New model of pressure drop for the foam trays with dynamic bubbling process analysis

Hydrodynamic and mass transfer correlations for SiC ceramic foam monolithic trays used in distillation column

“…(18); 45 in it, ⊗ is the stripping factor, i.e., the ratio of the slope of the equilibrium curve (m) to the operation line (L=G), as defined by Eqn. (19). And in the situation of total reflux, L=G.…”

“…Weeping from the foam monolithic tray was comparatively insignificant compared to other tray types (such as the sieve, flow-guiding sieve-valve tray (FGS-VT), flowguiding sieve tray (FGST), and Glitsch valve trays) because the capillary force and surface tension in the 3D open-cell structure of foams can balance the gravitational force to some extent, mitigating liquid weeping and maintaining liquid holdup in the porous channels, even at low gas velocities. 19 In addition, compared to the classical sieve trays, the overall column efficiency was about 81%, indicating the improved mass transfer efficiency in the foam monolithic tray. Li et al investigated the bubble sizes and gas holdup distribution in foam monolithic trays using the conductive probe technique and a high-speed camera; 20 their results showed that the open cell size and thickness of SiC foams could significantly affect the gas distribution in foams.…”

“…The results showed that the pressure drop across the SiC foam monolithic tray (due to its high porosity) was lower than that of the classic trays, such as the sieve tray and Glitsch V1 tray. Weeping from the foam monolithic tray was comparatively insignificant compared to other tray types (such as the sieve, flow‐guiding sieve‐valve tray (FGS‐VT), flow‐guiding sieve tray (FGST), and Glitsch valve trays) because the capillary force and surface tension in the 3D open‐cell structure of foams can balance the gravitational force to some extent, mitigating liquid weeping and maintaining liquid holdup in the porous channels, even at low gas velocities 19 . In addition, compared to the classical sieve trays, the overall column efficiency was about 81%, indicating the improved mass transfer efficiency in the foam monolithic tray.…”

“…For example, Yan et al 18 proposed a new pressure drop correlation for the foam valve trays that included contact angle considerations and showed good agreement with the experiments. To further investigate the effects of the wettability and cellular structure of foam materials on their hydrodynamics, Yan et al reconstructed the real structure of SiC foams using computed tomography; then, based on a numerical simulation, a pressure drop correlation was developed for the foam tray that agreed well with experimental data 19 . However, relevant correlations for entrainment, weeping, and mass transfer coefficient in foam monolithic trays are still absent.…”

Open Balance Point and Dry Pressure Drop of a Rectangular Float Valve Tray: Experiment and CFD Simulation

“…However, despite the widespread use of float valve trays in industrial applications, there is still a limited understanding of their operation characteristics, and current designs have long relied on empirical correlations. , The accurate prediction and understanding of pressure drop are crucial for the precise design, operation, and troubleshooting of industrial tray columns, − especially for distillation columns operating at low-to-moderate pressures . In recent years, research on the pressure drop of various tray types, ,− including float valve trays, has surged. , …”