine the performance of screen
trays and compare it with that of sieve trays for the same open hole and
bubbling area under similar operating conditions.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES

Test Trays

Two screen trays made by Glitsch and two conventional sieve trays were
tested in this study. Two di€erent open hole areas, 6.46% and 10.8% were
used. The same open hole area for both trays were obtained by matching
sieve tray open hole area to screen tray open hole area. The dimensions of
these trays and columns are given in Tables I and II. A bed of metal mesh
packing (York Demister Style 431) was installed to study the e€ect of
packing on the tray performance. Photographs of the trays with and without
mesh packing are shown in Figure 1.
Air/Water Column

The hydraulic performance, including dry pressure, total pressure drop,

liquid holdup and entrainment of the two kinds of trays, with and without
a bed of mesh packing were measured in a 300mm diameter PlexiglasTM
air/water column. The schematic diagram of the air/water column is shown
in Figure 2. Pressure taps were placed above and below the test tray (the
middle tray) to measure the dry and total tray pressure drops by a pressure
di€erential cell (DP/Cell). The clear liquid heights were measured by a
sample tap mounted ¯ush with the tray ¯oor situated at the centre of the
tray (Smith, 1963; Lockett, 1986). The tap was connected to an external
DP/Cell. The froth heights on the trays were obtained from visual
 HYDRAULICS AND EFFICIENCY OF SCREEN TRAY 43
TABLE I Detail dimensions of the test trays for distillation column
Sieve tray Screen tray
Tray diameter,2m 0.153 0.153
Active area, m 0.014 0.014
Open hole area, m2 0.00086 0.00086
Outlet weir height, m 0.063 0.063
Weir length, m 0.114 0.1104
Tray spacing, m 0.318 0.318
Tray thickness, mm 2.5 3.30
Hole diameter, mm 4.76 ±
Width of slots, mm ± 0.44
Hole area/Active area, % 6.1 6.1
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 17:58 15 October 2014

TABLE II Detail dimensions of the test trays for air/water column

Sieve tray Screen tray
Tray diameter,2m 0.293 0.293
Active area, m 0.537 0.0537
Weir length, m 0.210 0.210
Outlet weir height, m 0.063 0.063
Liquid path length, m 0.192 0.192
Hole diameter, mm 4.76 ±
Tray spacing, m 0.318 0.318
Tray thickness, mm 2.5 3.30
Width of slots, mm ± 0.44
Hole area/Active area, % 6.46±10.8 6.46±10.8

FIGURE 1 A photographic view of the screen and sieve trays with and without packing and
schematic diagram of screen tray with detail dimensions.
observations. The top tray was used to collect the entrainment, which was
measured by recording the time elapsed to ®ll a container. The top tray was
covered with 30mm layer of mist eliminator mesh to ensure that entrained
 44 A. AFACAN et al.
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 17:58 15 October 2014

FIGURE 2 Schematic diagram of experimental set-up for Hydraulic studies.

water was not carried out of the column. The bottom tray was designed as
an air distributor and weeping collector. The air ¯ow rate was measured
by using an anemometer. The water was supplied by a recirculating pump
and its ¯ow rate was measured by a calibrated ori®ce meter.
Distillation Column

A detailed description of the distillation column and operational pro-

cedures has been given previously (Chen et al., 1990). The column was
operated at total re¯ux under ambient pressure with three binary systems:
methanol/water, acetic acid/water and cyclohexane/n-heptane. The screen
and sieve trays with the same open hole area of 6.1% (based on bubbling
area) were used in the distillation column. The dimensions of the column
and trays are shown in Table I.
Murphree tray eciency was determined from liquid samples taken at
the inlet and outlet of the test tray. Because the column was operated at
total re¯ux, L ˆ G, yn ˆ xn 1, yn 1 ˆ xn, the vapor-phase Murphree tray
eciency, Emv, can be calculated by
‡ ÿ

EMV ˆ xyn n 1ÿÿxxn n

‡
3
…1†
 HYDRAULICS AND EFFICIENCY OF SCREEN TRAY 45
where xn 1 and xn are the liquid-phase mole fractions of the more volatile
component at the tray inlet and outlet, and yn is the vapor-phase mole
‡
3

fraction of the more volatile component in equilibrium with the liquid

leaving the tray.
To avoid the mass transfer contribution from the downcomer between the
trays, the outlet liquid samples were taken at the outlet weir before the liquid
enters the downcomer.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 17:58 15 October 2014

Screen Tray Hydraulics

The total pressure drop across the tray is often given by the sum of the dry
tray pressure drop and the pressure drop through the liquid on the tray. In
the latter case, it consists of liquid holdup on the tray and the pressure drop
required to overcome the surface tension during the formation of bubbles.
The total tray pressure drop is expressed in terms of height of clear liquid on
the tray by the following:
hT ˆ hD ‡ hL ‡ h …2†

Several tests were conducted in the air/water column to measure the dry,
total pressure drops, liquid holdup and entrainment for two di€erent hole
areas of sieve and screen trays. The measured dry pressure drops for these
two trays are shown in Figures 3a and 3b as function of vapor rate,
expressed in the F-factor. It can be seen that the dry tray pressure drop for
screen trays are about half of that for the sieve trays with identical open
hole area. This occurs because the venturi-shaped openings between the
rods of screen trays have a lower energy loss than the holes on the thin
sieve trays. The slopes of the lines shown in Figures 3a and 3b are similar
for both sieve and screen trays, which is consistent with hydrodynamic
theories.
The dry tray pressure drop for sieve trays is typically represented by an
ori®ce type equation (Locket, 1986):
1  V2
hD ˆ 2 V H …3†
2CV gL
where CV is the ori®ce coecient, which is mainly a function of hole
Reynolds number, and plate geometry, which includes fractional hole area
and the ratio of tray thickness to hole diameter. If screen tray was regarded
as a special type of sieve tray, the ori®ce coecient, CV, for screen trays
could be obtained using Eq. (3) with measured dry tray pressure drop
values. Figure 4 show the calculated CV values of screen tray as function of
 46 A. AFACAN et al.
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 17:58 15 October 2014

FIGURE 3a Dry pressure drop of sieve and screen trays with 6.46% open hole area as a
function of the F-factor.

FIGURE 3b Dry pressure drop of sieve and screen trays with 10.8% open hole area as a
function of the F-factor.
Reynolds number for two open hole areas. It is obvious that the discharge
coecient of screen tray for both hole areas are similar and remain constant
over the operating range of Reynolds number. It can be seen in Figure 4 that
the value of the discharge coecient for both two open hole area of screen
trays is 1.31. Screen trays have been marketed as low pressure drop trays.
The CV value of 1.31 is responsible for its low pressure drops. The CV value
 HYDRAULICS AND EFFICIENCY OF SCREEN TRAY 47
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 17:58 15 October 2014

FIGURE 4 Calculated ori®ce coecients of screen try as function of Reynolds number for
two di€erent open hole areas (6.46 and 10.8%).
for a sieve tray (circular holes) is 0.7. It is not unusual to have a higher CV
value. For example, the slotted tray (called turbo grid trays) have a CV value
of 1.14 (Majeweski, 1959 and Raylek and Standart, 1965). Substituting
CV ˆ 1.31 into Eq. (3) one can obtain:
 V2
hD ˆ 0:291 V H …4†
L g
The calculated dry tray pressure drop of screen trays were also shown in
Figures 3a and 3b. It appears that Eq. (4) can well predict the dry tray
pressure drop of screen trays for both hole areas.
Figure 5 shows the measured clear liquid heights at three di€erent liquid
loadings of 8.686-05, 1.35-04 and 1.59-04m3/s and two hole areas of screen
tray. It can be seen that the measured liquid height strongly depends on the
F-factor but weakly on the liquid loadings and tray hole area. In predicting
the clear liquid height on sieve trays most correlations are based on the
Francis equation (Kister, 1992; Lockett, 1986). One such correlation (Plaice
et al., 1989), a modi®ed Francis equation, has been con®rmed with
experimental data from a pilot and industrial scale columns (diameters of
0.3 and 8.2m). It is given in the following form:
 Q 

hL ˆ C 1 hw ‡ L …5†
W
where is the froth density, QL is the volumetric liquid ¯owrate, hw is the
weir height and W is the weir length. The froth density, , for screen tray
 48 A. AFACAN et al.
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 17:58 15 October 2014

FIGURE 5 Measured clear liquid heights as a function of the F-factor at three di€erent liquid
loadings and open hole areas (6.46 and 10.8%).
was obtained from clear liquid and froth height measurements and was
correlated as a function of gas rate (Foss and Gerster, 1956).
p
ˆ 0:156 ÿ 0:04Va V …6†

The constant and the exponent in the Eq. (5) were obtained by a best ®t
method, comparing calculated values of clear liquid height against measured
values. A total of 60 data points from three liquid rates and two hole areas
were used in the parameter estimation. The parameters were found to be
C1 ˆ 0.756 and  ˆ 0.471. With these parameters, Eq. (5) can predict the
measured clear liquid height, hL for screen trays within 6 10% (see Figs. 8a
and 8b).
The residual pressure drop, h, due to surface tension is small compared
to the total tray pressure drop and it is usually negligible for sieve trays with
hole sizes bigger than 6mm. However, for sieve trays with small holes or
screen trays with narrow slots the contribution of residual pressure drop
could be substantial. Most studies (Sterback, 1967; Standart and Rylek,
1965; Selix, 1962) recommend the following equation for evaluating the
residual pressure drop:
h ˆ
4 …7†
g L dh
Equation (7) is based on a simple force balance on the surface tension at the
circumference of the ori®ce. Bennett et al. (1983) have found that Eq. (7)
gives overestimation of their experimental residual pressure drop when small
 HYDRAULICS AND EFFICIENCY OF SCREEN TRAY 49
holes were used. They developed the following equation for calculating the
residual pressure drop.
h ˆ
6 …8†
gL dB max
where
 d  1=3
dB max ˆ 1:27 h
…9†
g…L ÿ V †
Equation (8) was found to agree well with their experimental data for sieve
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 17:58 15 October 2014

trays with 1mm and 3mm hole diameters. In the present study, Eqs. (8) and
(9) were used to predict the residual pressure drop. The hole diameter, dh in
Eq. (9) was replaced by an equivalent hydraulic diameter, de, which is equal
to four times the cross sectional area divided by the length of the perimeter
and is de®ned as:
4ab …10†
de ˆ
2… a ‡ b†
where ``a'' is the width and ``b'' is the length of the screen tray. Since b  a,
the equivalent hydraulic diameter, de, in Eq. (10) reduces to 2a.
Figure 6 shows the comparison of the measured values of total tray
pressure drop for screen tray with those predicted from Eqs. (2), (4), (5), (8)
and (9) for air/water system. The proposed model can predict the total tray
pressure drop for screen tray within 6 8% of 60 data points. The proposed
model is validated by distillation tests in a 153mm diameter column with

FIGURE 6 Comparison of measured values of total tray pressure drop for screen tray and
those predicted proposed model.
 50 A. AFACAN et al.
methanol/water, cyclohexane/n-heptane and acetic acid/water mixtures at
total re¯ux. The average deviation between measured values of total
pressure drop and predicted values is 6 12.1%, as shown in Figure 6. The
deviations are within 6 20% for 90 data points.
A comparison of the total tray pressure drops of sieve and screen trays
are shown in Figures 7a and 7b for two di€erent hole areas at total re¯ux.
It can be seen that at low F-factors, screen trays have higher total tray
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 17:58 15 October 2014

FIGURE 7a Total pressure drops comparison of sieve and screen trays as a function of the
F-factor at total re¯ux (open hole area ˆ 6.47%).

FIGURE 7b Total pressure drops comparison of sieve and screen trays as a function of the
F-factor at total re¯ux (open hole area ˆ 10.8%).
 HYDRAULICS AND EFFICIENCY OF SCREEN TRAY 51
pressure drops than sieve trays. However, at higher F-factors, screen trays
have lower total tray pressure drops than sieve trays. This may be
explained by the fact that at low F-factors the total tray pressure drop is
mainly dependent on the liquid holdup on the tray and the residual
pressure drop. In addition to a higher liquid holdup on the screen trays as
shown in Figures 8a and 8b, the residual pressure drop for screen trays is
also expected to be higher than for sieve trays because of the narrow
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 17:58 15 October 2014

FIGURE 8a Clear liquid height comparison of sieve3 and screen trays as a function of the
F-factor at constant liquid loading of QL ˆ 8.68-05m /s (open hole area ˆ 6.47%).

FIGURE 8b Clear liquid height comparison of sieve3 and screen trays as a function of the
F-factor at constant liquid loading of QL ˆ 8.68-05m /s (open hole area ˆ 10.8%).
 52 A. AFACAN et al.
throat openings of screen trays. This can also be seen from Eq. (8) that the
smaller the opening the higher the residual pressure drop. At high
F-factors, the contribution of dry tray pressure drop becomes dominant;
therefore, screen trays have a lower total pressure drop of their much
lower dry tray pressure drop (see Figs. 3a and 3b).
The entrainment for both tray types was also measured as a function of
F-factor at a constant liquid loading of 1.348-04m3/s. The results are
presented in Figures 9a and 9b. It was found that the screen tray generates
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 17:58 15 October 2014

FIGURE 9a Measured entrainment comparison of sieve and screen trays as a function of the
F-factor at constant liquid loading of QL ˆ 1.348-04m3/s (open hole area ˆ 6.47).

FIGURE 9b Measured entrainment comparison of sieve and screen trays as a function of the
F-factor at constant liquid loading of QL ˆ 1.348-04m3/s (open hole area ˆ 10.8%).
 HYDRAULICS AND EFFICIENCY OF SCREEN TRAY 53
much less entrainment than the sieve tray, particularly at high gas loadings.
Consequently, it can be concluded that screen tray has a much higher jet
¯ooding capacity than sieve trays. A Similar trend was also obtained for
other liquid loadings.
MASS TRANSFER EFFICIENCY

The e€ects of vapor rate (expressed in F-factor), composition, packing

material and height on screen tray eciency were investigated using a
methanol/water system. Figures 10 and 11 show the measured Murphree
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 17:58 15 October 2014

tray eciency of screen tray with and without packing as a function of the
F-factor and liquid composition. The methanol/water system is a surface
tension positive system based on the de®nitions provided by Zuiderweg and
Harmens (1958). The tests covered the active area F-factor from 0.3 to 2.0
(kg/m)0.5/s, which corresponds to vapor ¯ow rates just above the weep point
to slightly below the jet ¯ooding velocity. It can be seen from Figure 10 that
the tray eciency decreases with increasing F-factor. These observations
agree with those reported by Kastanek and Standart (1967); Weiss and
Longer (1979) and Xu et al. (1996) for methanol/water distillation using
sieve and valve trays. Figure 11 shows the variation of the tray eciency
with the liquid composition, XA, on the test tray at a ®xed F-factor. The
vapor rate across the tray was controlled by heat input (boil-up rate) and the
tray concentration was adjusted by adding a desirable concentration and
amount of feed mixture to the reboiler. The tray eciency increases as the
tray concentration increases from about 0.1 to 0.9 mole fraction of methanol
at a constant F-factor of 1.15. Because surface tension decreases with
increasing methanol concentration, the bubbles are smaller and more stable
at high concentration end, resulting in a higher tray eciency. Figures 10
and 11 also show that when a bed of 25.4mm mesh packing was placed on
the screen tray, the Murphree tray eciency improved by 30% or more. It
was observed that with packing, bubble sizes were smaller and froth
oscillation was reduced. Consequently, one can conclude that mesh packing
can cause an increase in froth height, interfacial area (Hag, 1982) and
vapor±liquid contact time, resulting in a higher mass transfer eciency.
The e€ect of packing on the froth height is shown in Figure 12. The packing
causes the froth height to increase, mainly due to smaller and more stable
bubbles generated on the packed tray. Figure 12 also shows that as the
packing height increases, the froth height increases due to smaller diameter
bubbles generated by the additional packing. These mesh packing e€ects on
the screen tray are similar to those found earlier for sieve tray (Chen et al.,
1990; Chen et al., 1994; Xu et al., 1996). The eciencies for most of the runs
with the packing were above 90%. In some cases, where low F-factors and
high methanol concentrations were encountered, values greater than 100%
 54 A. AFACAN et al.
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 17:58 15 October 2014

FIGURE 10 E€ect of packing height and, type on screen tray eciency for methanol/water
system as a function of the F-factor at total re¯ex (XA ˆ 0.44 mole).

FIGURE 11 E€ect of concentration on screen tray eciency for methanol/water system at

total re¯ux (F-factor ˆ 1.15).
were obtained. Normally it is not possible to obtain such high eciencies for
a small diameter column because tray eciency should be close to point
eciency. Clearly, the packing must not only increase the point eciency
but also reduce the liquid backmixing (Xu et al., 1995). The later is
signi®cant in that, on a tray, the liquid was assumed to be completely mixed
in the vertical direction because of intense agitation of the froth. With the
installation of the packing, the resistance to the liquid ¯ow may cause a
 HYDRAULICS AND EFFICIENCY OF SCREEN TRAY 55
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 17:58 15 October 2014

FIGURE 12 E€ect of packing height on screen tray froth height for methanol/water system as
a function of the F-factor at total re¯ux (XA ˆ 0.44 mole).
concentration gradient on both the vertical and horizontal direction leading
to an improved tray eciency.
The e€ects of packing material and height on the tray eciency were also
studied, as shown in Figure 10. Increased tray eciencies and froth heights
were obtained with greater stainless steel mesh packing heights. However,
beyond the height of 12.7mm, the rates of increase in eciency and froth
height were smaller. When a bed of 12.7mm stainless steel mesh packing
was replaced with the same height of Te¯on mesh packing, it appeared that
the wetting characteristics of Te¯on did not have any e€ect on the tray
eciency for the methanol/water system. Both metal and Te¯on mesh
packing showed similar behavior (see Fig. 10). Therefore, Te¯on may be
chosen for corrosive systems such as in the acetic acid/water distillation.
Figure 13 shows the variation of the measured tray eciency for the
acetic acid/water system as a function of the F-factor with and without the
mesh packing. The acetic acid/water system is considered as a surface
tension negative system. It can be seen that the eciency decreases with
increasing F-factor, and these trends without mesh packing agree with those
reported by Jones and Payle (1995) for the same system. Unlike the surface
tension positive system, the Murphree tray eciency decreases as the
concentration of water (more volatile component) increases from 0.6 to 0.9
mole fraction. These results are consistent with those obtained for the
methanol/water system shown in Figure 11. Comparing the results from
these two systems, it can be seen that as the surface tension increases with
increasing water concentration, which leads a poor bubble formation. Poor
bubble formation causes a lower froth height, interfacial area and tray
 56 A. AFACAN et al.
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 17:58 15 October 2014

FIGURE 13 E€ect of packing on screen tray eciency as a function of the F-factor for acetic
acid/water system at total re¯ux (XA ˆ 0.6 and 0.9 mole).
eciency (Zuiderweg and Harmens, 1958; Chen et al., 1994). Additionally,
the e€ect of surface tension gradients on the mass transfer and bubble
stabilization decreases as the water concentration increases (Zuiderweg,
1983; Ellis and Biddulph, 1967; Brian et al., 1971; Chen et al., 1994). These
two factors also cause a lower tray eciency. Figure 13 shows that the
installation of mesh packing on screen tray not only produces an
improvement of 15% or more in tray eciency but also reduces the
dependence of tray eciency on the F-factor.

FIGURE 14 E€ect of packing on screen tray eciency as a function of the F-factor for
cyclohexane/n-heptane system at total re¯ux (XA ˆ 0.67mole).
 HYDRAULICS AND EFFICIENCY OF SCREEN TRAY 57
Figure 14 shows the measured tray eciency with and without mesh
packing for a surface tension neutral system, cyclohexane/n-heptane, as a
function of the F-factor. The eciency was also increased with installing
mesh packing on the screen tray.
Figures 15 and 16 show a comparison between the screen and sieve tray
(without mesh packing) eciencies for acetic acid/water and cyclohexane/
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 17:58 15 October 2014

FIGURE 15 A comparison of sieve and screen tray eciencies as a function of the F-factor
for acetic acid/water system at total re¯ux (XA ˆ 0.91mole).

FIGURE 16 A comparison of sieve and screen tray eciencies as a function of the F-factor
for cyclohexane/n-heptane system at total re¯ux (XA ˆ 0.7mole).
 58 A. AFACAN et al.
n-haptane binary systems. The eciencies were similar for both sieve and
screen trays.
CONCLUSIONS

The hydraulic performance of screen tray with and without a bed of mesh
packing are obtained in an air/water column and compared to results
obtained with sieve trays having the same open hole area. It was found that
screen trays show a lower dry tray pressure drop and a lower total pressure
drop at higher F-factors and higher total pressure drop at lower F-factors.
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 17:58 15 October 2014

Screen trays also have much less entrainment than sieve tray, resulting in a
higher jet ¯ood capacity. The eciencies of both types of trays were
compared in a distillation column. The tray eciencies are similar for both
kinds of trays for the systems studied. The e€ect of mesh packing on the
mass transfer performance of screen tray was found to increase tray
eciency, but also result in a higher tray pressure drop.
A total tray pressure drop correlation for the screen tray was developed
using an air/water column. A total of 28 data points were obtained from
distillation tests of methanol/water, cyclohexane/n-heptane and acetic acid/
water mixtures. The average deviation between the measured values tray
pressure drops and predicted values is 6 12.1%.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada for their ®nancial support, and are grateful to Koch-
Glitsch for providing the screen tray and mesh packing.
NOMENCLATURE

a width of slots on screen try, m

b length of slots on screen tray, m
C1 constant in Eq. (5)
CV discharge coecient
dBmax departure bubble diameter from tray, m
de equivalent hydraulic diameter, m
dh hole diameter, m
Emv Murphree tray eciency, vapor-phase
F-factor vapor rate based on active area,2 …Vapv†, (kg/s)0.5/s
g acceleration due to gravity, m/s
G total molar ¯ow rate vapor-phase, kmol/s
hD dry tray pressure drop, m of liquid
hL clear liquid height, m of liquid
 HYDRAULICS AND EFFICIENCY OF SCREEN TRAY 59
hT total tray pressure drop, m of liquid
h residual pressure drop, m of liquid
hw weir height, m
QL volumetric liquid ¯ow rate, m3/s
Va vapor-phase velocity based on tray active area, m/s
VH vapor-phase velocity based on total open hole area, m/s
W weir length, m
XA average liquid mole fraction of more volatile component on the
tray
xn liquid-phase mole fraction of more volatile component at the tray
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 17:58 15 October 2014

outlet
xn 1 liquid-phase mole fraction of more volatile component at the tray
inlet
‡

y3n vapor-phase mole fraction of more volatile component in equi-

librium with liquid leaving the tray
Greek Letters
 constant in Eq. (5)
V vapor-phase viscosity, kg/ms
L liquid-phase density, kg/m33
V vapor-phase density, kg/m
 liquid-phase surface tension, N/m
froth density
References
Bennet, D. L., Agrawal, R. and Cook, P. (1983) ``New Pressure Drop Correlation for Sieve
Tray Distillation Columns'', AIChE. J., (3), 434.
Brian, P. L. T., Vivian, J. E. and Mayr, S. T. (1971) ``Cellular Convection in Desorbing Surface
29

Tension Lower Solutes from Water'', Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundm., (10), 75.
Chen, G. X., Afacan, A. and Chuang, K. T. (1990) ``Performance of Combined Mesh Packing
1

and Sieve Tray in Distillation'', Can. J. Chem. Eng., , 382.

Chen, G. X., Afacan, A. and Chuang, K. T. (1994) ``E€ects of Surface Tension on Tray Point
68

Eciencies'', Can. J. Chem. Eng., , 614.

Chen, G. X., Chuang, K. T., Chien, C. and Ye, Y. (1992) ``Mass Transfer and Hydraulics of
72

Packed Sieve Trays'', Gas Separation and Puri®cation, (4), 207.

Ellis, S. R. and Biddulph, M. W. (1967) ``The E€ect of Surface Tension Characteristics on Plate
6

Eciency'', Trans. Inst. Chem. Engrs., , T233.

Foss, A. S. and Gerster, J. A. (1956) ``Liquid-Film Eciencies on Sieve Trays'', Chem. Eng.
45

Prog., (1), 28.

Hag, M. A. (1982) ``Fluid Dynamics on Sieve Trays'', Hydrocarbon Processing, (4), 165.
52

Jones, J. B. and Payle, C. (1955) ``Relative Performance of Sieve Tray and Bubble Cap Plates'',
61

Chem. Eng. Prog., (9), 424.

Kastanek, F. and Standart, G. (1967) ``Eciency of Selected Types of Large Distillation Trays
51

at Total Re¯ux'', Sep. Sci., (4), 439.

Kister, H. Z., Distillation Design, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1992.
2

Lemieux, E. J. and Scotti, L. J. (1969) ``Perforated Tray Performance'', Chem. Eng. Prog.,
(3), 52.
65
 60 A. AFACAN et al.
Lockett, M. J., Distillation Tray Fundamentals, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1986.
Majeweski, J. (1959) ``Design of Turbo-Grid Trays'', Briths. Chem. Eng., (June), 336.
Plaice, E. L., Spagnolo, D. A. and Chuang, K. T., ``Sieve Tray Design Methodology'', 38th
V

Canadian Chemical Engineering Conference, : 162, Edmonton, Alberta, October 2±5,

1989.
32e

Rylek, M. and Standart, M. (1965) ``Hydraulics of Plates without Downcomers and Dry Plate
Pressure Drop'', Collection Czechoslov. Chem. Com., , 1041.
Selix, M. (1962) ``Pressure Drop on Turbo-Grid Trays'', Inter. Chem. Eng., (3), 394.
30

Smith, B. D., Design of Equilibrium Stage Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963.
2

Standart, G. and Rylek, M. (1965) ``Studies on Distillation: Part V, Pressure Drop and Liquid
Holdup on Plate'', Collection Czechoslov. Chem. Com., , 2307.
Weiss, S. and Longer, J., ``Mass Transfer on Valve Trays with Modi®cation of the Structure of
30

Dispersion'', Inst. Chem. Eng. Symposium Series, , 2.3/1 April, 1979.

Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 17:58 15 October 2014

Xu, Z. P., Afacan, A. and Chuang, K. T. (1995) ``Liquid Mixing on Packed Sieve Trays'', Trans.
56

Inst. Chem. Eng., (A4), 406.

Xu, Z. P., Afacan, A. and Chuang, K. T. (1996) ``Prediction of Packed Sieve Tray Eciency in
73

Distillation'', Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., (A4), 893.

Zuiderweg, F. J. and Harmens, A. (1958) ``The In¯uence of Surface Phenomena on the
74

Performance of Distillation Columns'', Chem. Eng. Sci., , 89.

Zuiderweg, F. J. (1983) ``Marangoni E€ect in Distillation of Alcohol-water Mixtures'', Chem.
9

Eng. Res. Des., , 388.

61