1987
DOI: 10.1021/ie00062a010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mass-transfer characteristics of valve trays

Abstract: Gas-and liquid-side mass-transfer coefficients and gas-liquid interfacial areas for Glitsch V-l valve trays are reported. The data were taken from a three-tray column, each tray having an active deck area of 0.372 m2 at a tray spacing of 0.61 m. Gas and liquid rates covered the range from severe

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
24
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
1
24
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Since the tray configurations, including the valve geometry, mainly affects the bubbles' size, the influence of these motions on k L can therefore be neglected. The similar conclusion by Richard et al 1 also indicated that the mass transfer coefficient was not a strong function of tray type but the interfacial area was. As shown in Figures 9 and 10, the greater interfacial area a 0 was obtained due to the longer effective perimeter l. Statistically, comparing to the case of V1, a 0 of RV is about 12.49% higher, and that of DRV is 45.64% higher.…”
Section: Froth Porositysupporting
confidence: 59%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Since the tray configurations, including the valve geometry, mainly affects the bubbles' size, the influence of these motions on k L can therefore be neglected. The similar conclusion by Richard et al 1 also indicated that the mass transfer coefficient was not a strong function of tray type but the interfacial area was. As shown in Figures 9 and 10, the greater interfacial area a 0 was obtained due to the longer effective perimeter l. Statistically, comparing to the case of V1, a 0 of RV is about 12.49% higher, and that of DRV is 45.64% higher.…”
Section: Froth Porositysupporting
confidence: 59%
“…The calculation results, as given in Figures 9, 10, and 12, indicate that Eq. 28 fits the data from Richard et al 1 with a mean deviation of 8.28%, and represents the experimental data of all three valves in this study with a mean deviation of 1.22%. The comparison between the correlated and experimental interfacial areas, as more clearly shown in Figure 12, justifies Eq.…”
Section: Froth Porositymentioning
confidence: 87%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…11,14,15 The experimental data are summarized in 13 However, the space height of the column was not provided; thus, the exact LP/SP ratio is unknown. Moreover, estimation was performed to obtain the LP/SP.…”
Section: Validation Of the Extended New Interfacial Area Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%