IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

Comparison of Performance Characteristic Prediction of Sieve Tray with

and without Down comer
To cite this article: S Gondosurohardjo et al 2019 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 543 012083

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 90.241.3.214 on 06/12/2019 at 20:20

1st International Symposium of Indonesian Chemical Engineering (ISIChem) 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 543 (2019) 012083 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/543/1/012083

Comparison of Performance Characteristic Prediction of

Sieve Tray with and without Down comer

S Gondosurohardjo1, A Altway1*, F Taufany1, and S Nurkhamidah1

1
Department of Chemical Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember,
Kampus ITS Sukolilo, Surabaya 60111, Indonesia

*E-mail: alimohad.chem@gmail.com

Abstract. A sieve tray is a type of tray that is widely used in separation in industry.
While sieve tray without down comer, frequently called dual flow sieve tray is
commonly used to increase the effective area, so it can increase tray capacity. Dual-
flow sieve tray operations can be classified into two categories, it is froth and
transition based on gas/vapour velocity, so that there are parts of holes that are only
flown by gas/vapour and at the same time there are parts of holes that are only
flushed with liquid. Performance characteristics studied include clear-liquid height, dry and
wet pressure drop, efficiency, and entrainment. The study aims to compare performance
characteristic of sieve tray with and without down comer. The sieve tray without down
comers showed almost 50% higher capacity compared to the sieve tray with down comers.
However, sieve tray without down comers has 40% lower pressure drop compared to that
with down comers. The results can ensure that the trays performance prediction for 298 mm
diameter with open area in the range of 77-80%, 5 mm diameter holes, 12.5 mm hole spacing
and 35 cm tray spacing satisfying and optimistic can be utilized in the distillation process.

1. Introduction
Separation equipment is needed in chemical industries to separate and purify the required product.
Distillation column is one type of separation equipment based on the difference in volatility. The
application of this equipment continues to increase in the petro-chemical industry, oil and gas
industries and in the sustainable sector with renewable resources and energy [1]. Tray column is
commonly used for high capacity operation. There are three types of tray commercially used in
industries: sieve tray, bubble cap tray and valve tray, sieve tray is the lowest cost. Mcallister [2] has
studied extensively performance of sieve tray. Sieve tray can be designed with and without down
comer. In general sieve tray with downcomer has effective area 60-70% of column cross sectional area
[3] due to the presence of downcomer. Outili [4] investigate effect of downcomer size on sieve tray
performance. Sieve tray without downcomer has many advantages, it has larger bubbling/effective
area so it can increase 20% to 30% capacity, lower pressure drop, but lower efficiency compared to
sieve tray with downcomer [5-9] In general, contactor to carry out separation using sieve tray without
downcomer is called dual flow tray. Efficiency of sieve tray is affected greatly by bubble movement
phenomena through liquid. The contact of gas/vapour-liquid in sieve tray is similar with contact gas-

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
1st International Symposium of Indonesian Chemical Engineering (ISIChem) 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 543 (2019) 012083 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/543/1/012083

liquid in stirred tank and research in this area will give important information concerning bubble size
distribution, and affecting tray efficiency [10]. This phenomenon has been studied intensively by
Buchanan et al [11] either for still liquid or vibrated liquid. Buchanan et al [12] also has studied the
application of these phenomena on oxygen absorption operation. Colburn [13] has studied effect of
entrainment on plate efficiency. The mechanism of vapour-liquid contact in sieve tray without
downcomer is very different with that with downcomer. In distillation column without downcomer,
vapour and liquid flow through different holes, then wave flow of agitated mixed vapour-liquid will be
developed constantly in every tray [5]. With development of wavy flow, clear liquid pool with certain
height is occurred, simultaneously followed by agitated mass wave above it. Xu et al [7] reported that
efficiency of tray without downcomer was affected by hole area fraction, while Zhang et al [8]
proposed a new parameter, fraction of holes passing gas, affecting tray efficiency. No previous studies
reported comparing comprehensively performance of tray column with and without downcomer. The
aim of this work is to compare the hydrodynamic performance with and without downcomer based on
the published correlations in literatures [3, 14-17].

2. Methodology
This study will investigate the comparison between performance of sieve tray with and
without down comer based on the published correlation in literatures. The parameters investigated are
pressure drop, entrainment, aerated liquid height in tray, and tray efficiency. The tray column
considered in this study has 29.8 cm diameter, and 35 cm tray spacing. The tray has 5 mm diameter
holes arranged in triangular pitch with hole spacing of 12.5 mm. Liquid flow rate is fixed with
constant value of 3.59 gpm. For tray with downcomer the clear liquid height is set 4 cm. For tray with
and without downcomer, equation (1) and (2) respectively are used to predict entrainment,

73 𝑣 3.2
𝑒𝑤 = 0.22 ( 𝜎 ) ( 𝑠𝑐′ ) (1)
𝑒𝑤 = 6.31 × 10−7 × 𝐹𝑠4.57 (2)
Where, 𝐹𝑠 , velocity factor, is defined as,
𝐹𝑠 = 𝑣0 √𝜌𝑣 (3)
The total pressure drop across the tray is predicted as follows for tray with down comer,

ℎ𝑡 = ℎ𝑑𝑡 + ℎ𝑒 (4)
Where ℎ𝑒 , effective head is obtained as a function of ℎ𝑠𝑙 from Fig.8.130 in [3]. The static liquid seal,
ℎ𝑠𝑙 is determined from the following equation,
ℎ𝑠𝑙 = ℎ𝑤 + ℎ𝑜𝑤 (5)
Where height of liquid above the weir, ℎ𝑜𝑤 is determined from equation (6),

𝐿 2/3
ℎ𝑜𝑤 = 0.092𝐹𝑤 (𝑙 ) (6)
𝑤
𝐿 𝑙
Where the correction factor 𝐹𝑤 is obtained from Fig.8.105 in [3] as function of 𝑙 2.5 and 𝐷𝑤. The dry
𝑤
tray pressure drop ℎ𝑑𝑡 from equation (4) is obtained from equation (7)
𝜌𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟
ℎ𝑑𝑡 = 0.003[𝑣0 2 𝜌𝑣 ] [ ] [1 − 𝛽 2 ]/[𝐶0 2 ] (7)
𝜌𝐿
Liquid height in downcomer 𝐻𝑑 can be obtained from equation (8),
𝐻𝑑 = ℎ𝑡 + ℎ𝑤 + ℎ𝑜𝑤 (8)

For tray without downcomer, height of aerated liquid on tray is important parameter and can be
obtained from equation (9),
0.54
ℎ𝑎𝑙 = 1.25 𝐹𝑐 + 0.0005 𝐿 + 𝛽 − 2.45 (9)

2
1st International Symposium of Indonesian Chemical Engineering (ISIChem) 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 543 (2019) 012083 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/543/1/012083

Equation (10) through (9) are obtained from [3]. The aerated liquid height in the tray for tray without
downcomer can also obtained from [14] as follows.
ℎ𝐿
ℎ𝑓 = 1−𝜖 (10)
Where liquid hold up, ℎ𝐿 is predicted using correlation by Xu et al [7] as shown in equation (11)
0.5 1
𝜌
(𝐿𝑀𝐿 )𝑛 [𝑈𝑠 ( 𝐺 ) ]
𝜌𝐴𝑖𝑟
ℎ𝐿 = 0.01728 𝐴ℎ 1.5 𝑡𝑡 0.42
(11)
𝜌𝐿 ( ) ( )
𝐴𝑎 𝑑ℎ
Where constant n is obtained as equation (12),
𝐴 1.5
𝑛 = 4.3 (𝐴ℎ ) (12)
𝑎
Porosity in tray determined by Xu et al [7] is shown in equation (13),
−0.2
𝑈 2 𝜌𝐺
∈= 1 − 0.0946 [𝑔ℎ𝑠 ] (13)
𝐿 𝜌𝐿
Point efficiency in this study was obtained using equation (14) reported by Bennett et al [17] and
adopted by Al-Hemiri and Hassan [15]

−0.0029 ℎ 0.6074 𝐴 0.3195

𝐸 = 1 − 𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝑅𝑒 0.4236 (𝑑 𝐿 ) (𝐴ℎ ) (14)
𝜌 𝐷 (1−∅ ) 𝐻 𝑎
1+𝑚 𝑀𝑉 √ 𝑉 𝐴 𝑒
𝜌𝑀𝐿 ℎ 𝐷𝐿 ( )
[ 𝐴𝑎 ]

3. Results and Discussion

Figure 1 shows the effect of vapour rate on total pressure drop, for tray with and without downcomer.
It is appeared that the total pressure drop increase significantly with increasing vapour rate for tray
with down comer. However, for tray without downcomer the total pressure drop increase very slowly
with increasing vapour rate. The total pressure drop for tray without downcomer is much lower than
that for tray with down comer especially for high vapour rate. For vapour rate of 8.68 cuft/s, the value
of total pressure drop are 4.88 and 1.62 inch for tray with downcomer and without downcomer
respectively. This is the advantage of tray without down comer having much lower pressure drop
compared to that for tray with downcomer.
Figure 2 shows the effect of vapour rate on liquid height in downcomer (for tray with down
comer) and aerated liquid height in the tray (for tray without downcomer). These parameters are
important because flooding limit is determined by the value of these parameters. Flooding occurs if the
value of these parameter exceeding one halve of tray spacing. The figure depicts that flooding limit is
8.33 cuft/second and 12.15 cuft/second for tray with downcomer and tray without downcomer. Then,
the capacity of tray without down comer is almost 50 % larger than the capacity with downcomer.
Figure 3 shows the effect of vapour rate on entrainment for tray with and without downcomer.
It is obvious that tray without downcomer gives lower entrainment compared to that with downcomer.
At vapour rate of 8.68 cuft/sec, the entrainment is 0.18 and 0.04 for tray with and without downcomer
respectively. This is the other advantage of tray without downcomer compared to tray with
downcomer.

3
1st International Symposium of Indonesian Chemical Engineering (ISIChem) 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 543 (2019) 012083 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/543/1/012083

6.00
With
5.00 Downcomer
Without
4.00 Downcomer
ht (inch)

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
vapor rate (Cuft/sec)

Figure 1 Effect of vapour rate on total pressure drop across the tray.
Comparison between tray with and without downcomer.
Hole spacing=12.5 mm

8.000
7.000
6.000
hd or hal,inch

5.000
4.000
3.000
hd vs Vapor Rate With
2.000 Downcomer
1.000 hal with Vapor Rate
Without Downcomer
0.000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Vapor Rate (cuft/sec)

Figure 2 Effect of vapour rate on 𝐻𝑑 (for tray with down comer) or

ℎ𝑎𝑙 (for tray without down comer). Comparison between
tray with and without downcomer. Hole spacing=12.5 mm

4
1st International Symposium of Indonesian Chemical Engineering (ISIChem) 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 543 (2019) 012083 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/543/1/012083

0.2
0.18 Without Downcomer
0.16 With Downcomer
0.14
ew

0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Vapor Rate (Cuft/Sec)
Figure 3 Effect of vapour rate on entrainment. Comparison between tray with and
without downcomer. Hole spacing=12.5 mm

45
40
35
30
%efficiency

25
20
15
10
5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Vapor Rate (Cuft/Sec)
Figure 4 Effect of vapour rate on point tray efficiency for tray without down
comer. Hole spacing=12.5 mm

Figure 4 shows effect of vapour rate on point tray efficiency. It can be seen that the efficiency
increases with increasing vapour rate. Increasing vapour rate makes gas-liquid contact more effective.
This figure also shows that the point efficiency of tray without downcomer is small, smaller than the
efficiency for tray with downcomer having value more than 60 %. Further research have to be done to
modify geometry of tray without downcomer to increase it’s efficiency.
Figure 5 shows comparison prediction value of aerated liquid height in the tray without
downcomer using Ludwig’s formula and Garcia and Fair’s formula. It is appeared that for small
vapour rate, Ludwig’s prediction is larger than Garcia’s prediction. However, for large vapour rate
Garcia’s prediction is larger than Ludwig’s prediction.

5
1st International Symposium of Indonesian Chemical Engineering (ISIChem) 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 543 (2019) 012083 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/543/1/012083

8
7 Vapor rate Vs hf
(Garcia)
6
Vapor Rate vs hal
hf or hal,inch

5 (Ludwig)
4
3
2
1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Vapor rate (cubicft/sec)

Figure 5 Effect of vapour rate on aerated liquid height in tray for

tray without downcomer.

4. Conclusions

The sieve tray without downcomer showed 50% higher capacity compared to the sieve tray with
downcomer. Meanwhile, sieve tray without downcomer has 40% lower pressure drop compared to that
with downcomer. However, sieve tray without downcomer shows smaller efficiency compared to that
with down comer. The results can ensure that the trays performance prediction for 298 mm diameter
with open area in the range of 77-80%, 5 mm diameter holes, 12.5 mm hole spacing and 35 cm tray
spacing satisfying and optimistic can be utilized in the distillation process. Further research work has
to be done to increase efficiency of sieve tray without downcomer by modifying its geometry

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank to Retno Dwi Nyamiati and Arnesya Ramadhani for their support in
this research.

References
[1] Osuolale F N and Zhang J 2014 Energy efficiency control and optimisation of distillation
column using artificial neural network Chem. Eng. Trans. 39 37-42
[2] Mcallister R A, Mcginnis P H JR and Plank C A 1958 Perforated -plate performance, Chem. Eng.
Sci. 9 25 - 35
[3] Ludwig E E 1997 Applied process design for chemical and petrochemical plants, Volume 2,
Third Edition, Gulf Professional Publishing.
[4] Outili N, Chegga N, Elbahi K and Meniai A H 2013 Effect of downcomers sizes on tray column
performance, Chem. Eng. Trans. 32 1981-86
[5] Swamy K and Meikap B C 2017 Hydrodynamic characteristics of a three-stage dual-flow sieve
plate scrubber, S.Afr.J.Chem.Eng. 23 91-97
[6] Flávio D, Mayer, Feris L A,Marcilio N R, Baldo V and Hoffmann R 2014 Review of hydraulics
correlations for sieve trays without downcomers Ind.Eng.Chem.Res, 53 (20), 8323–31
[7] Xu Z P, Afacan A and Chuang K T 1994 Efficiency of dual flow trays in distillation,
Can.J.Chem.Eng. 72 607-13
[8] Zhang J, Wang Y, Yu G, Mao X and Wang F 2015 Experimental study of two phase
flowcharacteristics on the dual-flow tray Chem.Eng.Res.Des. 102 90–99
[9] Takahashi T, Miyahara T, Tano T and Akagi Y 1986 Hydrodynamic characteristic of sieve trays

6
1st International Symposium of Indonesian Chemical Engineering (ISIChem) 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 543 (2019) 012083 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/543/1/012083

having large free areas without down comers J.Chem.Eng.Jpn. 19(4) 339-41
[10] Garcia J A and Fair J R 2000 A Fundamental model for the prediction of distillation sieve tray
efficiency. 1. Database development Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 39 1809- 17
[11] Buchanan R H, Jameson G and Djoeriaman O 1962 Cyclic migration of bubbles in vertically
vibrating liquid columns, Ind.Eng.Chem.Fund. 1(2), 82-86
[12] Buchanan R H, Teplitzky D R and Djoeriaman O 1963 Oxygen absorption in low-frequency
vertically vibrating liquid column Ind.Eng.Chem.Proc.Des.Dev. 2(3) 173- 77
[13] Colburn A P 1936 Effect of entrainment on plate efficiency in distillation Ind.Eng.Chem. 28(5)
526-30
[14] Garcia J A and Fair J R 2002 Distillation sieve trays without downcomers: prediction of
performance characteristics, Ind.Eng.Chem. Res. 41(6) 1632-40
[15] Al-Hemiri A A and Hassan M A R 2006 Prediction of the efficiency of sieve tray using air water
system, J.Eng, 13(4) 941-56
[16] Bennett D L, Agrawal R and Cook P J 1983 New pressure drop correlation for sieve tray
distillation columns AIChE J 29(3) 434– 42.
[17] Bennett D L,Watson D N and Wiescinski M A 1997 New correlation for sieve-tray point
efficiency, entrainment, and section efficiency AIChE J. 43(6) 1611– 26
[18] Bennett D L and Grimm H J 1991 Eddy diffusivity for distillation sieve trays AIChE J. 37(4)
589–96