Está en la página 1de 16

Correlation of Valve Tray Efficiency Data

William G. Todd and Matthew Van Winkle


University of Texas, Department of Chemical Engineering, Austin, Tex. 78711

The purpose of this article i s to present correlations developed from experimental valve tray data. The
tray froth heights and the depth of clear liquid on the tray were empirically correlated with the determining
physical properties and operating variables. A theoretical model based upon the two-film theory was developed to predict the total number of moles of each component transferred across the interface separating
the distilling phases. The effects of heat transfer across the interface and unequal values of molar latent
heats of vaporization of the components were incorporated into the proposed model. Using the proposed
model, the values of the heat flux at the interface and vapor contact times were calculated from the experimental data. Empirical equations were then developed for the prediction of the heat flux and vapor contact
times. Predicted valve tray efficiencies based upon the theoretical model were in close agreement with
experimentally determined efficiencies.

I n a recent article (1972) the authors presented experimental


tray efficiency, pressure drop, and froth height data for the
n-propanol-toluene and benzene-n-propanol binary systems.
The data were obtained from the operation of an 18-in.diameter distillation column containing three valve trays of
the rectangular type. The tray efficiencies of the n-propanoltoluene binary system were higher than the corresponding
tray efficiencies of the benzene-n-propanol binary system.
Since visual observations of the operating tray could not
explain these variations in efficiencies, it mas concluded that
the differences between the efficiencies of the binary systems
must be dependent upon some basic difference in the heat
and mass transfer mechanisms occurring between the distilling phases.
The purpose of this article is t o examine some of the possible heat and mass transfer mechanisms occurring between
distilling phases and t o present correlations developed for
predicting valve tray efficiencies, froth heights, and clear
liquid depths.
Deflnition of Efficiency

The concept of a separation efficiency for vapor-liquid


contactors was developed as a substitute for the direct calculation of the amount and extent of mass and heat transfer
between the contacting phases. By using the separation
efficiency, it is possible to calculate the separation capability
of an actual contactor from the knowledge of the behavior
of an ideal comparison stage. For convenience, this ideal
stage has always been chosen such that the vapor and the
liquid streams leaving the stage are in thermodynamic phase
equilibrium. Such a concept of the equilibrium stage provides
the basis for all tray-to-tray computations.
Many different approaches have been used to define the
separation efficiency of contacting plates or trays. Lewis
(1922) defined the overall plate efficiency for binary systems
as the number of theoretical plates required t o perform a
given separation divided by the number of actual plates used
for this separation. This definition is a very logical one but
leads to difficulties for multicomponent mixtures because
To whom correspondence should be addressed.

each component will, in general, have a different separability


efficiency. The computation of Lelvis efficiency from experimental data also presents the problem of determining the
number of theoretical plates required for the experimental
separation obtained. Sormally, the number of theoretical
plates or equilibrium stages must be computed by such
methods as Underwoods (1932) or Smokers (1938).
Murphree (1925) defined two tray efficiencies, one for the
vapor phase and one for the liquid phase, for each plate by
assuming constant molal flow rates throughout the distillation column, Figure 1 illustrates a section of a counterflow
plate column and the compositions referred to in Murphrees
equations. In this case the vapor phase efficiency is given by

where y, is the vapor mole fraction of a constituent and yn* is


the composition of the vapor leaving the ideal plate which
would be in equilibrium with the liquid leaving the tray of
composition 2,. He defined the liquid phase efficiency in a
similar manner with x, being the liquid mole fraction of a
constituent :

where x,* is the composition of the liquid leaving the ideal


stage which would be in equilibrium with the exiting vapor,
g,. If the equilibrium relation is assumed linear, the two efficiencies are related by
(3)

where L , and V , are the molal flow rates of liquid and vapor
and m is the slope of the equilibrium line. Therefore, if the
value of mVn/L, is equal to one, the vapor phase and liquid
phase Murphree plate efficiencies are the same.
Kord (1946) introduced the temperature or thermal efficiencies which parallel Murphrees equations using temperatures instead of compositions. I n an attempt to remove cerInd. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Develop., Vol. 1 1 , No. 4, 1972

589

and the holdup of the transferring component in the boundary


layer or region near the phase boundary is negligible with
respect to the amount transferred in the process. Based upon
these assumptions and if we assume additivity of resistances,
the following equation for the overall gas transfer units was
developed :
1/NoG = 1/NG

+ mV/LNL

(9)

where

LN +I u

N G

KVaPZ
V

NL

KLaPLZ
L

XNtI

The overall point efficiency was found to be related to the


overall gas transfer unit by
EoG

Figure 1. Section of counterflow distillation column

tain limitations of the Murphree-type efficiencies, Holland and


McMahan (1970) defined a vaporization efficiency as follows:

(4)
where j denotes the j t h component, n the nth plate, and m
the equilibrium constant. The authors present cases showing
that their defined efficiency is always a nonzero, finite, and
positive number.
Standart (1965) defined his component efficiencies for the
phases as:
EV,j =

V n Y n , j - Vn+lYn+l.j
vn*Yn,j* - V n + ~ ~ n + l , j

(5)

and

where Vn* and Ln* are defined as the equilibrium streams


leaving the plate. A component material balance around the
nth plate yields the following equation:

Examination of Equation 6 shows that

The main advantage of Standarts efficiency is the ease of


comparing the actual and the ideal equilibrium comparison
plate because the entering streams, Vn+l and Ln-,, are the
same for both plates. The main disadvantage, however, is
the addition of two more unknown quantities, Vn* and Ln*.
Classical Mass Transfer Model

Possibly the best known method for computing the plate


efficiency is based upon the classical two-film resistance
theory as outlined in the A.1.Ch.E. Bubble-Tray Design
Manual (1958). The following assumptions are inherent in
this type of development: equimolar counterdiffusion exists
throughout the films; the rate of mass transfer of a component within a phase is proportional to the concentration
gradient that exists between the bulk of the phase and its
interface; equilibrium exists between phases at the interface;
590 Ind.

Eng. Chem. Process Des. Develop., Vol. 1 1 , No.

4, 1972

1 - exp

(-AoG)

(12)

.4 complex equation involving the Peclet number was then


developed to correlate the Murphree tray efficiency with the
overall point efficiency.
This type of development suffers because the interaction
of heat and mass transfer are neglected. It will be shown later
that assumption (1) is invalid when heat effects are included.
Effects of Heat Transfer

I n a counterflow fractionating column (Figure l), the rising


vapor entering the contacting plate has a higher temperature
than the entering liquid stream. Because of this temperature
gradient, Danckwerts e t al. (1960) reasoned that there would
be a net transfer of heat from the vapor phase to the liquid
phase. -4s discussed by Liang and Smith (1962), several conditions could arise from such an exchange of heat: The heat
transfer between phases is slow relative to the mass transfer
and thus the vapor will leave the plate superheated and the
liquid will leave subcooled; the heat transfer between phases
corresponds to the rate of mass transfer in such a way as to
keep the phases exactly a t their respective condensation and
boiling points; the heat transfer between phases occurs more
rapidly than is required for maintaining the phases at their
respective condensation and boiling points and thus partial
condensation of the vapor and partial vaporization of the
liquid will occur.
The data of Haselden and Sutherland (1960) give support
to the existence of the third condition. They reported that
in their study of distilling ammonia-water solutions, a very
thick fog was formed in the vapor space above the tray when
large temperature differences existed between the liquid and
vapor streams entering the plate. It was speculated that the
fog was due to condensation in the vapor phase.
Other experimental observations have been reported by
Haselden (1960), Ruckenstein (1967), and Sawistowski (1959)
which demonstrate that for mixtures having sufficiently
different boiling points, the efficiency of a distillation column
depends on concentration and has a maximum value. Several
different theories have been presented to describe this phenomena. Everitt and Hutchinson (1966) and Korman et al.
(1963) have successfully demonstrated that the classical
diffusional model explains the dependency of efficiency on
concentration (but not the maximum) by taking into account
the dependence of the slope of the equilibrium curve on concentration. SawistoIvski and Smith (1959) stressed that the
observed maximum in their efficiency data could not be explained by the classical theory and suggested an explanation
in which the heat transfer between phases was considered.

Ruckenstein (1961) and Liang and Smith (1962) considered


the interaction between heat and mass transfer in the thermal
theory of rectification by using the two-film theory. The
thermal theory of rectification simply superimposes the effects
of the heat transfer between phases, as previously discussed,
upon the classical diffusional mass transfer model. Therefore
by excluding the possibility of extensive superheating in the
bulk of the liquid or subcooling in the bulk of the vapor, additional mass flux terms must be added to the diffusional mass
flux equation to account for the condensation of vapor and
the vaporization of liquid in the bulk of the respective phases.
Ruckenstein and Smigelschi (1965, 1967) assumed that the
quantity of heat transferred from the bulk of the vapor phase
toward the interface simply maintains the vapor a t its saturation temperature and therefore no condensation in the bulk
of the vapor phase occurs. The basis for this assumption is that
the thermal diffusivity in the vapor phase is very small. By
considering the heat transfer a t the interface and the vapor
generated in the bulk of the liquid phase, Ruckenstein and
Smigelschi derived the following equation:

c
a

dz

= - KLA

where

I n the derivation of the above equation, the molal latent


heats of vaporization of the least volatile component (lvc)
and that of the more volatile component (mvc) were assumed
to be equal. The equation was graphically integrated to obtain
the plate efficiency. When we selected the correct values of
the coefficients, the predicted efficiency showed good agreement with experimental data which exhibited a maximum
efficiency with respect to concentration.
Ruckenstein (1970) considered the interaction between heat
and mass transfer using the penetration renewal model. In
this study, only the transfer processes in the liquid phase were
considered. The heat transfer a t the interface was taken into
account but vaporization in the bulk of the liquid phase was
neglected. Ruckenstein reasoned that for moderate superheating in the liquid, the rate of nucleation in the homogeneous phase is practically nil. From his work, Ruckenstein presented a complicated theoretical mass transfer model involving the error function, the Jakob number, and Danckwerts renewal frequency. The molal latent heats of vaporization of the diffusing components were considered to be different in the derivation of the model. The model was not compared with experimental data.
Effects of Surface Tension

Zuiderweg and Harmens (1958) found experimentally that


increasing or decreasing the surface tension of the column internal reflux could influence the interfacial area and consequently affect the plate efficiency quite markedly. The researchers explained these phenomena in terms of the RIaragoni effect which states that liquid surfaces of high interfacial
tension contract when contacted with a surface of lower surface
tension. Three types of systems were defined with respect to
the changes in surface tension in the reflux flow: negative
systems, the internal reflux decreases in surface tension as it
passes down the column because the surface tension of the lvc
is less than that of the mvc; positive system, the internal re-

flux increases in surface tension because the surface tension of


Ivc is greater than that of the mvc; neutral systems, the surface tension of the internal reflux does not vary because the
components have equal surface tensions or the relative volatility is very small and the gradients in surface tension are consequently always small.
The authors found for trays with small free area and low
vapor rates (laboratory apparatus) that: The neutral and
negative systems are characterized by spray-type interfacial
areas and constant efficiencies; the positive systems are
characterized by foam-type interfacial areas and increased
efficiencies. Zuiderweg and Harmens rationalized that the
interfacial films of positive systems were stabilized by the
Maragoni effect and thus result in foam-type interfacial
areas. For higher tray free areas and vapor velocities (commercial equipment), Zuiderweg speculated that foaming
tendencies would diminish and the differences in efficiency between positive and negative mixtures would be less. This
would seem to be verified by the work of Bainbridge and
Sawistowski (1964) and Fane and Sawistowski (1968) which
indicated that positive systems have higher efficiencies than
negative systems at low hole velocities but lower efficiencies
a t higher velocities. Sawistowski theorized that once the
cellular foam starts breaking down, the unstable tendencies of
the negative system outweigh the conservative tendencies of
the positive system in the production of fresh interfacial
area. To justify this statement, Sawistowski postulated that
the Marangoni effect accelerates the detachment of liquid
drops for the bulk of the liquid for negative systems and thus
increases the amount of interfacial area and the plate
efficiency. In comparison, it would appear that the Zuiderweg
theory is valid for the vapor-dispersed type of tray beds
(characterized by relatively stable, cellular bubbles) and that
the Sawistowski theory is valid for the liquid-dispersed type
of tray beds (characterized by the suspension of liquid droplets in the stream of vapor). Both theories explain the dependence of plate efficiency on concentration in terms of varying
interfacial areas.
Effects of Molar Latent Heats of Vaporization

The assumption of equimolar counterdiffusion through the


films in the classical theory of mass transfer implies that the
molar latent heats of vaporization of the diffusing components
are equal. Thus the heat liberated by the condensation of the
lvc a t the interface is equal t o the heat required to vaporize
the mvc. For most cases the molar latent heats of the components are sufficiently close so that such an assumption is
valid, but for certain systems to assume such a condition may
lead to serious errors, Consider the case where the latent heat
of the lvc has a value that is ll/ztimes that of the mvc. If the
heat that is transferred across the interface by conduction is
neglected, there will be 11/* moles of the mvc component
vaporized for each mole of lvc condensed. Therefore the flux
of the lvc is highly dependent upon the supply to the interface
of the mvc, which must diffuse through the liquid phase
toward the interface. Because the molecular diffusivity of
liquids is several orders of magnitude smaller than that of
vapors, it is likely that the liquid phase resistance would
assume a much more important role. The same type of analysis
for the case in which the latent heat of the mvc is larger than
that of the lvc leads to the conclusion that the importance of
the vapor phase resistance would be accentuated.
At this point it is convenient to define three types of systems with respect t o the possible effects of latent heats on
mass transfer: thermally positive systems, the molar latent
Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Develop., Vol. 1 1 , No. 4, 1972

591

N:

N,V

where

L I Q U I D PHASE

VAPOR PHASE

N,L

* N2L

Substituting N2,,' from Equation 18 into Equation 15 and


one obtains
solving for Nlviv,

A similar expression can be written for the liquid phase:

A material balance a t the interface leads to the following


equations:
N1,tL =
Figure 2. Interface between vapor and liquid phase

heat of vaporization of the mvc is greater than that of the lvc;


thermally neutral systems, the molar latent heats of vaporization of the mvc and the lvc are equal; thermally negative systems, the molar latent heat of the mvc is smaller than that of
the lvc.

Therefore

4
- Y1,r
XZ

+ coKo(!/l,i(1

!/l,b)

- Xl/hZ)Yl,i
P

A2

1 - (1

592 Ind.

(16)

= -q

Eng. Chem. Process Des. Develop., Vol. 1 1,

No. 4, 1972

- Xl/X2)Xl,i

(22)

If we assume that the vapor and liquid a t the interface


are related by the equilibrium relationship, then
YLi =

mx1,i

(23)

the value of zl,can be determined by combining Equations 22


and 23. The resulting equation for x ~is ,the~ quadratic form:
Xl,,

-B f (B2 - 4 AC)"*
2A

XI/^

- h/X2)(1

+ KL'/K,')

# 1)

(24)

where
rl = m ( l

(1

c
K,'

Y1,b

- h l / X z ) ( ~ ~ l , & ~ ' / K-k, ' Y1.d

f xi,&~'/Ko'

KvcG

KL'

KLcL

Only the positive root lying between 0 and 1.0 is of interest.


This equation for x1,, is valid only for values of the ratio hl/Xz
which are not equal to one because when the value is equal to
one, the denominator of Equation 24 becomes equal to zero.
If X1/h2 is equal to one, Equations 19 and 20 reduce to

N1,iv

N1,t' = !/l,t(N1,iu- NZ,tv) coKo('ki - Y l J )


(15)
where the direction of the fluxes are those shown in Figure 2.
A thermal balance a t the interface leads to the equation
X I N I ,~ XzNz,,

- - x1,i f CLKL(x1,b - X I , $ )

Proposed Method for Efficiency Prediction

The Murphree tray efficiency for the vapor phase as defined


by Equation 1 will be used to correlate the efficiency of the
valve trays because of its ease of computation and its wide
acceptance by industry. To determine the compositions of the
vapor and liquid streams leaving the tray, the total number of
moles of each component that is exchanged between the phases
must be predicted. The following analysis of the mass transfer
between the phases of a binary system is presented with this
goal in mind.
The two-film model will be used to calculate the diffusional
mass flux of the components a t the interface. The heat and
mass transfer mechanisms a t the interface are illustrated in
Figure 2. The following assumptions are necessary: the rate of
mass transfer of a component within a phase is proportional to
the concentration gradient that exists between the bulk of the
phase and its interface; the rate of heat transfer within a
phase is proportional to the temperature gradient fhat exists
between the bulk of the phase and its interface; thermodynamic phase equilibrium exists between the phases at the
interface; the volume of the transferring component in the
boundary layer or region near the phase boundary is negligible
with respect to the volume transferred in the process; the heat
transfer between phases corresponds to the rate of mass transfer in such a way as to keep the bulk of the phases exactly a t
their respective condensation and boiling point temperatures.
I n accordance with the above simplifying assumptions, one
may write Fick's law of diffusion for the vapor phase as

(21)

N1,tv

9
-A2 y1,i + c & ~ ( Y I , , - ~ l , d

(25)

-x,4 + cJ(~(zl,a -

(26)

and

Ni,iL =

~ 1 , i

$I,<)

I.7
1.5

I C

N - PROPANOL -TO LU EN E
. I

0,
I

-.c

17

BENZENE- N-PROPANOL

I.

15-

0I1 3 9I: -

07050 3.

1I

-I

0.61

1.61

Figure 3.
in., L/V

0.7 0.9

1.5

1.3

II

( f t / s e c ) ( Ib/ f t 3 )2

= 1.0, valve leg lengths = 0.3125, 0.3750,

Figure 4. Clear liquid depth results for benzene-n-propanol


system

As before, solving for x1, i leads to the following equation:


Xl,bKL/Kv

yl,b

(X,/Xz

L/V = 1 .O, valve leg length = 0.31 25,0.3750,0.4375in.

= 1)
I

(27)
Once the interfacial concentrations and consequently the
interfacial temperatures are determined, the molar flux N1
can be calculated by either Equation 19 or 20. The total
number of moles of component 1 that is exchanged between
the phases can now be calculated by multiplying the molar
flux by the total interfacial area. The total number of moles of
component 2 can be computed from Equation 18.
Data Analysis. To develop tray efficiency prediction
methods based upon the actual mass transfer between
phases, the tray froth heights and clear liquid depths
had t o be correlated first so t h a t the average residence
times of the phases and the total volume of bed on the
tray could be determined. The correlation of these two
variables, as well as all other variables correlated, was
accomplished by using a nonlinear least squares regression program which utilized a simplex optimat optimization routine in n-dimensions for fitting the nonlinear
coefficients. As pointed out in the previous article, the operation of the column a t the two extremes of the operating range
(15 and 97y0 of column flood) were not stable and the results
a t these two extremes were difficult to reproduce. Because of
this and because the original scope of work did not include
these two points of operation, the 15 and 97% of column flood
were not included in the analysis of the data.

Examination of all the possible linear and second-order


effects of the independent variables produced the following
equation for the prediction of the clear liquid depth on the
valve tray.

+ 0.11 H, + 1.80 How +


1.76 F,(Fs

- 1.63) + 2.67

p(Fs

- 1.32)

(28)

L/ = 1.0
1.0

0.0
N

0.6

1.2
0.8

03

05 07
09
I1
F FACTOR ( f t / s e c ) ( Ib

13

15

ft3

Figure 5. Clear liquid depth results for benzene-n-propanol


system
Weir height = 2 in., valve leg lengths

= 0.3125,0.3750, 0.4375 in.

where

Analysis of Tray Clear liquid bepth Data

2, = 0.71

F FACTOR

0.8
0.6
I
0.3 0.5
Height weir =
0.4375 in.

2,

clear liquid depth, in. of water

H, = weir height, in.


H,, = weir height crest, in.
F,
p

= superficial flow factor, (ft/sec) (lb/fta)12


= viscosity, CP

To predict clear liquid depths for nonwater systems, the value


from Equation 28 should be multiplied by the ratio of the
Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Develop., Vol. 1 1 , No. 4, 1972

593

Table 1. Calculated Heat and Mass Transfer


Run no.

NI,T

N2,T

NI,T
NZ,T

101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
22 1
222
223
224
225
226
227

0.85
0.99
1.87
6.18
1.89
2.09
3.83
0.94
2.83
0.43
3.63
3.31
2.22
2.00
5.55
1.82
2.27
1.91
4.79
1.42
3.84
1.92
6.42
2.02
2.43
4.48
3.45
7.20
6.07
3.98
10.01
4.60
1.63
6.99
2.45
3.12
0.59
6.68
6.71
4.62
2.02
10.26
3.91
4.11
1.78
9.48
3.54
6.92
3.97
10.06
5.00
1.58
7.34
6.26
0.86
1.87
2.84
3.07
4.29
6.18
6.57
1.10
2.73
3.04
3.63
3.89
4.83

0.96
1.13
1.63
6.56
1.88
2.32
4.10
0.79
3.82
0.57
3.67
3.29
2.22
2.44
5.83
1.57
2.29
2.46
4.97
1.21
3.92
1.69
6.92
2.03
3.33
4.74
3.44
5.48
4.60
2.78
7.52
3.52
1.69
5.55
1.76
3.09
0.73
4.89
4.97
3.38
2.06
7.75
2.80
3.01
1.82
7.03
2.47
5.00
2.72
7.68
3.81
1.64
5.53
4.65
0.54
1.63
2.76
3.03
4.40
6.56
7.09
0.75
2.86
3.05
3.67
3.95
5.01

0.88
0.87
1.15
0.94
1.01
0.90
0.93
1.18
0.74
0.76
0.99
1.01
1.oo
0.82
0.95
1.16
0.99
0.78
0.96
1.17
0.98
1.14
0.93
1.00
0.73
0.95
1.oo
1.31
1.32
1.43
1.33
1.31
0.96
1.26
1.39
1.01
0.80
1.37
1.35
1.37
0.98
1.32
1.40
1.37
0.98
1.35
1.44
1.38
1.46
1.31
1.31
0.96
1.33
1.35
1.59
1.15
1.03
1.01
0.97
0.94
0.93
1.47
0.95
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.96

-1222.2
-1267.1
-9762.3
- 14863.7
- 6483.5
-3693.9
-8680.4
- 5274.5
5169,l
587.4
- 11605.5
-11352.8
-7373.8
-249.2
- 14317.1
-9800.9
-7334.6
1657.0
- 13328.5
-7861.2
- 11544..9
-9796.9
- 13961.4
-6687.1
5148.3
- 10983.7
- 11596.1
7236.4
5753.4
-537.0
8110.6
4931.7
9852.7
11026.2
633.1
15761.1
5739.9
3201.8
4267.8
2102.1
11342.9
8975.0
780.6
1942.0
10067,4
5951.1
-634.9
2105.4
-1466.7
10396.6
5098.4
9450.0
6219.8
4135.0
- 7585.4
- 9762.3
- 10684.2
- 10831.8
- 12641.8
- 14863.7
- 13980.8
-8742.0
-7064.4
-9797.8
- 11605.5
- 12144.2
- 13438 5

244.7
195.9
109.8
498.4
237.1
277.4
434.4
107.8
521.7
99.6
261.7
259.9
239.8
276.1
510.7
114.4
197.8
230.6
417.9
84.7
267.0
113.1
513.8
267.4
322.9
305.6
234.5
306.2
238.4
122.5
532.5
260.5
281.6
470.8
122.6
503.7
118.4
284,3
283.7
275.3
302.3
563,7
136.0
215.2
236.7
456.8
97.4
290.8
125.2
526,3
263.1
273,8
302.0
237.5
70.6
109.8
171.3
255.0
369.6
498.4
567.2
75.0
121.3
170.2
261.7
359.9
485.4

lAlb

1A2
1x3
1A4
1A5
1A6
1A7b
lBlb
1B2
1B3
1B4
1B5
1B6
594 Ind.

Eng. Chem. Process Der. Develop., Vol. 1 1 , No. 4, 1972

tL'Q

-5.0
-6.5
-88.9
-29.8
-27.3
-13.3
-20.0
-48.9
9.9
5.9
-44.3
-43.7
-30.7
-0.9
-28.0
-85.7
-37.1
7.2
-31.9
-92.8
-43.2
-86.7
-27.2
-25.0
15.9
-35.9
-49.5
23 6
24.1
-4.4
15.2
18.9
35.0
23.4
5.2
31.3
48.5
11.3
15.0
7.6
37.5
15.9
5.7
9.0
42.5
13.0
-6.5
7.2
-11.7
19.8
19.4
34.5
20.6
17 4
-107.5
-88.9
-62.4
-42.5
-34.2
-29.8
-24.6
-116.6
-58.2
-57.6
-44.3
-33.7
-27.7

0.0760
0.0319
0.1009
0.1681
0 0372
0.0658
0.0805
0.0616
0.3460
0.3177
0.0439
0.0443
0,0474
0.0979
0.1962
0.1413
0.0215
0.0294
0.1026
0.0661
0.0440
0.0869
0.1677
0,0358
0.0635
0.0648
0.0270
0.1019
0.0440
0.1305
0.2420
0.0566
0.1254
0.1118
0.0890
0.3735
0.4289
0.0655
0.0658
0.0719
0.1820
0,3094
0.1580
0.0350
0.0650
0.1601
0.0822
0.0659
0.1124
0,2088
0.0522
0.1239
0,0919
0.0396
0.3446
0.1009
0.0514
0.0473
0.0738
0.1681
0.2695
0.2555
0.0697
0.0468
0.0439
0.0660
0.1459
I

Table 1. (Continued)
Run no.

NI,T

5.89
1B7b
1C1b
0.82
1c 2
1.92
2.59
1C3
1C4
3.74
4.72
1C5
6.42
1C6
1C7*
6.74
2Dlb
1.87
2D2
3.95
2D3
5.50
2D4
7.33
2D 5
7.99
10.12
2D 6
2D7b
9.40
2Dlb
1.53
2D2
3.97
5.59
2D3
7.11
2D4
8.39
2D5
2D6
10.06
2D7b
8.50
1.62
2Elb
2E2
3.83
5.15
2E3
2E4
6.68
8.26
2E5
2E6
10.02
2E7b
10.92
2Elb
1.71
2E2
3.93
5.22
2E3
2E5
8.63
2E6
9.61
2E7b
11.09
2Flh
1.80
2F2
3.98
2F3
5.52
2F4
6.75
2F5
8.10
2F6
10.01
2Fib
10.66
2Flh
1.78
2F2
4.18
2F3
5.51
2F4
6.99
2F5
7.94
2F6
9.49
2F7b
10.18
Liquid contact times are reported
completeness.

N~,T
NZ.T

NZ.T

densities (62.4/pL). The value of How was estimated from the


Francis weir formula with the correction for segmental downcomers suggested by Bolles (1946).
HOW

= 0.48 F,(Q,/Lm)2a

(29)

where

F,

=
QL =
L, =

- 14774.2
6.21
0.95
- 8223.0
0.45
1.83
-9796.9
1.69
1.14
- 10493.9
2.46
1.05
- 11932.3
3.77
0.99
- 13094.9
4.89
0.96
- 13961.4
6.92
0.93
- 13353.2
0.92
7.34
-2637.8
1.18
1.59
2.82
564.4
1.40
289.0
1.41
3.90
5018.9
1.34
545
13429.8
1.25
6.39
17595.1
8.14
1.24
7.81
20917.0
1.20
0.88
-3805.8
1.75
2.72
-1466.7
1.46
1644.6
4.04
1.38
2943.6
5.18
1.37
6.24
5688.3
1.34
1.31
7.68
10396.6
1.20
18883.1
7.07
-4257.6
1.78
0.91
1155.4
1.38
2.76
2319.9
1.37
3.76
3201.8
1.37
4.89
4441.9
1.36
6.08
11944.8
1.29
7.74
15523.3
1.27
8.58
1743.0
1.31
1.30
690.5
1.40
2.81
816.9
1.40
3.73
4053.1
1.37
6.32
9329.6
1.31
7.31
11103.1
1.31
8.45
- 3660.4
1.68
1.07
-537.0
1.43
2.78
1207.8
1.39
3.96
2503.1
1.38
4.90
5474.4
1.34
6.02
8110.6
1.33
7.52
1.28
14601.0
8.35
- 1598.1
1.52
1.17
1233.1
1.38
3.02
2607.3
1.37
4.03
5974.2
1.33
5.26
11586.1
1.27
6.25
16673.2
1.24
7.64
1.25
8.14
16917.4
in units of seconds. b These data points were not

Bolles correction factor


liquid flow, gal/min
length of weir, in.

The least-squares regression analysis of the data shows a n


average deviation of 0.08 in. of water (8.79%), a maximum
error of 0.22 in. (23.65%), and a multiple correlation coeffi-

tLQ

543.8
-27.2
0.2161
68.2
-120.5
0.3477
113.1
-86.7
0.0869
178.9
-58.7
0.0464
282.1
-42.3
0.0450
394.3
-33.2
0.0768
-27.2
513.8
0,1677
546.6
-24.4
0.2097
-34.5
76.4
0.3591
4.5
124.9
0.1170
197.0
1.5
0.0657
17.3
290.9
0.0642
34.0
394.7
0.0964
35.2
500.3
0.1748
574.4
36.4
0.2890
-53.4
71.3
0.4304
125.2
-11.7
0.1124
197.9
8.3
0.0663
9.8
300.6
0.0649
13.8
413.5
0.1045
19.8
526.3
0.2088
560.1
33.7
0.2533
-59.3
71.8
0.4326
9.6
119.9
0.1309
11.9
194.2
0,0706
11.3
284.3
0.0655
11.3
392.0
0.0971
22.2
538.0
0.2387
26.9
577.3
0.3072
23.0
75.9
0.4179
5.7
122.1
0.1261
191.4
0,0701
4.3
0,1046
10.0
406.7
0.2157
17.8
523.7
18.6
597.8
0.3559
76.6
-47.8
0.3750
122.5
-4.4
0.1305
6.1
0.0729
196.5
295.0
8.5
0.0702
412.4
0.1149
13.3
15.2
0.2420
532.5
25.3
0.3240
578.0
76.1
-21.0
0.4043
124.8
0,1297
9.9
194.8
13.4
0.0743
292.1
20.5
0.0712
29.1
0.1073
398.3
32.1
0.2184
519.3
582.5
29.0
0.3398
used in the data analysis, but are included for

cient of 0.923. The average absolute deviation of 0.08 in.


compares well with the value of the reproducibility deviation
between duplicates of 0.07 in.
The experimental data are compared graphically with those
calculated by the predictive equation in Figures 3-5. Figure
3 illustrates the data for the two different binary systems, and
Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the benzene-n-propanol binary
data for different values of weir heights and L / V ratios.
Analysis of Tray Froth Height Data

The expression U : , 2 p , / ( p L - p u ) has been used successfully


in other studies (Hughmark, 1965; Lowry, 1967) to correlate
bed heights and thus was included as a correlating variable in
Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Develop., Vol. 1 1 , No. 4, 1972

595

since N1,tu= NlZiLa t the interface.


Equation 23 shows yl,{ and XI,^ are related by the equilibrium constant m, and xl,( is defined by Equation 24 in
terms of the mass transfer coefficients K , and KL. Therefore, if a, q, K,, and KL are known, Ni,T can be calculated by
Equation 31.
The values of the mass transfer coefficients are defined
by the penetration theory (Higbie, 1935) as:

K,

= 2

KL

(3):
(

%)I2

(33)

where
2.0

0.0

6. Tray

liquid diffusion coefficient, ft2/hr

= vapor contact time, hr


= liquid contact time, hr

t,

tL

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12

FF
Figure

D, = vapor diffusion coefficient, ft2/hr


DL =

(ft/sec

froth height results for both binary systems

Hughmark (1935) presented the following empirical equations for the determination of the interfacial area per unit
volume of tray bed and of the liquid contact times.
a = (91

this study. The form of this expression (referred to hereafter


as the frothing factor, F F ) was derived first by Souders and
Brown (1934). An arithmetic average of the vapor flows ( U a ) ,
vapor densities ( p , ) , and liquid densities ( p L ) about the test
tray were used in computing the frothing factors. A leastsquares regression analysis of the data resulted in the following equation:
Z,

3.00

+ 119.39 F F + 0.82 Z,(hot liquid)

(900 p o / p L ) 16 (0.67/~,)ll2(70/~) (34)


and

tL

tL(Hza/2)1iS(SA/18)1/8
exp (-1.065

+ 1.517 F , - 0.67 HozaF,)

1.8 How

(35)

where
= vapor density, lb/ft3

p,
pL
pL
u

liquid density, lb/fta


liquid viscosity, CP
= surface tension, dyn/cm
tL = liquid residence time, hr
S A = percent free area per bubbling area

(30)

The average absolute deviation of the fitted equation from


the fitted data was 0.43 in. (4.4773 with a maximum error of
1.22 in. (16.11%). The multiple correlation coefficient for the
regression analysis was 0.986. This average absolute deviation
of 0.43 in. is equivalent to the calculated deviation between
duplicates of 0.43 in. Values of the bed heights predicted by
this equation are graphically compared with the experimental
data points in Figure 6.

+ 266 F , - 92 F S 2- 75/H, + 40 Horn)X

=
=

I n the study a t hand, the liquid residence time was defined


as

tL

(volume of clear liquid on the tray)/(average flow rate


of liquid onto the tray)

Analysis of Mass Transfer Data

As proposed in the theory discussion, the calculation of the


total moles of each component exchanged between the liquid
and vapor phases was to be used as the basis for the prediction
of tray efficiencies. The number of moles of component 1
( N 1 , T )that is exchanged between phases can be calculated
from a knowledge of the molal flux of component 1 a t the
interface (N1,Jand of the total interfacial area (a) by the
following equation:
N L T = aN1,,

(31)

As derived previously, the molal flux of component 1 a t the


interface is given by either
9
- - Yl,C
A2

N 1 9 i=
u

+ cvK,(!h,t -

1 - (1 -

y1,b)

(19)

Xl/AB)?JI,I

or

where

-4,
QL

=
=

active or bubbling tray area, ft*


liquid flow rate, ft3/hr
hot clear liquid depth, in.

Zc =
By definition, the units of a are square feet per cubic feet.
To calculate the actual interfacial area, a must be multiplied
by the total volume of the bed, which results in the following
equation.
a = aZ,Aa/12.0
(37)
Examination of the above equations shows that two unknown quantities remain, namely the heat flux a t the interface, q , and the vapor contact time, t,. The determination of
these two unknowns is discussed below.
Calculation of Heat Flux at Interface

An earlier enthalpy balance a t the interface yielded the


following equation
p = AiNi.1 - XzNa,t
596

Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Develop., Vol. 1 1 , No.

4, 1972

(16)

Table

Run no.a

01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10

11
12
13
14
15

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Last

II. Experimental Run Numbers and


l e v e l of Variables
Valve leg
length

Weir
height

0 4375
3
0.4375
1
0.4375
2
0.4375
2
0.4375
2
0.4375
2
0.3750
2
0.3750
2
0.3750
2
0 3750
2
0.3750
2
0.3750
2
0.3750
3
0.3750
3
0.3750
3
0.3750
3
0.3750
1
1
0.3750
0.3750
1
0.3750
1
2
0.3750
2
0.3125
2
0.3125
2
0.3128
2
0.3125
3
0.3125
1
0.3125
two characters of a run number.

LIV

1
1
1
1.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5

1
1
1.5
0.5
1

1
1.5
0.5
1
1
1

1
1
1.5
0.5
1

15.01

?& Flood
60
60
30
90
60
60
90
30
90
30
60
60
60
60
90
30
60
60
90
30
60
30
90
60
60
60
60

-20.0 I

0.3 0.5

0.7 0.9

1.3 1.5
F FACTOR ( f t /sec ) ( Ib /f t 3 ) ''2
1.1

Figure 7. Calculated heat transfer a t interface

A
0

n-Propanol-toluene system
Benzene-n-propanol system

1.4 -

1.2-

1.0I

2 0.8-

.>

Multiplication of both sides of this equation by the interfacial area results in

A I N I ~ T- A ~ K ~ , T

0.4 -

(38)

which permits the direct calculation of the total heat flux


and
(Btu/hr) from the experimental data. Values of
L V ~were
, ~computed for the second tray from the experimental
data (Todd and Van Winkle, 1972), and the values of the
molal latent heats of vaporization were computed a t the average tray temperature. Table I contains the total number of
moles of the two components exchanged between the phases,
the ratio of
divided by I Y ~ &,
, ~a,,and q. The values of the
liquid contact times (fL', sec) were calculated by Equation 35
and are tabulated also.
Table I1 contains the values of the experimentally independent variables associated with the different run numbers.
The data sets labeled A , B, C, D, E, and F are supplementary
data collected a t 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, and 97.5% of the
column flooding conditions for both binaries a t each length of
tray valve legs (A, B, and C sets with n-propanol-toluene
binary and D, E, and E' sets with benzene-n-propanol binary;
-1and F sets-valve leg lengths of 0.4375 in., B and E setsvalve leg lengths of 0.3750 in., and C and D sets-valve leg
lengths of 0.3125 in.). d weir height of 2 in. and a L / V ratio
of 1 .O were used for these runs.
Inspection of the tabulated values of the ratio ~ Y I , T / S ~ , T ,
shows that the value is generally greater than one for the
thermally negative benzene-n-propanol system and less than
one for the thermally positive n-propanol-toluene system.
This result is in agreement with the postulation made earlier.
It is interesting to compare these values with the ratio of the

0.6-

0.2-

01
0.3

0.5 0.7 0.9


1.1
1.3
F FACTOR ( f t / s e c ) ( I b / f t 3

1.5

Figure 8. Calculated vapor contact times


A
0

n-Propanol-toluene (B d a t a set)
Benzene-n-propanol (E data set)

latent heats. If Q were zero, Equation 38 would reduce to

_ _ _-- A 2

l171,T

N?,T

A1

(39)

where
A2/X1 = 0.81 for the n-propanol-toluene system
A2/hl = 1.41 for the benzene-n-propanol system

In general, the experimental ratio of moles and the ratio predicted by the above equation are in closer agreement for the
benzene-n-propanol system than for the n-propanol-toluene
system.
The calculated values of the total heat transferred for the
A, B, C, D, E, and F data sets are illustrated in Figure 7. As
the plotted data indicate, the total heat transferred across
the interface for the thermally negative benzene-n-propanol
system is greater than zero.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Develop., Vol. 11, No. 4, 1972

597

Table 111. Calculated Vapor Contact Times


Run no.

101.
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
1Alb
1A2
1A3
1A4
1A5
1A6
1A7b

lBlb
1B2
1B3
1B4
1B5
1B6
1B7b
598

KL

2.08
3.19
1.67
1.33
2.77
2.20
2.04
2.13
1.28
1.09
2.56
2.52
2.51
2.05
1.22
1.42
3,87
4.03
1.66
2.07
2.58
1.80
1.36
2.84
3.04
2.19
3.24
1.79
2.71
1.47
1.17
2.51
1.89
1.83
1.95
1.11
1.01
2.16
2.17
2.16
1.57
1.03
1.35
3.10
2.60
1.41
1.85
2.13
1.57
1.27
2.60
1.89
1.86
2.80
0.91
1.67
2.36
2.43
1.96
1.33
1.07
1.05
2.23
2.55
2.56
2.07
1.40
1.16

Ax

0.0025
0.0024
0.0140
0.0142
0.0043
0.0054
0.0067
0.0058
0.0071
0.0066
0.0081

0.0074
0.0056
0.0058
0.0135
0.0154
0.0045
0.0034
0.0103
0,0109
0.0084
0.0131
0.0141
0.0040
0,0042
0.0102
0.0067
0.0152
0.0108
0,0247
0.0186
0.0082
0.0037
0,0095
0.0117
0,0068
0.0062
0,0124
0.0124
0.0089
0,0052
0.0203
0.0240
0.0071
0,0035
0.0168
0.0219
0.0126
0.0224
0.0174
0.0085
0.0037
0.0150
0.0107
0,0160
0.0140
0.0103
0.0072
0.0088
0.0142
0.0166
0.0174
0,0154
0.0105
0.0081
0.0077
0,0106
0.0141

Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Develop., Vol. 1 1 , No.

AY

0.0366
0.0406
0.1139
0.1427
0.0699
0.0998
0.0964
0.0514
0.1357
0.0855
0.1424
0.1320
0.0756
0.1082
0.1351
0.1123
0.0973
0.1223
0.1210
0.0947
0.1498
0.1168
0.1588
0.0663
0.1331
0.1649
0.1334
0.2809
0.2829
0.2501
0.2703
0.1823
0.1416
0.1755
0.1584
0.1585
0.1173
0.2683
0.2735
0.1626
0.1321
0,2694
0.2540
0.1679
0.1504
0.2644
0.2480
0.2628
0.2415
0.2740
0.1841
0.1314
0.2761
0.2744
0.0862
0.1139
0.1365
0.1170
0.1308
0.1427
0.1597
0.1062
0.1816
0.1614
0.1424
0.1268
0.1198
0.1363
4, 1972

ATL

0.0248
0.0233
0,0981
0.1094
0.0382
0.0558
0.0983
0,0484
0.3164
0.1223
0,0599
0.0531
0.0585
0.1200
0.0999
0.1082
0.0600
0.1025
0.0735
0,0809
0.0651
0.0915
0.1250
0.0368
0,1908
0.0929
0.0482
0.5698
0.3937
0.6457
0.6768
0.3995
0.3310
0.5126
0.5158
0.5840
0.5350
0.3843
0.4091
0.3679
0.4583
0.7524
0.6592
0.2963
0.2948
0.5599
0.5553
0.3702
0.5371
0.6720
0.4002
0.3161
0.5270
0.3523
0.1206
0,0981
0.0743
0,0508
0.0631
0.1094
0.1517
0.1234
0.1796
0.0906
0.0599
0.0553
0,0765
0,1059

ATv

1.04
1.09
4.40
7.31
2.89
4.95
5.50
1.86
9.65
4.80
6.83
5.86
3.50
6.58
6.59
4.32
5.17
7.98
5.22
2.91
7.53
4.62
8.94
2.79
9.30
9.12
6.00
15.41
15.54
14.14
14.98
10.17
7.12
9.94
9.03
8.12
5.96
14.99
15.19
9.30
6.77
14.95
14.31
9.55
7.63
14.79
14,OO
14.76
13.70
15.13
10.33
6.74
15.29
15.24
2.44
4.40
6.27
4.57
5.88
7.31
9.10
3.78
10.70
8.62
6.83
5.53
5.13
6.79

47.34
62.28
64.99
40.47
52.53
36.44
42.63
72.81
20.25
27.15
45.16
44.29
56.59
34.00
37.16
61.13
54.75
35.22
43.60
76.12
44.83
63.56
36.50
52.28
29.23
41.72
50.07
31.86
34.13
47.32
24.95
37.45
18.57
32.15
47.74
16.40
21.48
32.30
32.16
38.27
22.86
24.19
41.75
42.43
22,56
27.67
52.98
33.01
46.81
24.99
39.48
19.86
33.19
35.67
52.74
64.99
50,79
47.07
41.18
40.47
33.70
53.11
59 44
51.62
45.16
39.02
37.89
36.16
I

tu&

0.3680
0.2126
0.2003
0.5023
0.3019
0.6234
0.4508
0.1583
1.9840
1.1482
0,4108
0.4257
0,2605
0.7229
0.5926
0.2255
0.2795
0.6776
0.4303
0,1450
0.4180
0,2092
0.6129
0.3020
0,9629
0.4789
0.3294
0,8732
0.7614
0.4012
1.3571
0.6306
2.5800
0.8253
0.3931
3.1346
1.9778
0.8465
0.8541
0.5974
1.7059
1.4368
0.5135
0.4879
1.7451
1,0955
0.3186
0.8090
0.4068
1.3378
0.5635
2.2457
0.8038
0.6927
0.3028
0.2003
0.2715
0.3764
0.4897
0.5023
0.7199
0.2989
0.2430
0.3186
0.4108
0.5413
0.5650
0.6172

Table 111. (ConfinuedJ


Run no.

1Clb
1c 2
1C3
1C4
1C5
1C6
1C7b
2Dlb
2D2
2D3
2D4
2D5
2D6
2D7b
2Dlb
2D2
2D3
2D4
2D5
2D6
2D7b
2Elb
2E2
2E3
2E4
2E 5
2E6
2E7b
2Elb
2E2
2E3
2E 5
2E6
2E7b
2Flb
2F2
2F3
2F4
2F5
2F6
2F7b
2Flb
2F2
2F3
2F4
2F5
2F6
2F7b

KL

Ax

0.90
1.80
2.46
2.52
1.94
1.36
1.23
0.86
1.57
2.09
2.21
1.92
1.46
1.16
0.76
1,57
2.11
2.16
1.74
1.27
1.25
0.75
1.50
2.06
2.16
1.79
1.20
1.08
0.85
1.52
2.03
1.72
1.24
0.98
0.82
1.47
2.00
2.07
1.66
1.17
1.05
0.82
1.51
2.02
2.12
1.81
1.30
1.04

0.0154
0.0131
0.0084
0.0078
0,0092
0.0141
0.0154
0.0307
0.0226
0.0150
0.0130
0.0124
0.0164
0.0167
0.0290
0.0224
0.0151
0.0124
0.0133
0.0174
0.0145
0.0304
0.0242
0.0146
0.0124
0.0134
0.0180
0.0205
0.0306
0.0239
0.0151
0,0141
0.0171
0.0220
0.0299
0.0247
0,0158
0.0125
0.0135
0.0186
0.0205
0.0313
0.0251
0.0159
0.0130
0,0129
0.0165
0.0198

AY

0.0979
0.1168
0.1229
0.1352
0.1403
0.1588
0.1673
0.2315
0.2568
0.2533
0.2737
0.2916
0,2850
0.2851
0.2108
0.2415
0.2618
0.2641
0.2704
0.2740
0.2853
0,2064
0.2590
0.2668
0.2683
0.2682
0.2784
0,2782
0.2728
0,2563
0.2571
0.2645
0.2739
0.2699
0.2146
0,2501
0,2603
0.2647
0,2724
0.2703
0.2772
0.2409
0,2620
0.2684
0.2792
0.2892
0.2854
0.2816

ATL

0.1120
0.0915
0.0594
0,0564
0.0691
0.1250
0,1525
0.6432
0.6277
0.3963
0.4371
0.5729
0,7992
0.9293
0,5038
0.5371
0.4366
0.3722
0.4469
0.6720
0,7915
0.5126
0,6934
0.4398
0.3843
0,4320
0.7445
0.9240
0.9422
0,6665
0.4130
0.4397
0.6449
0.8620
0.5464
0,6457
0.4493
0.3749
0.4604
0.6768
0.9131
0.7137
0.7479
0.4951
0,4630
0.5685
0.8136
0.9528

A Tv

3.15
4.62
5.06
6.22
6.85
8.94
9.89
13.17
14.46
14.30
15.22
15.64
15.26
15.03
11.99
13.70
14.68
14.81
15.07
15.13
15.03
11.76
14.54
14.92
14.99
15.00
15.24
15.11
15.14
14.42
14.48
14.83
15.14
14.94
12.23
14.14
14.62
14.81
15.12
14.98
15.04
13.64
14.67
14.96
15.38
15.56
15.18
15.22

K V

43.06
63.56
53.13
45.17
39.28
36.50
34.18
36.03
45.46
40.06
34.12
26.74
26.39
21.70
32.28
46.81
39.62
32.60
27.10
24.99
19.61
34.28
45.87
37.09
32.30
28.51
24.54
24.76
31.99
46.46
38.83
28.85
24.23
24,37
35,64
47.32
39.72
31.58
26.39
24.95
24.05
33.97
47.79
39.28
32.32
26.33
23.95
23.06

fua

0.4540
0,2092
0.2973
0.4082
0.5334
0.6129
0,6969
0.6908
0.4349
0.5543
0.7541
1.2157
1.2026
1.7718
0.8514
0.4068
0.5653
0,8240
1,1666
1.3378
2.1192
0.7576
0.4270
0,6510
0.8465
1,0663
1.4076
1,3574
0.8869
0.4166
0.5913
1.0357
1,4395
1.3931
0.7013
0.4012
0.5658
0.8822
1,2457
1.3571
1,4321
0,7766
0.3949
0 5784
0,8476
1,2552
1.4667
1.5780

Vapor contact times are reported in units of seconds. * These data points were not used in the data analysis, but are included for
completeness.
Calculation of Vapor Contact Times

By solving Equation 32 for to, the vapor contact times can


be calculated directly from values of the vapor phase mass
transfer coefficient, K ,. The form of the resulting equation is

To calculate the values of K,, one must determine the interfacial film composition so that the vapor phase composition
driving force can be evaluated. It is then necessary to determine the value of K L from Equation 33 using the values of tL
from Table I. Once KL was computed, the liquid film composition, xl,i,
was solved by using Equations 20 and 31, and then a
bubble point calculation was performed to determine yl,(.

Equation 19 was then used to solve for values of K,. The computed values for the liquid mass transfer coefficient ( K L ) ,
liquid phase composition gradient (xl , b - x1,%),vapor phase
composition gradient (yl , { - yl , a ) , liquid phase temperature
gradient ( T , - TL),vapor phase temperature gradient
( T , - Ti),
vapor phase mass transfer coefficient ( K u ) ,and
the vapor contact time ( t u , sec) are contained in Table 111.
I n the above computations, arithmetic averages of the compositions and temperatures of entering and exiting streams of
tray two were used for the respective bulk phase compositions
and temperatures.
The effect of the two different thermal binary systems on the
heat flux a t the interface can be analyzed from the data contained in Table 111. The average value of the K L / K , ratio for
Ind. Eng. Chern. Process Des. Develop., Vol. 1 1 , No. 4, 1972

599

Table IV. Predicted Valve Tray Efficiencies

600

Run no.

% Flood

Exp. NI,T

Pred. N I , T

101
102
124
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
125
126
127
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
21 1
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
lAla
1-42
1A3
1A4
1A5
1A6
1A7a
lBla
1B2
1B3
lB4
1B5
lB6
1B7a

58.10
59.32
62.52
29.64
90.00
56.76
61.91
91.02
28.27
89.83
28.30
60.70
60.79
60.02
60.01
90.55
27.74
62.30
61.60
91.55
30.27
61.52
29.71
91.13
61.50
62.62
62.37
60.55
60.11
29.64
89.46
61.25
60.80
90.50
31,62
89.56
30.00
59.22
59.44
59.86
60.90
90.04
30.43
59.86
60.90
89.48
30.43
59.78
30.26
89.80
61.88
60.00
59.78
59,56
15.01
29.64
44.92
60,35
75.68
90.00
97.25
16,78
32.22
44.25
60.70
75.17
90.81
97.25

0.85
0.99
2.02
1.87
6.18
1.89
2.09
3.83
0.94
2.83
0.43
3.63
3.31
2.22
2.00
5.55
1.82
2.27
1.91
4.79
1.42
3.84
1.92
6.42
2.43
4.48
3.45
7.20
6.07
3.98
10,Ol
4.60
1.63
6.99
2.45
3.12
0.59
6.68
6.71
4.62
2.02
10,26
3.91
4.11
1.78
9.48
3.54
6.92
3.97
10.06
5.00
1,58
7.34
6.26
0.86
1.87
2.84
3.07
4.29
6.18
6.57
1.10
2.73
3.04
3.63
3.89
4.83
5.89

1.03
1.04
2.03
1.79
5.54
1.98
1.81
3.84
0.96
3.48
0.47
3.73
3.44
2.22
1.68
5.31
1.79
2.51
1.83
4.30
1.40
3.97
1.87
6.32
2.52
4.76
3.43
7.17
6.46
3.79
10.13
4.69
1.87
6.62
2.51
3.31
0.73
6.75
6.81
4.65
1.84
10.49
4.07
4.04
1.92
9.39
3.56
6.78
3.80
10.17
4.81
1.60
7.08
6.38
0.95
1.79
2.82
3.01
4.17
5.54
6.76
1.22
3.02
3.32
3.73
3.99
4.55
5.63

Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Develop., Vol. 1 1 , No. 4, 1972

Exp. N Z . T

Pred. N Z . T

Exp. E,MV

0.96
1.13
2.03
1.63
6.56
1.88
2.32
4.10
0.79
3.82
0.57
3.67
3.29
2.22
2.44
5.83
1.57
2.29
2.46
4.97
1.21
3.92
1.69
6.92
3.33
4.74
3.44
5.48
4.60
2.78
7,52
3.52
1.69
5.55
1.76
3.09
0.73
4.89
4.97
3.38
2.06
7.75
2.80
3.01
1.82
7.03
2.47
5.00
2.72
7.68
3.81
1.64
5.53
4.65
0.54
1.63
2.76
3.03
4.40
6.56
7.09
0.75
2.86
3.05
3.67
3.95
5.01
6.21

0.86
0.88
1.92
1.64
5.89
1.87
1.99
3.94
0.71
4.79
0.50
3.81
3.51
2.11
2.04
5.68
1.65
2.39
2.36
4.56
1.26
4.06
1.72
6.73
3.36
4.92
3.49
5.50
4.94
2.62
7.64
3.65
1.93
5.18
1.84
3.35
0.73
4.95
5.06
3.42
1.86
7.92
2.86
2.98
1.99
6.95
2.45
4.90
2.56
7.75
3.70
1.65
5.34
4.76
0.74
1.64
2.75
3.08
4.38
5.89
7.25
1 01
2.87
3.25
3.81
4.18
4.88
6.03

67.35
68.99
72.72
78,21
74.42
70.57
62.61
73.77
82.20
59.47
43.00
66.94
65,48
77.62
68.23
71.77
81.12
64.83
60.34
68,69
70,76
67.17
76.90
70,62
74.15
68.99
64.43
59.11
50,24
64.38
56.30
59.86
53.26
64.93
64.93
73.27
48,64
55.33
55.47
63.18
90.80
57.62
62.46
56.19
51.69
53.31
56.97
56.55
63.59
57.23
63.22
63.76
60.60
51.94
80.81
78.21
71.34
67.67
68.40
74.42
68.04
78.88
75.87
68.25
66.94
65.27
69.80
70.32

Pred.

EMV

68.22
61.00
70.39
74.58
66.10
71.58
53.52
71.92
77.95
74.04
42.41
68.29
68.11
75.12
56,66
68.55
79.72
69.09
57.63
61.76
69.96
68.62
74.56
68.51
75.95
71,65
63.94
58.71
53.18
60.65
56.85
61.24
61.10
61.20
66.63
78.21
55.83
55.65
56.04
63.60
82.51
58.64
63.58
55.33
55.90
52.60
56.40
55.26
60.01
57.61
60.91
64.42
58.27
52.73
93.07
74.58
69.68
66.83
66.68
66.10
69.19
90.70
78.80
72.50
68.29
67.36
66.21
67.12

70Dev.
-1.30
11.58
3.21
4.65
11.17
-1.43
14.52
2.52
5.17
-24.49
1.39
-2.01
-4.02
3.23
16.96
4.49
1.72
-6.57
4.49
10.09
1.13
-2.16
3.05
2.99
-2.42
-3.86
0.78
0.68
-5.85
5.79
-0.97
-2.29
-14.72
5.74
-2.62
-6.75
-14.76
-0,56
-1.02
-0.66
9.13
-1.76
-1.79
1.53
-8.15
1.33
1.oo
2.29
5.63
-0.66
3.65
-1.04
3.85
-1.53
-15.17
4.65
2.33
1.25
2.52
11,17
-1.69
-14.98
-3.85
-6.23
-2.01
-3.21
5.14
4.55

Table IV. (Continued)

% Flood

Pred. E.UV

73.60
0.45
0.81
0.82
1.03
1Cl"
13.66
76,90
1.72
1.69
1.92
1.87
29.71
1C2
2.46
68.92
2.56
2.59
2.60
45.55
1C3
68.22
3.77
3.81
3.70
3.74
1C4
62.37
4.89
68.03
4.93
4.69
4.72
76.97
1C5
70.62
6.42
6.92
6.73
6.32
91.13
1C6
68.87
7.34
7.43
6.74
6.94
lC7"
94 45
1.18
61.30
1.49
1.87
2.40
2Dla
15.00
2.82
62.60
2.74
3.95
3.89
2D2
30.46
59.10
3.90
3.69
5.50
5.25
2D3
45.33
59,47
5.45
5.17
2D4
7.33
6.94
60.68
55.75
6.39
6.81
7.99
8.49
2D5
75.52
62,21
8.14
10.12
88.64
7.93
9.87
2D6
54.70
10.58
9.40
7.81
8.73
97.78
2D7a
59.59
2.13
1.53
1.23
13.04
0.88
2Dla
63.59
2.72
3.80
3.97
2D2
2.56
30.26
59.25
4.04
5.59
3.85
5.36
2D3
45.84
56.89
2D4
7.11
5.05
6.95
61.29
5.18
8.61
55,09
2D5
6.24
8.39
75.85
6.40
57.23
7.75
10.06
10.17
2D6
89.80
7.68
49.67
2D7"
8.50
10.51
96.89
7.07
8.65
1.62
61 . 7 l
2El"
2.12
13.11
1.21
0.91
2E2
29.22
3.83
3.78
63,41
2.76
2.69
55.51
5.15
5.32
2E3
45,33
3.76
3.87
2E4
55.33
59.22
4.89
6.68
6.75
4.95
2E5
55.96
8.26
72.93
8.26
6.08
6.09
56.59
2E6
91.05
10.02
7.74
0.30
7.96
2E7a
59.87
96.44
10.92
8.58
0.80
8.48
2El"
56.34
15.18
2.50
1.71
1.30
1.79
2E2
3.93
29.64
2.81
3.82
63.76
2.69
5.22
2E3
44.44
5.19
57.23
3.73
3.68
2E5
8.63
57.24
74.59
6.32
8.41
6.16
54.85
9.61
2E6
88.89
0.08
7.31
7.66
2E7"
58.20
8.45
11.09
97.56
8.37
10.99
2Fla
2.32
1.80
14.89
1.07
60.30
1.37
2F2
3.98
29.64
3.79
2.78
64,38
2.62
5.52
2F3
45.44
58.88
5.30
3.96
3.80
2F4
6.75
54,75
60.44
6.86
4.90
4.99
2F5
75.44
8.10
8.57
53,31
6.02
6.40
2F6
89.46
10,Ol
7,52
56.30
10.13
7.64
2F7"
96,61
10.66
58.16
10,80
8.35
8.46
2FIu
2.43
1.78
58.74
14,96
1.17
1.55
2F2
4.18
30.17
3.92
65,62
3.02
2.82
5.51
2F3
45,56
5.35
58.81
4.03
3.93
2F4
6.99
60.89
6.97
5.26
56.73
5.29
2F5
7.94
75.57
8.53
6.25
54.44
6.76
2F6
9.49
90.56
10.05
7.64
56.76
8.10
2F7"
10.18
97.22
8.14
56.19
10.80
8.61
These data points were not used in the data analysis, but are included for completeness.

99.39
74.56
69.24
67,31
67.41
68.51
69.76
74.69
60.82
55.93
56.19
58.92
60.54
61.04
78.04
60.01
56.46
55.38
56.25
57.61
60,64
77.13
61,60
56.79
55.65
55.82
57. 92
59.06
76.61
61.08
56.35
55.64
57.18
57,53
73.92
60.65
56.29
55.38
56.15
56.85
58.75
75.09
61.05
56.90
56.48
58,19
59.80
59.21

Exp. NI.T

Pred. N ~ , T

Exp. N Z . T

Pred. N ~ , T

Exp. Euv

Run no.

the 27 design points of the thermally negative benzene-npropanol system is 0.0546. The same average value for the
thermally positive n-propanol-toluene system is 0.0436. The
greater value of the thermally negative system indicates, as
speculated earlier, that the importance of the liquid phase
resistance is accentuated for thermally negative systems. As
a result of this increased liquid phase resistance, the composition and temperature gradients in the liquid phase are greater
for the benzene-n-propanol system. Recalling the definition of
the heat flux a t the interface,
4 =

- 4,

h ( T , - TL) - h " ( T , - T,)

(17)
it would be expected that the values of the heat flus would
be greater for the benzene-n-propanol system because of the
4L

% Dev.
-35.04
3.05
-0.46
1.35
0.92
2.99
-1.30
-21.85
2.84
5.36
5.51
-5.69
2.68
-11.60
-30.96
5.63
4.72
2.67
-2.11
-0.66
-22.09
-24.99
2.85
-2.31
-0.56
0.24
-2.36
1.35
-35.97
4.22
1,55
2.79
-4.26
1.14
-22,59
5.79
4.41
-1.14
-5.33
-0.97
-1.00
-27.85
6.96
3.24
0.44
-6.89
-5.36
-5.38

greater liquid phase temperature gradients. This is verified by


the heat data plotted in Figure 7 which shorn that the total
heat transferred across the interface for the benzene-n-propanol system is always greater than that of the n-propanoltoluene system.
Inspection of tabulated values of t,' leads to the following
observations: The vapor contact times increase with increased
vapor flow rates and the vapor contact times for the npropanol-toluene system are smaller than those for the
benzene-toluene system. These effects are illustrated in Figure 8 for the 3 and E data sets.
It is interesting to compare the vapor contact times with
the average vapor residence times. In this study, the ratio of
the two times (contact time divided by residence time) had
Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Develop., Vol. 1 1 , No. 4, 1972

601

85.0

The heat transfer coefficientswere estimated by the ChiltonColburn analogy (1934) given below.

A SET

80.0

hL

(p~,)~(sc/Pr),~~K~

(41)

(42)

h, = (p~,),(sc/Pr)*/~K,,

where

E 85.01

c, = heat capacity, Btu/lb, O F


Sc = dimensionless Schmidt number
Pr = dimensionless Prandtl number

The Schmidt and Prandtl numbers are defined by the


following equations:
U

P
sc = -

(43)

CPP
= -

(44)

PD

C SET

Pr

70.0
65.0
60.0 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
25.0 35.0 45.0 55.0 65.0 75.0 85.0 95.0
PERCENT FLOOD

Figure

where
k

9. Predicted efficiencies n-propanol-toluene system

thermal conductivity, Btu/ft hr,

O F

In correlating the heat data, the total heat transferred (Q)


was easier to predict than the heat flux (9). A regression
analysis of the tabulated data resulted in the following equation:
Q

SETS

-5744

+ a0.[2.25hL*(T, - T,5,b)]21.88 [1.0 - 0.284 ( Z . J / L ) ~ ] ~ , *( TTi)


, , , (45)

55.0
50.0
45.0

where

Q = total heat transferred, Btu,hr


h ~ =
* ( P C , ) ~ ( S C / P ~ ) , ~Btu/ft2
~ K ~ hr, O F
h,* = ( ~ C , ) ~ , ( S C / P ~Btu/ft2
) ~ ~ ~hr,
K , OF

The multiple correlation coefficient for the regression was


0.986. The average absolute deviation of the fitted data from
the predicted values was 1031 Btu/hr (15.5%). This compares
well with the standard deviation of the heat data of 8238
Btu/hr.

0 45.0
LL
LL

7n n,

Analysis of Calculated Vapor Contact Times

F SETS

Examination of all the possible first- and second-order


effects of the independent variables produced the following
equation for the prediction of the vapor contact times:

450
5 0
O

2 5 0 350 450 5 5 0 6 5 0 7 5 0 850


PERCENT FLOOD

Figure
system

950

10. Predicted efficiencies benzene-n-propanol

1.0
values ranging from 1.5 to 6.0. Hughmark (1965) originally
assumed the two times were equal, but in a later study (1970)
hypothesized that the ratio of times should have a range of
values from 4.0 t o 15.0.
Analysis of Calculated Heat Flux at Interface

The heat flux a t the interface is fundamentally defined as


q = k,(T,

- TL) - h , ( T , - Ti)

where
hL
h,

(17)

)]

- 1.946 V

(46)

where
ab

interfacial area per square foot of bubbling surface =


a 2f/ 12 * 0

The least-squares regression analysis of the data shows


an average absolute deviation of 0.033 sec (4.40%), a maximum deviation of 0.095 sec (25.25%), and a multiple correlation coefficient of 0.980.
Prediction of Tray Efficiency

=
=

602 Ind.

liquid heat transfer coefficient, Btu/ftz hr, O F


vapor heat transfer coefficient, Btu/ft2 hr, O F
Eng. Chem. Process Des. Develop., Vol. 1 1 ,

No. 4, 1972

The Murphree tray efficiencies for the vapor phase were


computed for the test tray by the following procedure:

1. Values of K L and K , were computed by using Equations


32 and 33.
2. The heat flux, q, was initially assumed to be equal to
zero and the interfacial liquid composition computed from
Equation 24.
3. A bubble point calculation a t the interface was made to
determine the interface vapor composition and temperature.
4. The value of the heat flux, q, was determined by using
Equation 45.
5. If we use the predicted value of q, steps 2, 3, and 4 were
repeated until the difference in the computed interface temperatures between successive iterations was less than 0.002"F.
6, The value of the molal flux for component one was then
calculated by using Equation 20.
7. Equation 16 was used to compute the molal flux of the
second component.
8. The molal fluxes were multiplied by the computed total
interfacial area, Equation 37, to yield the total moles exchanged between the phases.
9. The compositions of the vapor and liquid streams leaving the second tray were then computed by making a material
balance around the second tray.
10. When we used these compositions, the Murphree tray
efficiency for the vapor phase was computed from Equation 1.

:90.0
C

80.0
70.01

I ; ; ; ;

The experimental and predicted total number of transferred moles of each component and the Murphree tray efficiencies are reported in Table IV. The percent deviation
between the experimental and predicted efficiencies is reported
also. The average absolute value of the deviations reported
in Table IV is 4.1770, (The 15 and 97Y0 flood points were
not included.) The deviation of data point 109 (24.49%)
represents the maximum value reported. If this point is
neglected, the average absolute deviation drops to 3.96%.
The predicted efficiencies for the 97y, of column flood points,
with the exclusion of run 207, show good agreement with the
experimental values. The average absolute deviation of these
points is 3.25%.
The experimental efficiency data are compared graphically
with the predicted values in Figures 9 through 12. The supplementary data are illustrated in Figures 9 and 10, and the
experimental design data are illustrated in Figures 11 and 12
for the benzene-n-propanol system a t the different values of
weir heights and L/V ratios.

H, = 1.0

80.070.0-

Hw

2.0

H,

= 3.0

50.0

0 40.0
LL
LL

50.0
40.0
25.0 35.0 45.0 55.0 65.0 75.0 85.0 95.0
PERCENT F L O O D

Figure 1 1 . Predicted efficiency for different weir heights


Benzene-n-propanol system L/V = 1 .O

4-

3LL

4001

90.0 I

L i V = 1.5

Conclusions

The experimental results of this study provide a clearer


understanding of the heat and mass transfer mechanisms
occurring between the distilling phases on the valve tray.
I n particular, the effects of the thermal properties of the distilling components (molar latent heats of vaporization) and
the heat transfer across the interface of mass between the
phases were determined.
The experimental results show that the tray efficiencies for
thermally positive systems (as classified by the unique definition presented in this work with respect to the ratio of the
molar latent heats of the components) are larger than those
for thermally negative systems. Also, as postulated, the liquid
phase resistance to mass transfer was accentuated for thermally negative systems which, in turn, had a marked effect on
the direction of the heat flux a t the interface.
The proposed two-film theoretical mass transfer model,
which incorporated the effects of the molar latent heats of
vaporization of the components and the heat transfer across
the interface, successfully predicted the experimentally determined number of moles exchanged between the distilling

50.0
40.0
25.0 35.0 45.0 55.0 65.0 75.0 85.0 95.0
PERCENT F L O O D

Figure 12. Predicted efficiency for different L/V ratios


Benzene-n-propanol system,

Hw = 2 in.

phases. KO significant effect on the transfer of mass could be


detected for the two different surface tension gradient systems (as defined by Zuiderweg) ; consequently this physical
property was not incorporated into the model. The computed
Murphree tray efficiencies based upon the predicted transfer
showed good agreement with the experimental tray efficiencies.
The vapor phase contact time, liquid phase residence time,
heat flux a t the interface, and total interfacial area used in the
mass transfer model were computed from empirical equations
developed in this study.
The next logical step in this continuing study is to extend
the correlations presented in this article to larger size columns
Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Develop., Vol. 1 1 , No. 4, 1972

603

operating at nonatmospheric pressures. This step is currently


under investigation.

GREEKLETTERS

Nomenclature

1.1

interfacial area, itZ


= interfacial area per unit volume of gas and liquid
holdup, l/ft
ab = interfacial area per square foot of bubbling surface,
ftZ/ftZ
c = molar concentration, lb mol/lt3
cD = heat capacity, Btu/lb, OF
DL = liquid diffusion coefficient, ft2/hr
D , = vapor diffusion coefficient, ft2/hr
E = efficiency
E.ML = RIurphree tray efficiency in liquid terms
= Murphree tray efficiency in vapor terms
EAMVc= Murphree tray efficiency in vapor terms, corrected for heat transfer through downcomer walls
Eoc = overall point efficiency in vapor terms
F , = Cs ( P v 1 0 . 5 = F,-factor, ( f t / s e ~ ) ( l b / f t ~ ) ~ ~
F , = Bolles correction factor for segmental downcomers
F F = raZp,,/(pL - p v ) = F F , average frothing factor
h = heat transfer coefficient, Btu/ft2 hr, O F
H,, = crest over the weir, in.
H , = weir height, in.
k = thermal conductivity, Btu/ft hr, O F
KL
= liquid phase mass transfer coefficient, ft/hr
K , = vapor phase inass transfer coefficient, ft/hr
L = liquid flow, lb mol/hr
L , = length of weir, in.
m = vapor-liquid equilibrium constant
m = slope of equilibrium line, dy/dx
N c = gas film transfer unit
S L
= liquid film transfer unit
NoG = overall gas transfer unit
P = pressure, atm
Pr = dimensionless Prandtl no.
q = heat flux a t the interface, Btu/ft2 hr
Q = total heat transferred across interface, Btu/hr
QL
= liquid flowv,gal./min
QL
= liquid flow, ft3/hr
Sc = dimensionless Schmidt 110.
LL = average liquid residence time, hr
tL
= liquid contact time, hr
t,
= vapor contact time, hr
T = temperature, OF
AT = temperature gradient between bulk of phase and
its interface
U , = vapor velocity based on active or bubbling tray
area, ft/sec
V = vapor flow, lb mol/hr
x = liquid composition, mole fraction
Ax = composition gradient between bulk liquid phase
and its interface, mole fraction
y = vapor composition, mole fraction
Ay = composition gradient betrveen bulk vapor phase
and its interface, mole fraction
2 = height in column, ft
2, = clear liquid height, in.
2, = froth height, in.

a
a

604 Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Develop., Vol. 11, No. 4, 1972

X
T

p
u

=
=
=
=
=

molar latent heats of vaporization, Btu/lb mol


viscosity, cP
constant, 3.14
density, Ib/ft3
surface tension, dyn/cm

SUPERSCRIPTS .4SD SUBSCRIPTS

average bulk value


interface
componentj
= liquid phase
n = tray n
T = total
V,v = vapor phase
1 = component 1
2 = component 2
b

i
j
L

=
=
=

literature Cited

A.1.Ch.E. Bubble-Tray Design Manual, American Institute


of Chemical Engineers, New York, N.Y., 1958.
Bainbridge, G. S., Sawistowski, H., Chem. Eng. Sci., 19, 992-3
(1964).
Bolles, W. L., Petrol. Refiner, 25, 613 (1946).
Chilton, E. H., Colburn, A. P.,Ind. Eng: Chem., 26, 118: (1934).
Danckwerts, G. C., Sawistowski, H., Smith, W., in Intern. Symp.
on Distillation, Inst. Chem. Eng., London, pp 7-12, May
1960.
Everitt, C. T., Hutchinson, H. P., Chem. Eng. Sci., 21, 883
(1966).
Fane, B., Sawistowski, H., zbid., 23, 943-5 (1968).
Haselden, G. G., Sutherland, J. P., Intern. Symp. on Distillation,
Inst. Chem. Eng., London, pp 27-32, Nay 1960.
Higbie, R., Trans. Anter. Inst. Chem. Eng., 31, 365 (1935).
Holland, C. D., lIcMahon, K. S.,Chem. Eng. Scz., 25, 431-6
(1970j.
Hughmark, G. A., Fifty-fifth Xat. Meeting, Symp. on Distillation, Houston, Tex., February 1965.
Hughniark. G. A . AIChE J . . 1611). 147-8 11970).
- . -,Le&, W. k., In&. Eng. Chem., 14,492 (1922).
Liang, S. Y., Smith, W., Chem. Eng. Sci.,17, 11-21 (1962).
Lowry, R., Foaming and Frothing Related to S p t f m Physical
Properties in a Small Perforated Plate Distillation Column,
PhD dissertation, University of T a a s , June 1967.
Murphree, E. V., Ind. Eng. Chem., 17, 747 (1925).
Nord, M.,zbzd., 38, 637 (1946).
Norman, W. S., Cakaloz, T., Fresco, A Z., Suthchffe, D. H.,
Trons Tnst. Chem. Eng., 41,61 (1963).
31i, Bull. Inst. Politechnzc Bacuresti, 23, 129 (1961).
Ruckenstein, Eli, Smigelischi, O., Chem. Eng. Scz., 20, 66-69
(1965).
Ruckenstein, Eli, Smigelschi, O., Can. J . Chem. Eng., 45, 334-40
(1967).
Ruckenstein, Eli, A I C h E J . , 16, 144-6 (1970).
Sawistowski, H., Smith, W., Ind. Eng. Chem., 51, 915-18 (1959).
Smoker, E. H., Trans. Amer. Inst. Chem. Eng., 34, 165 (1938).
Souders, Mott, Jr., Brown, G. G., Ind. Eng. Chem., 26,98 (January
I

I ,
\

19x41

Stand&, G., Chem. Eng. Scz., 20, 611-22 (1965).


Todd, W. G., Van Winkle, Matthew, Ind. Enq. Chem. Process
Des. D e d o p . , 17(4), 578 (1972).
Underwood, A. J., Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., 10, 112 (1932).
Zuiderweg, F. J., and Harmens, 9.
Chem. Eng. Sci., 9,89 (1958)
RECEIVED
for review March 13, 1972
ACCEPTED
June 5, 1972