Experimental Investigation of Hydrodynamic Characteristic of a New Rotating Stream Tray

  • Yuanhui Gong
  • Yan Wang
  • Huaigong Zhu
  • Wangfeng CaiEmail author
Research Article


The hydrodynamic characteristic of a new rotating stream tray (NRST) was investigated. The tests were carried out using an air–water/oxygen experimental system in a column with a diameter of 500 mm. The hydrodynamic parameters studied were dry plate pressure drop, wet plate pressure drop, weeping, entrainment, and Murphree liquid efficiency. The results showed that the NRST has excellent performance in terms of high operational flexibility. The pressure drop, weeping rate, and entrainment rate remained low even under a high-capacity operation. Correlations of pressure drop, weeping, and entrainment for the NRST were obtained by regression analysis. The results can provide some important theoretical guidance for the development of this type of trays.


Rotating stream tray Centrifugal separation Hydrodynamics Murphree liquid efficiency 

List of Symbols


Entrainment (kg)


Entrainment rate


Murphree liquid efficiency


F-factor (based on superficial gas velocity) (m/s (kg/m3)0.5)


Acceleration of gravity (m/s2)


Gas mass flow rate (kg/s)


Weeping (kg)


Liquid flow rate across tray section (m3/(h m2))


Liquid volume flow rate (m3/h)


Standard deviations of correlations


Time of collecting the entrainment liquid (s)


Time of collecting the weeping liquid (s)


Gas velocity through the plate holes (m/s)


Gas superficial velocity (m/s)


Mass fraction of oxygen in the liquid phase at the inlet (mg/L)


Mass fraction of oxygen in the liquid phase at the outlet (mg/L)


Equilibrium mass fraction of oxygen in the liquid phase at the test temperature (mg/L)

\(\Delta P\)

Pressure drop (Pa)

\(\Delta P_{\text{d}}\)

Dry plate pressure drop (Pa)

\(\Delta P_{\text{w}}\)

Wet plate pressure drop (Pa)

Greek Symbols


Dry plate pressure drop coefficient


Gas density (kg/m3)


Liquid density (kg/m3)


Diameter (mm)


Weeping rate



This study was supported by the Shenzhen Science and Technology Research and Development Fund (JCYJ20160331113033413 and JCYJ20150630114140637).


  1. 1.
    OlujićŽ Jödecke M, Shilkin A et al (2009) Equipment improvement trends in distillation. Chem Eng Process 48(6):1089–1104Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang CR (2010) Study on classification and application of the distillation. Min Metall 19(2):55–56 , 62 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fair JR, Trutna WR, Seibert AF (1999) A new, ultracapacity tray for distillation columns. Chem Eng Res Des 77(7):619–626Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vennavelli AN, Whiteley JR, Resetarits MR (2012) New fraction jetting model for distillation sieve tray efficiency prediction. Ind Eng Chem Res 51(35):11458–11462Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang L, Liu X, Li H et al (2012) Hydrodynamic and mass transfer performances of a new SiC foam column tray. Chem Eng Technol 35(12):2075–2083Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brahem R, Royon-Lebeaud A, Legendre D et al (2013) Experimental hydrodynamic study of valve trays. Chem Eng Sci 100:23–32Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jiang B, Liu PF, Zhang LH et al (2013) Hydrodynamics and mass-transfer analysis of a distillation ripple tray by computational fluid dynamics simulation. Ind Eng Chem Res 52(49):17618–17626Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vanaki SM, Ganesan P, Mohammed HA (2016) Numerical study of convective heat transfer of nanofluids: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 54:1212–1239Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhang LH, Li ZJ, Yang N et al (2016) Hydrodynamics and mass transfer performance of vapor-liquid flow of orthogonal wave tray column. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 63:6–16Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tan TE, Wang DH (1985) The rotating stream tray. Bull Sci Technol 1:43–44 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen JM, Tan T (1998) Experimental and theoretical investigation of gas flow field on a rotating stream tray. Chem Eng Commun 168(1):243–257Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shao XF, Wu ZB (2004) Simulation and analysis on the two-phase flow fields in a rotating-stream-tray absorber by using computational fluid dynamics. Chin J Chem Eng 12(2):169–173Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen JM, Tan T (1996) Experimental studies of flow fields on rotating stream tray with laser Droppler anemometer. Chin J Chem Eng 24:59–64 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sun WS, Wu ZB, Li Y et al (2002) Sodium-enhanced limestone wet FGD in rotating-stream tray scrubber. Chin J Environ Sci 23(5):105–108Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen JM, Tan TE, Shi XN (1993) Gas flow field above rotating stream tray. J Chem Eng Chin Univ 3:235–241Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    He SC, Yuan HX, Fu SC et al (2011) Numerical simulation of velocity and pressure in gas phase in rotating stream tray column. Chem Ind Eng Prog 11:2399–2403Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sun YQ, Chen JM, Song S (2007) Industrial treatment of nitrogen oxide waste gas with rotating-stream-tray scrubber. Bull Sci Technol 23(5):751–754 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shao XF, Wu ZB (2004) Simulation and analysis on the two-phase flow fields in a rotating-stream-tray absorber by using computational fluid dynamics. Chin J Chem Eng 12(2):169–173Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li GW, Shi JF (1996) Hydromechanics of rotative-stream tray. Environ Eng 14:28–34 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yu R, Zhu HM (2018) Impact of length of Baffle in structured packing on pressure drop and mass transfer. Chem Ind Eng 35(4):58–65MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wu JN, Wang Y, Xu EL et al (2018) Design and performance tests of motor-driven rotary energy recovery device. Chem Ind Eng 35(5):42–48Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bennett DL, Agrawal R, Cook PJ (1983) New pressure drop correlation for sieve tray distillation columns. AIChE J 29(3):434–442Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zarei T, Rahimi R, Zarei A et al (2013) Hydrodynamic characteristic of conical cap tray: experimental studies on dry and total pressure drop, weeping and entrainment. Chem Eng Process 64:17–23Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vitankar VS, Dhotre MT, Joshi JB (2002) A low Reynolds number k-ε model for the prediction of flow pattern and pressure drop in bubble column reactors. Chem Eng Sci 57(16):3235–3250Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wijn EF (1998) On the lower operating range of sieve and valve trays. Chem Eng J 70(2):143–155Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jaćimović BM (2000) Entrainment effect on tray efficiency. Chem Eng Sci 55(18):3941–3949Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thomas WJ, Ogboja O (1978) Hydraulic studies in sieve tray columns. Ind Eng Chem Proc Des Dev 17(4):429–443Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kister HZ, Haas JR (1988) Entrainment from sieve trays in the froth regime. Ind Eng Chem Res 27(12):2331–2341Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jaćimović BM, Genić SB (2011) Tray efficiency versus stripping factor. Ind Eng Chem Res 50(12):7445–7451Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Luo N, Qian F, Ye ZC et al (2012) Estimation of mass-transfer efficiency for industrial distillation columns. Ind Eng Chem Res 51(7):3023–3031Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang HH, Niu XW, Li CL et al (2017) Combined trapezoid spray tray (CTST): a novel tray with high separation efficiency and operation flexibility. Chem Eng Process 112:38–46Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Li QS, Zhang MX, Tang XF et al (2013) Flow-guided sieve-valve tray (FGS-VT): a novel tray with improved efficiency and hydrodynamics. Chem Eng Res Des 91(6):970–976Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Tianjin University and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuanhui Gong
    • 1
  • Yan Wang
    • 1
  • Huaigong Zhu
    • 2
  • Wangfeng Cai
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.School of Chemical Engineering and TechnologyTianjin UniversityTianjinChina
  2. 2.Peiyang Chemical Equipment Co., Ltd.TianjinChina

Personalised recommendations