Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Chemical Engineering and Processing 47 (2008) 15201529
Pressure drop of internals for packed columns

A. Rix
a,
, Z. Olujic
b
a
Degussa AG, S-TE EN-P1, Marl, Germany
b
Delft University of Technology, Process & Energy Department, Leeghwaterstraat 44, 2628 CA, Delft, The Netherlands
Received 27 October 2006; received in revised form 25 June 2007; accepted 5 July 2007
Available online 19 July 2007
Abstract
Because of their low pressure drop per equilibrium stage, random and particularly structured packings are frequently used in vacuum distillation.
For applications requiring operation at absolute pressures below 100 mbar usually the total allowable pressure drop is specied. Demanding
separations require frequent collection and redistribution of liquid. This means dealing with an additional source of pressure drop which is usually
ignored, taking into account the pressure drop of the irrigated packed bed only. Unfortunately only scarce data on the pressure drop of liquid and
vapour redistribution sections can be found in open literature. In this paper, the available pressure drop data for liquid collectors and distributors
are evaluated. A simple rst principles pressure drop model for liquid collectors and distributors is derived and validated by comparison with
experimental data. Open area is the key variable in the design of low pressure drop internals, however all internals investigated exhibited certain
liquid loading effect, which is accounted for by corresponding pressure drop enhancement factor. The pressure drop model presented offers a
practical guideline for the evaluation of internals for packed columns.
2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Packed column internals; Liquid distributors; Liquid collectors; Pressure drop
1. Introduction
Distilling of many commodity and practically all ne chem-
icals is carried out in vacuum to avoid thermal degradation or
polymerisation. Packed columns equipped with structured pack-
ing are preferred to minimise the column pressure drop, i.e.
bottoms operating pressure. In distillation service, corrugated
sheet metal packings with specic areas from 250 to 750 m
2
/m
3
are used. In separations carried out at pressures below 0.1 bar,
gauze packings are often preferred. Recently, high capacity sheet
metal packings have been introduced, which allowgas or vapour
loads signicantly higher than experienced with conventional
packings. Most importantly, new high capacity packings can be
used to revamp existing columns. Indeed these packings, con-
taining a smooth bend on lower or both ends of the corrugated
sheet enable shifting the loading point toward higher gas loads.
At the same percent of ood, however, their pressure drop is

Based on a paper presented by Dr. Armin Rix at the AIChE National Spring
Meeting, Orlando, 2327 April 2006, and the ACHEMA Congress, Frankfurt a.
M., May 1519, 2006.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 2365 49 7656; fax: +49 2365 49 80 7656.
E-mail address: armin.rix@degussa.com (A. Rix).
higher than that of conventional structured packings. Revamp-
ing an existing column will therefore also increase the total bed
and the internals pressure drop.
All packings have the natural tendency to create a charac-
teristic level of maldistribution. Feed points and product draws
are additional sources of non-ideal ow patterns of liquid and
vapour. Because maldistribution reduces the separation perfor-
mance of a given packing, collection and redistribution of the
liquid phase is mandatory to maintain a uniformowdistribution
over the columns cross-section. Especially in sharp separations
of close boiling mixtures frequent redistribution is required. For
eachnewbed, the liquidhas tobe collected, mixedanduniformly
redistributed. As loadings are maximised in revamps, it is essen-
tial to re-evaluate the performance of existing (re-)distribution
sections as well.
As illustrated in Fig. 1, a liquid redistribution section usually
consists of a liquid collector placed above a liquid distributor.
Fig. 2 shows CFD simulations of dry gas ow through a liquid
redistribution section consisting of a narrow trough liquid dis-
tributor in combination with (a) a chevron type collector or (b) a
chimney tray. In all internals, the gas is forced through a number
of sudden contractions and expansions, which, in case of mul-
tiple beds, i.e. liquid redistribution sections, can be associated
0255-2701/$ see front matter 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cep.2007.07.003
A. Rix, Z. Olujic / Chemical Engineering and Processing 47 (2008) 15201529 1521
Fig. 1. Schematic representationof a liquidredistributionsection, witha chevron
type liquid collector placed above a narrow trough liquid distributor.
with generation of a considerable pressure drop. This pressure
dropis not routinelyconsideredinthe hydraulic designof packed
columns.
Operating characteristics of common packed column inter-
nals including dos and donts considerations are described
in great detail by Kister [1]. Although there is ample literature
on the hydraulics of packed beds, only few sources mention or
consider the pressure drop of internals. For chimney trays used
as liquid side-draw trays, Wheeler [2] reports loss coefcients
and gives some design guidelines. To our knowledge, no data
on the hydraulics of distributors and chevron type collectors is
available. This paper aims at providing the missing information.
Some of the information on typical designs of column inter-
nals available is summarised. Based on rst principles, a simple
model for the pressure drop of column internals is developed
and validated using experimental evidence. An example demon-
strates the practical relevance of the ndings.
2. Packed column internals
2.1. Chimney trays
A typical layout of a chimney tray is shown in Fig. 3, includ-
ing common designs of gas riser hats. Chimney trays can be
applied to serve a variety of functions. Good design practices and
typical operationproblems of chimneytrays for liquidside draws
are reported by Lieberman [3]. In a recent paper by Kister et al.
[4], pitfalls in chimney tray design are investigated. Chimney
tray distributors simultaneously may serve as a liquid collecting
device and provide at least a moderate degree of lateral mixing
of the liquid. When liquid is draining from a packed bed above,
the risers are covered with hats to keep liquid from falling into
the risers. This liquid would either bypass the collector or be re-
entrainedbythe highvelocitygas ow. The arrowshowninFig. 3
indicates the direction of increasing pressure drop associated
with the shape of the riser hat.
Some information on chimney tray hydraulics is available in
literature. Wheeler [2] recommends to estimate the related pres-
sure drop as the velocity head loss due to sudden contraction and
re-expansion of the gas ow. Together with the loss associated
with the deection of the gas ow in the riser hats, 2.5 velocity
heads are recommended for open areas between 20 and 25%.
According to Lieberman [3], frictional losses in the risers are
negligible and the pressure drop of a chimney tray can be con-
sidered to be equal to that of a sharp-edged orice. Open area is
not taken into account in both papers.
2.2. Chevron type liquid collectors
Because of their simple fabrication and ease of installation,
chevron or vane type collectors are frequently used. As indicated
in Fig. 2, the vanes (blades) in a chevron deect gas ow to the
side to affect inertial separation of entrained droplets. At the
upper end of the vanes, hooks are applied to remove the liquid
lm forming at the underside of the vanes. The liquid draining
from the bed above is collected on the upper side of the vanes
and ows rst into parallel troughs and then into a welded-in
ring channel. Fig. 4 shows an image of a chevron-type collector.
In vendor brochures, this device is generally qualied as a low
pressure drop collector. The only reference we found on this
subject in open literature, i.e. that by Faria Lemos et al. [5]
recommends 0.5 mmHg (approximately 0.7 mbar) as upper limit
for chevrons and chimney trays to comply with a total column
pressure drop requirement in a given revamp case. No geometry
related information is given.
2.3. Liquid distributors
In most applications, gravity liquid distributors of the trough
type are employed. The open area available for gas ow ranges
from 40% up to 70%, depending on operating pressure, specic
liquid load and drip point density. Fig. 5 shows a narrow trough
1522 A. Rix, Z. Olujic / Chemical Engineering and Processing 47 (2008) 15201529
Fig. 2. CFD simulation of dry gas ow (F=2.5 Pa
0.5
) through typical liquid redistribution sections, consisting of a chevron (60

vane inclination) type or a chimney

tray liquid collector (right hand side), placed above a narrow trough distributor.
distributor with drip tubes. Other designs contain holes in the
bottom or side walls of the troughs. The latter are often used in
conjunction with a deection bafe to enhance the density of
irrigation points. In fouling services, rectangular or V-notches
are employed. While the distributor is usually placed close to the
packing, a certain distance to the collector above is required for
access and installation. Recently, streamlined designs are intro-
duced along with high-capacity packing, which aim at reducing
gasliquid interaction and re-entrainment of freshly distributed
liquid by the gas ow. Pilling and Bannwart [6] describe the
Fig. 3. Typical layout of a chimney tray with central downpipes.
advantages of gravity ow liquid distributors used in a vac-
uumservice revamp to substitute spray nozzle distributors. Their
main concern was reducing the extent of entrainment. To keep
the pressure drop as low as possible, a high open area of about
70% was chosen. Compared to a spray distributor with an open
area of more than 85%, the pressure drop was cut in half. No
numbers were given, but the pressure drop of the narrow trough
distributor was considered as insignicant with respect to the
overall column pressure drop.
3. Pressure drop model
From the qualitative description of gas ow in column inter-
nals given above, it follows, that their pressure drop is mainly
Fig. 4. A chevron type liquid collector.
A. Rix, Z. Olujic / Chemical Engineering and Processing 47 (2008) 15201529 1523
Fig. 5. A narrow trough liquid distributor equipped with drip tubes.
caused by momentumchange due to sudden contraction, sudden
expansion and deection of the gas ow. These are elementary
ow situations, for which reliable pressure loss coefcients are
available. Based on this observation, the loss coefcients of the
internals can be derived from rst principles.
The basic expression for calculating the pressure drop asso-
ciated with the ow of a gas through a closed conduit area
is:
p =
s

G
u
2
Gs
2
(1)
where
s
is the overall pressure loss coefcient,
G
(kg/m
3
) the
gas density, and u
Gs
(m/s) is the supercial gas velocity.
For the ow of ascending gas through a packed column it is
more convenient to express the pressure drop as a function of
the column gas load expressed as so called F-factor, F
Gs
(Pa
0.5
),
or the capacity factor, c
Gs
(m/s):
p =

s
2
F
2
Gs
=

s
2
c
2
Gs
(
L

G
) (2)
with
F
Gs
= u
Gs

G
(3)
and
c
Gs
= u
Gs

G
=
F
Gs

G
(4)
both representing practical measures for the gas load of the
column.
According to these denitions, the overall pressure loss coef-
cient is related to the supercial gas velocity. However, the
bodies of liquid collectors and distributors reduce the cross sec-
tional area available for gas ow signicantly. In literature, loss
coefcients are usually given with respect to owvelocity in the
open area, i.e. under accelerated ow conditions. Open area is
usually expressed as the ratio of the area A
o
(m
2
) available for
gas ow in the constriction and the column cross sectional area,
A
c
(m
2
):
=
A
o
A
c
(5)
The supercial pressure loss coefcient
s
is related to the
effective loss coefcient in the open area by:
=
s

2
(6)
For sudden contraction, Perry and Green [7] give:

c
= 0.5(1 ) (7)
To account for the acceleration of the gas ow in the con-
stricted cross-section, Perry [7] recommends addition of one
velocity head, i.e.
G
u
2
G
/2, to Eq. (7). This is strictly valid for
very small open areas only, when supercial velocity is negligi-
ble. The internals investigatedhere, however, provide reasonably
large open areas, between 20 and 75%, and supercial velocity
cannot be neglected. A working expression for acceleration loss
can be derived from Bernoullis equation applied in conjunction
with the continuity equation describing the relation of super-
cial gas velocity u
Gs
and gas velocity u
G
in the constriction:
u
Gs
=u
G
. By this treatment, the one velocity head for accelera-
tion loss is replaced by the term1
2
. Inserting this expression
into Eq. (7) yields following equation valid in the whole open
area range:

c
= 1.5 0.5
2
(8)
The loss due to sudden expansion can be expressed as [7]:

e
= (1 )
2
(9)
Contraction and expansion always occur in direct succes-
sion in the internals under consideration. Assuming, that there
is no pressure recovery in the expanding part of the internal, the
acceleration loss is fully dissipated. In this case, summation of
Eqs. (8) and (9) yields a linear expression for the overall loss
coefcient:

ce
= 2.5(1 ) (10)
In the limiting case of 0, Eq. (10) complies very well
with orice ow, where the loss coefcient is the inverse square
of the coefcient of discharge, 0.65 (i.e.
ce
=1/
2
=2.4).
If complete pressure recovery is assumed, the overall loss
coefcient is found from summation of Eqs. (7) and (9):

ce
= 1.5 (2.5 ) (11)
Fig. 6 shows the acceleration loss and the overall loss coef-
cients for no and full pressure recovery as a function of open
area .
Besides contraction and expansion, a number of further losses
may be considered. For chimney trays, the hats covering the
gas risers laterally deect the impinging gas ow, causing an
additional pressure drop. Common designs of gas riser hats are
shown schematically in Fig. 3. Loss coefcients for deection
mostly depend on the angle of deection and range between 0.2
and 1. Frictional losses associated with the gas ow through the
1524 A. Rix, Z. Olujic / Chemical Engineering and Processing 47 (2008) 15201529
Fig. 6. Individual and overall contractionexpansion coefcients as a function
of the fraction of the free area.
risers of a chimney tray or between the troughs of a distributor do
not exceed 0.2 velocity heads in typical situations and therefore
are generally negligible.
Little information is available on typical design parameters
and pressure drop of chevron type collectors. However, some
conclusions may be drawn from the performance of geometri-
cally similar process equipment, like vane type mist eliminators
or demisters, which are fairly well documented in the litera-
ture, and are composed of the same design elements as chevron
collectors, including approximately same extent of open area
reduction, one or more ow direction deections, and hooks
for catching the liquid. McNulty et al. [8] have investigated the
hydraulics of 18 different vane (chevron) type droplet separa-
tors. They report dry loss coefcients ranging from 2 to 32, with
zigzag ow types at the upper end. Hooks signicantly increase
the pressure drop. The wet pressure drop was found to be appre-
ciably higher than dry pressure drop and a characteristic loading
point was observed. By analogy to vane droplet separators, dry
supercial loss coefcients around 25 are to be expected for
chevron type liquid collectors.
4. Experimental validation
Experimental evidence is required to verify the theoretical
approach given above. The data reported here has been collected
during the extensive gas maldistribution experiments carried out
using the TU Delft packed column hydraulics simulator [9,10].
The column has an internal diameter of 1.4 m and is operated
with the airwater systemat ambient conditions. The experimen-
tal set-up is shown schematically in Fig. 7. Individual pressure
taps were used for all column sections. Details on data acqui-
sition and experimental procedure are reported by Olujic et al.
[10]. In order to eliminate entrance effects, the internals were
installed between two beds of Montz-Pak B1-250. Gas loads
expressed as F-factor ranged from0.3 to 3 Pa
0.5
and liquid loads
Fig. 7. CFD-drawing of the TU Delft experimental set-up used in this study.
from 0 to 50 m
3
/m
2
h, respectively. A narrow trough liquid dis-
tributor, two chevron type liquid collectors of different vane
(blade) inclination and a chimney tray were tested. CFD simu-
lations of gas ow around these internals were already shown
in Fig. 2. Airwater operation excludes heat-transfer effects by
subcooled liquids or superheated gas ow.
The chimney tray investigated has an open area of 25% and
consists of two sets of ve risers. The hat covers are at, and have
the same width as the risers. Open area remains constant in the
risers and hats. In the centreline, seven downcomer pipes drain
the collected liquid to the central trough of the liquid distributor.
Two chevron collectors with vane inclinations of 60

and
80

were tested. They consist of a ring channel and 8 or 10

narrowtroughs, respectively, withone wall of the troughforming
a vane deecting gas ow and ending in a hook. A downward
oriented V-shaped hat covers the central gap. An open area of
2040% is available for gas ow in characteristic cross-sections
of both chevrons. The chevrons were designed for a wide range
of liquid loads. Therefore, a large part of the cross sectional area
is devoted to handling liquid. In deep vacuum (i.e. low liquid
A. Rix, Z. Olujic / Chemical Engineering and Processing 47 (2008) 15201529 1525
Table 1
Open area (in %) in characteristic cross sections of the chevrons investigated
Cross section
60

80

Ring cannel 62% 62%

Central trough 52% 52%
Trough bottom 32% 20%
Trough top 20% 15%
Hooks 24% 23%
load) operation, smaller troughs may be sufcient. Table 1 gives
the openarea incharacteristic cross-sections of the twochevrons.
The open area of the narrow trough distributor, consisting
of a central trough and 24 distribution troughs, accommodating
152 drip tubes (100 m
2
), is 46.7%.
5. Results and discussion
Fig. 8 shows a comparison of the dry pressure drops of the
internals tested as a function of the gas load, i.e. F-factor. All
curves can be very nicely tted with quadratic equations, so
that a constant loss coefcient is sufcient to model each set
of data. As expected, the chimney tray (CT) has the highest
pressure drop, followed by the chevron collectors (CC). The
two chevron collectors with different vane inclination angles
exhibit practically equal pressure drop. This might suggest, that
the inclination angle has no impact. However, the collector with
higher inclination angle contains more blades and has a smaller
open area. The smaller pressure drop of the higher inclination
angle is thus compensated by increased contractionexpansion
losses. In addition to the liquid distributor (LD) described above,
a correlation for irrigated pressure drop based on experimental
data obtained in the TUDelft 450 mmdiameter air/water column
Fig. 8. Comparison of the measured dry pressure drop of the internals tested.
The data points of the chevrons are represented by diamonds. For clarity, no line
has been drawn for the 80

vane inclination data (open diamonds).

Fig. 9. Pressure drop of the chimney tray as a function of F-factor and liquid load
(dotted line: correlated dry pressure drop; full line: correlated irrigated pressure
drop).
is included [11]. The distributors have by far the lowest pressure
drop of all internals tested.
In Fig. 9, the pressure drop of the chimney tray is given as
a function of the F-factor with the liquid load as parameter. At
moderate liquid loads (20 and 30 m
3
/m
2
h), the irrigated pressure
drop is about 20% higher than dry pressure drop. At the highest
liquid load (50 m
3
/m
2
h) incipient ooding is visible in a change
inthe steepness of the pressure dropcurve. Loss coefcients have
been tted to the data, resulting in =2.8 for dry and =3.4
for irrigated data. For the 25% open area of the chimney tray,
Eq. (10) yields =1.9 for dry losses, leaving about 0.9 velocity
heads for losses caused by deection in the riser hats, which
leads to a nice agreement of experimental and model data. There
seems to be no pressure recovery in the exits of the risers hats,
where gas jets directly impinge. CFD studies indicate, that the
gas jets exiting from two risers impinge upon each other and are
alternatingly deected to the tray oor and the gas space above
the tray. The increased wet pressure drop may be attributed to
gasliquid interaction on the tray oor.
Regarding the effect of the type of hat (see Fig. 3), data is
available only for at riser hats (second from right), with a loss
coefcient of one velocity head. Obviously, it is possible to
streamline the riser hats using the V-shape shown on the left or
to increase pressure drop by one of the designs at the right. The
designs with hats reversing the gas ow downwards may pro-
mote re-entrainment of liquid collected on the tray and should
be employed under great care only. A CFD simulation of chim-
ney trays in a vacuum ash section, that shows pressure drops
of about 1.8 mbar has been reported by Vaidyanathan et al. [12].
No geometric details are given, however.
Results for the two chevron collectors are given in Fig. 10.
Because of the complicated geometry of chevrons, denition
of the open area relevant for pressure drop is not straightfor-
ward. Therefore, data regression was performed for supercial
1526 A. Rix, Z. Olujic / Chemical Engineering and Processing 47 (2008) 15201529
Fig. 10. Pressure drop of the 60

and 80

chevron collectors as a function of

F-factor and liquid load (dotted line: correlated dry pressure drop; full line:
correlated irrigated pressure drop).
gas velocities (see Eq. (2)), resulting in a dry loss coefcient

s,dry
=29 and an irrigated loss coefcient
s,irr
=45. As the ratio
of these loss coefcients shows, irrigated pressure drop is about
55% higher than dry pressure drop indicating a relatively strong
liquid load effect. The irrigated pressure drop gradually rises
with liquid load. No incipient ooding was observed within the
operating range tested. Visual inspection showed a liquid cur-
tain forming under the hooks at the upper end of the vanes,
which directly impinges against the accelerated gas ow and is
partly re-entrained at high gas loads. Assuming 25% open area
(see Table 2), Eq. (10) gives =1.9. Using Eq. (6), we arrive at

s
=30.2, which is in very good agreement with experimental
evidence. Therefore, chevron pressure drop may be considered
as being mainly governed by contractionexpansion losses, with
little or no pressure recovery. However, streamlining is possible
by simple means. As shown in [9] by CFD simulation, elimi-
nation of the downward bend in the hooks reduces the pressure
drop by 28%.
Fig. 11 shows the pressure drop of the narrowtrough distribu-
tor as a function of gas load, i.e. F-factor. The trough distributor
has the highest open area of all internals investigated, resulting in
relatively low gas velocities between the troughs. The irrigated
pressure drop is about 30% higher than the dry pressure drop.
Data tting yields loss coefcients of 0.19 for dry and 0.25 for
irrigated conditions. Eq. (10) for no pressure recovery gives an
estimated dry loss coefcient of 1.35. This is a serious overpre-
Fig. 11. Measured pressure drop of the narrow trough ditsributor as a function
of F-factor and liquid load (dotted line: correlated dry pressure drop; full line:
correlated irrigated pressure drop; dashed line: correlated irrigated pressure drop
of TU Delft experiments in 450 mm column).
diction of experimental data. The model assuming full pressure
recovery, Eq. (11), yields a loss coefcient of 0.56, somewhat
nearer the mark, and the results from Eq. (11) agree quite well
with the experimental evidence obtained using the 450 mm TU
Delt air/water column [11]. A summary of experimental loss
coefcients and results from the model equations is given in
Table 2.
6. Working equations
First principles based simple expressions that relate the dry
pressure drop of common liquid distributors and collectors to the
free area of internals represent a sound basis for development of
practical working equations. For instance, in the absence of more
experimental data on different systems and pressures, the esti-
mation of the pressure drop of chevron and chimney type column
internals on basis of Eq. (10) seems reasonable, if an additional
two-phase resistance is considered. Froma comparison of exper-
imental data on dry and irrigated pressure drop, we observed
an increase of 20% for chimney trays, and 55% for chevrons.
The observed increase due to liquid load can be expressed as
pressure drop enhancement factor used in conjunction with the-
oretically derived equations to represent corresponding overall
ow resistance coefcient:

cc
= 1.5(2.5 2.5) (12)
Table 2
Summary of experimental results
Internal Open area (%)
dry
(Eqs. (10) or (11))
dry
(experimental)
irr
(experimental)
irr
/
dry
Chimney tray 25 1.875 +1 2.8 3.4 1.25
Chevron 25 1.875 1.8 2.8 1.55
Distributor 45 0.56 0.19 0.25 1.3
A. Rix, Z. Olujic / Chemical Engineering and Processing 47 (2008) 15201529 1527
and

ct
= 1.2[1 +2.5(1 )] (13)
where subscripts cc and ct indicate chevron collector and chim-
ney tray collector, respectively. Eq. (13) includes one velocity
head to account for ow deection related pressure loss in the
riser hats.
Because of a rather open, and more complex geometry,
no attempt was made to implement complex two-phase ow
models, like those proposed by Schmidt [13] for concur-
rent gasliquid ow through sudden contractions/expansions in
closed conduits. For trough type distributors, full pressure recov-
ery seems more appropriate. With respect to the small absolute
values of the pressure drops observed, we suggest Eq. (11) to
estimate the liquid distributor related pressure drop including a
pressure loss enhancement factor due to observed liquid load
effect:

ld
= 1.2[1.5 (2.5 )] (14)
It should be noted that the adopted values of liquid load effect
factor are somewhat lower thanobservedones, because intypical
applications liquid loads are encountered that are signicantly
lower than those employed in TU Delft experimental study [9].
With some care, these simple correlations may hold reasonably
well for typical applications of packed columns.
Eqs. (12)(14), can be used in conjunction with following,
extended form of Eq. (1) to estimate total pressure drop caused
by internals contained in a packed column:
p
int
=

n
cc

cc

2
cc
+
n
ct

ct

2
ct
+
n
ld

ld

2
ld

F
2
Gs
2
(15)
where ndenotes the number of involvedindividual units, the type
of which is indicated by corresponding subscript. This equation
can be applied to rectication and stripping sections separately,
or to individual beds in both sections, using appropriate average
F-factor, as demonstrated in following example.
7. Design case
One of the most prominent success stories of structured pack-
ings, ethylbenzene/styrene monomer separation is chosen as an
example to demonstrate the practical usability of the proposed
method. A case with a relatively large number of theoretical
stages was chosen to simulate a situation of a column containing
two beds in the rectication section and three beds in the strip-
ping section, all ve beds of equal length. Basic design data are
summarised in Table 3. Four redistribution sections are included,
all equipped with chevron type collectors placed above narrow
trough distributors. Another narrow trough distributor is used
for reux distribution, and a chimney-tray is used as an initial
vapour distributor. Characteristic open areas and corresponding
loss coefcients are shown in Table 4. Note, that the open areas
are very close to that of the internals tested in Delft and may be
considered conservative for designs preferred in pressure drop
sensitive applications.
Table 3
Basic design information of example column
Top pressure [mbar] 67
Number of stages 72
Reux ratio 5.4
Design percent of ood [%] 73
Design liquid load [m
3
/m
2
h] 67.5
Diameter [m] 6.2
Packing type (Mellapak) 250.Y
HETP [m] 0.5
Total packed height [m] 36
Number of beds 5
Bed height [m] 7.14
Table 4
Open area and loss coefcients of the internals for the example column
Open area
(%)
Loss
coefcient
Supercial loss
coefcient
S
Distributor 40 0.79 4.9
Chevron 25 2.81 45
Chimney Tray 25 3.45 55.2
Mellapak 250.Y has been chosen as structured packing in
this example. Column dimensioning and hydraulics calculations
have been performed using Sulzer Sulpak 3.3 software package
(www.sulzer-chemtech.com). Accompanying internals pressure
drop has been estimated using Eqs. (12)(15).
The calculation results are summarised in Table 5. Column
diameter has been chosen for 73%of ood in the top bed. Acon-
stant diameter based on top conditions in conjunction with an
increasing gas density means a decreasing gas load, from3 Pa
0.5
in the top bed to 2.4 Pa
0.5
in the bottom bed. The individual con-
tributions per bed, including packing and internals involved, are
shown in Table 5. The pressure drop related to 5 packed beds of
equal depth/height (two in the rectication section and three in
the stripping section, total height 35.7 m) is 64.8 mbar, and the
pressure drop caused by internals is 8.4 mbar or 11.4% of the
total pressure drop. Practically equal values are obtained if the
calculation is performed per section, with 3 Pa
0.5
and 2.4 Pa
0.5
as the representative gas loads of rectication and stripping sec-
tion, respectively. This indicates that a redistribution section,
consisting of a narrow trough liquid distributor and a chevron
type liquid collector, causes a pressure drop equivalent to 1 m
packed bed height.
Table 5
Individual and total pressure drops, indicating relative contribution of internals
for the example column
Section
1 2 3 4 5 Total
F
G
(Pa)
0.5
3.02 2.81 2.60 2.47 2.37
p
ld
(mbar) 0.23 0.2 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.89
p
cc
(mbar) 1.78 1.52 1.37 1.26 5.93
p
ct
(mbar) 1.55 1.55
p
int
(mbar) 0.23 1.98 1.68 1.52 2.95 8.37
p
pb
(mbar) 17.26 14.27 12.41 10.90 9.94 64.78
p
total
(mbar) 19.53 16.28 14.08 12.42 12.89 73.15
p
int
(%) 1.3 12.2 11.9 12.2 22.89 11.44
1528 A. Rix, Z. Olujic / Chemical Engineering and Processing 47 (2008) 15201529
It should be noted that the estimated, rather low pressure
drop for narrow trough distributors agrees well with the value
estimated using a method recommended by Geipel and Ulrich
[15]. On the other hand, the pressure drop of chevron type liq-
uid collectors may seem to be on the high side in given case.
However 1.8 mbar per device, as encountered at the top of the
rectication section, is generally acceptable for common vac-
uum situations, and can certainly be expected to occur or even
be exceeded in revamp situations, if original devices are used,
but now being exposed to higher gas velocities than anticipated.
With the model proposed such situations can be evaluated and
an indication obtained on the amount of open area required to
arrive at allowable pressure drop. Indeed, with a careful, high-
open area design, the pressure drop of internals may be reduced
to well below 10% of total pressure drop in the present case.
This still represents a signicant fraction of the total pressure
drop, which should certainly not be ignored in demanding vac-
uum applications. Further reduction of internals pressure drop
will require streamlining equipment modications as suggested
elsewhere [9]. The relatively high pressure drop involved with
application of the chimney tray type of gas/vapour distributors,
can be avoided by choosing another more suitable inlet device,
e.g. a vapour horn. These devices have been investigated by
CFDsimulation in several papers covering owdistribution and
droplet separation performance (see, e.g. [14]). Related pressure
drop data, however are not available in literature.
8. Conclusions
Asimple, rst principles based model has been introduced for
estimation of the pressure drop caused by packed column inter-
nals employed in liquid redistribution sections, including narrow
trough liquid distributors, chimney tray and chevron-type liquid
collectors and chimney-tray vapour distributors. Experimental
data have been used to generate corresponding overall pressure
loss coefcients. Relative open area is the key variable for the
pressure drop of distributors and chimney trays. For chevron
type collectors no general design parameters are available and
the recommended loss coefcient relies on experimental data
on two rather similar collectors tested at TU Delft. Experiments
have shown that compared to dry conditions the wet pressure
drop is signicantly larger, factor 1.25 for liquid distributor and
chevron type liquid collectors, and 1.55 for chimney-tray type
liquid collector, respectively. Since the liquid loads employed
in typical vacuum applications are well below that encountered
in TU Delft air/water experiments, somewhat lower values have
been adopted for the working equations describing individual
loss coefcients of the column internals considered in this study.
The derived working expressions were used to estimate the
contribution of internals to total pressure drop of an example
vacuumcolumn comprising ve beds of structured packing. The
contribution of internals was around 11.4% of the total pressure
drop of the column, which is roughly equivalent to the pres-
sure drop of a 1 m bed in each section. This is signicant and
should not be ignored when estimating the pressure drop of a
multi-bed packed column operating under low or deep vacuum
conditions. The proposed, rst principles based pressure drop
estimation method may be employed to revise initial designs for
lower pressure drop.
Acknowledgements
Authors are thankful to Mr. E. Zich of J. Montz GmbH for
providing illustrations of column internals.
Appendix A. Nomenclature
A
o
free area (m
2
)
A
c
column cross sectional area (m
2
)
c
Gs
column capacity factor (m/s)
F
Gs
column gas load (Pa
0.5
=m/s(kg/m
3
)
0.5
)
p pressure drop (Pa or mbar)
u
Gs
supercial gas velocity (m/s)
u
G
gas velocity in open area (m/s)
Greek letters
relative free area

G
gas density (kg/m
3
)

L
liquid density (kg/m
3
)

c
contraction loss coefcient

cc
chevron collector loss coefcient

ce
contractionexpansion loss coefcient

ct
chimney-tray loss coefcient

ed
distributor loss coefcient

e
expansion loss coefcient

eff
effective loss coefcient
Subscripts
cc related to chevron collector
ct related to chimney tray collector
int related to internals
ld related to the liquid distributor
pb related to packed bed
References
[1] H. Kister, Distillation Operation, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1990.
[2] D.E. Wheeler, Design criteria for chimney trays, Hydrocarbon Process. 47
(7) (1968) 119120.
[3] N. Lieberman, Process Design for Reliable Operation, Gulf Publishing Co.,
1988, New York, 1990.
[4] H.Z. Kister, B. Blum, T. Rosenzweig, Troubleshoot chimney trays effec-
tively, Hydrocarbon Process. 81 (4) (2001) 101107.
[5] A.J. Faria Lemos, G. Alves da Silva Torres, L.C. Meoreira Paschol, Vac-
uum tower revamp for lube cuts at RLAM renery (U-9), in: H. Kister,
M.D. Pritchett (Eds.), Proceedings of Topical Conference Distillation 2001,
AIChESpring National Meeting, Houston, Texas, USA, April 2226, 2001,
pp. 333341.
[6] M. Pilling, M. Bannwart, Use of gravity distributor increases capacity
in renery vacuum tower wash sections, in: H. Kister, M.D. Pritchett
(Eds.), Proceedings of Topical Conference Distillation 2001, AIChESpring
National Meeting, Houston, Texas, USA, April 2226, 2001, pp. 313332.
[7] R.H. Perry, D.W. Green, Chemical Engineering Handbook, seventh ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997 (Section 6).
[8] K.J. McNulty, J.P. Monat, O.V. Hansen, Performance of commercial
chevron mist eliminators, Chem. Eng. Progress 83 (May 1987) 4855.
A. Rix, Z. Olujic / Chemical Engineering and Processing 47 (2008) 15201529 1529
[9] A. Mohamed Ali, P.J. Jansens, Z. Olujic, Experimental characterization and
computational uid dynamics simulation of gas distribution performance
of liquid (re)distributors and collectors in packed columns, Trans. IChemE
Part A Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 81 (2003) 108115.
[10] Z. Olujic, A. Mohammed Ali, P.J. Jansens, Effect of initial gas maldistri-
bution on the pressure drop of structured packings, Chem. Eng. Process.
43 (2004) 465476.
[11] H. Poelwijk, Effect of geometric characteristics on the hydraulic behaviour
of structured packings, M.Sc. thesis, TU Delft, Delft, March 1996 (in
Dutch).
[12] S. Vaidyanathan, M. Wehrli, H. Ulrich, R. Hunkeler, New design tech-
niques for vacuum column ash zone design, in: H. Kister, M.D. Pritchett
(Eds.), Proceedings of Topical Conference Distillation 2001, AIChE
Spring National Meeting, Houston, Texas, USA, April 2226, 2001, pp.
287299.
[13] J. Schmidt, Berechnung und Messung des Druckabfalls uber pl otzliche
scharfkantige Rohrerweiteurngen und -verengungen bei Gas/Dampf-
ussigkeitsstr omung, VDI-Fortschritssberichte, Reihe 3, Nummer,
1993.
[14] M. Wehrli, S. Hirschberg, R. Schweitzer, Inuence of vapour feed design
on the owdistribution belowpackings, Trans. IChemE Part AChem. Eng.
Res. Des. 81 (2003) 116121.
[15] W. Geipel, H.-J. Ulrich, F ullk orper-Taschenbuch, Vulkan Verlag, Essen,
1991.