DELA CRUZ, Patricia Bianca B.

Date Performed: March 3, 2015

4 ChE – B Date Submitted: April 25, 2015

Problem B1
Pressure Drop and Flooding in a Packed Column

I. Introduction
Packed towers occur in almost all chemical plants for separation processes such
as gas absorption, solvent extraction, distillation or chemical reactions. The packed
column in figure 1 consists of a gas and liquid inlet and outlet, a distributing space at the
top and bottom, and importantly, the packings. The entering gas flows from the
distributing space below the packed section to the packing interstices where it contacts
the descending liquid. It also operates in a way where two different fluid phases,
particularly gas and liquid, were allowed to flow countercurrently enabling a chemical
component, known as solute, to be transferred from one phase to the other phase.

Figure 1 Packed Column

Meanwhile, the packings provide the large surface area needed for intimate contact
between the liquid and the gas phase. As shown in figure 2, the most commonly used
commercial packings are raschig rings, lessing rings, berl saddles, and pall rings [1].
 Figure 2 Most commonly used packings: (a) raschig rings, (b) lessing rings, (c) berl
saddles, and (d) pall rings

This experiment mostly deals with the gas absorption separation process
involving the air-water system. One of the objectives of this experiment is the
determination of void fractions of the packed beds. In gas-liquid flow systems, void
fraction is defined as the fraction of the channel cross-sectional area that is occupied by
the gas phase [2]. It is one of the most important parameters used to characterize two-
phase flows and have a fundamental importance in models predicting the pressure drop
[3].

Other objectives for this experiment are the determination of the effects of liquid
holdups on the pressure drop of the packed column and determination of packing factor
experimentally with the use of flooding velocity calculations. From a fluid mechanical
perspective, the most important issue is that of the pressure drop required for the liquid
or the gas to flow through the column at a specified flow rate. Ergun equation is one of
the many equations to solve for the pressure drop across a packed bed length but with
the limitation of only having an average of 0.44 void fraction [4].

∆𝑃 150𝜇𝑣𝑜 (1−𝜀)2 1.75𝜌𝑔 𝑣𝑜2 (1−𝜀)

= + Ergun Equation
𝑍 𝜀 2 𝐷𝑝2 𝜀 3 𝐷𝑝

Where vo superficial gas velocity, Dp is the particle diameter, μ is gas viscosity and ε
represents the void fraction. Also, the Ergun equation describes flow for both laminar
and turbulent. However, one equation that was only applicable for a laminar flow was by
Blake-Kozeny which is actually the first term of the right side of the Ergun equation.
Another separate equation by Burke-Plummer was the second term of the Ergun
equation applicable only for turbulent flows. Meanwhile, Fahien and Schriver gave a
modified Ergun equation for computing pressure drop as function of porosity as shown
below [1].
136
ϕ𝐿 = (1−𝜀)0.38 Laminar Flow

29 1.87𝜖 0/75 𝑁𝑅𝑒,𝑝

ϕ𝑇 = (1−𝜀)1.45 𝜖2 + Turbulent Flow
(1−𝜀)0.26

ϕ𝐼 = 𝑞ϕ𝐿 + (1 − 𝑞)ϕ𝑇 Intermediate Region

where:
−𝜀2 (1−𝜀)𝑁𝑅𝑒,𝑝
𝑞=𝑒 12.6

2
∆𝑃𝜀 3 𝐷𝑃
ϕ= 𝑍𝑣𝑜 𝜇(1−𝜀)2

For irrigated packed beds, Leva (1954) added a correction factor on the orifice
equation. On the other hand, Robbins (1990) developed a pressure drop correlation
similar to the approach used by Leva [5].

∆𝑃𝑡 = ∆𝑃𝑑 + ∆𝑃𝐿 where:∆𝑃𝑑 = 𝐶3 𝐺𝑓2 10𝐶4 𝐿𝑓

0.1
∆𝑃𝐿 = 0.4(0.00005𝐿𝑓 ) (∆𝑃𝑑 )4
0.5
𝐺𝑓 = 986𝐹𝑠 (0.05𝐹𝑝𝑑 )
62.4
𝐿𝑓 = 𝜇𝐿0.1 𝐿(0.05𝐹𝑝𝑑 )0.5 ( 𝜌 )
𝐿

The value of C3 was 7.4x10-8 while C4 was 2.7x10-5. On the other hand, the packing
factor, Fpd, was defined by Lobo et al. as:
6(1 − 𝜀)
𝐹𝑝𝑑 =
𝜀 3 𝐷𝑝

II. Methodology

For this experiment, the Armfield Gas-Liquid Absorption Column apparatus was
used as shown on the figure below.
 Column

Water Flow Valve

Air Flow Valve Packed Beds

Equipment On-Off Switch

Water Flow Meter
Air Flow Meter
Water-Dye Manometer
Air and Water Knobs
Discharge Pipe Valve

Air Pump
Sump Tank Water Pump

Figure 1 Armfield Gas-Liquid Absorption Column

Before the experiment was conducted, length of the packed beds and the
diameter of the gas column were first measured. All remaining water in the equipment
was also drained and the sump tank was cleaned. Afterwhich, the sump tank was filled
again with water up to 75% of its capacity. Furthermore, the on-off switch and knobs
were turned off as depicted by the figure below.

Figure 2 Turned off: equipment switch (left), air and water knobs (right)
The air and water flow valve together with the drainage valve found at the bottom of the
sump tank was also closed. On the other hand, the discharge pipe valve and all
pressure taps were opened.
For start-up, the switch was turned on to run the air pump where the flow rate
was set to 150 L/min for 15 minutes for the removal of any water in the column. The
three-way glass cocks were also adjusted such that all the gas flowing were directed to
the manometer already containing water and a red-orange dye.
On the experiment proper, the air control valve was throttled back to 60 L/min.
The differential pressure in mmH2O was measured and recorded accordingly.
Afterwards, the gas flow rate was increased with an increment of ten (10) up to the 150
L/min flow rate accompanied by the measurement of differential pressure for each
interval. The procedure was repeated but with different water flow rates from 1 L/min up
to 7 L/min with an increment of one except that pressure was also recorded for the
water flow rate of 6.5 L/min.
For a proper shutdown of the equipment, all water was drained with the gas rate
set to 150 L/min for 15 minutes. Finally, the pump and the switch were turned off
properly.

III. Results and Discussion

From the raw experimental data of pressure difference based on the manometer
fluid height, pressure drop was computed as follows with a specific gravity of 1.0.

gh
P
gC
where density (ρ) is for water at 25oC.

Table 1. Experimental Pressure Drop

LIQUID
FLOW RATE 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 6.5 7.0
(L/min)
AIR FLOW
PRESSURE DROP (lb/ft2)
RATE (L/min)
20 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.6 1.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
30 0.4 0.8 1.2 2.0 2.4 2.4 4.1 4.5 6.1
 40 0.4 0.8 1.2 2.4 2.9 4.5 6.9 9.0 10.6
50 0.8 0.8 2.0 3.7 4.1 8.2 10.6 16.3 16.7
60 1.6 1.6 2.4 5.3 5.7 13.9 21.2 23.2 flood
70 2.0 2.0 3.7 7.3 7.7 19.6 32.2 39.5
80 2.9 3.3 5.7 10.6 11.4 29.8 flood flood
90 3.3 4.5 7.3 15.9 16.3 38.3
100 3.7 5.3 11.4 17.5 22.8 flood
110 4.5 6.5 11.8 20.0 33.4
120 5.3 7.7 13.4 22.0 41.2
130 5.7 8.2 14.7 24.9 51.4
140 6.1 9.4 15.5 32.6 flood
150 6.5 9.8 16.3 33.4

From the computed data, pressure drop increases as the air and liquid water flow
rate increases. The highest pressure drop reading was 51.4 lb/ft2 where liquid and air
flow rates were 4 L/min and 130 L/min respectively. With a gas flow rate of 140 L/min
and same flow rate for water, liquid accumulation at the top of the packings was
observed signaling flooding. Due to this observation, flooding is therefore defined as the
condition where a large pressure drop occurs with a small change in gas velocity.
Additionally, the lowest air flow rate that produces flooding was 60 L/min with the
corresponding maximum allowable liquid flow rate of 7 L/min. Thus, flooding could be
also observed with lower air flow rate when liquid flow rate was high.

Void fractions were computed using the formula of Fahien and Schriver
expressing pressure drop as function of porosity which was the modified equation of
Ergun. For this experiment, the following were the void fractions obtained.

Table 2. Void Fractions (ε) for Different Air Flow Rates and Liquid Flow Rates
LIQUID
FLOW RATE 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 6.5 7.0
(L/min)
AIR FLOW
VOID FRACTIONS (ε)
RATE (L/min)
20 0.4865 0.3484 0.3484 0.2898 0.2898 0.2725 0.2725 0.2725 0.2725
30 0.4560 0.3862 0.3484 0.3045 0.2898 0.2898 0.2514 0.2447 0.2240
40 0.4144 0.4144 0.3750 0.3132 0.3005 0.2654 0.2347 0.2179 0.2075
50 0.4371 0.4371 0.3485 0.2982 0.2898 0.2388 0.2214 0.1953 0.1939
60 0.3862 0.3862 0.3485 0.2835 0.2778 0.2160 0.1907 0.1856 flood
 70 0.3796 0.3796 0.3263 0.2704 0.2663 0.2043 0.1763 0.1658
80 0.3606 0.3485 0.3005 0.2532 0.2480 0.1878 flood flood
90 0.3592 0.3307 0.2898 0.2334 0.2317 0.1804
100 0.3580 0.3254 0.2640 0.2339 0.2167 flood
110 0.3484 0.3158 0.2685 0.2315 0.1994
120 0.3413 0.3087 0.2654 0.2309 0.1924
130 0.3418 0.3111 0.2649 0.2281 0.1845
140 0.3423 0.3056 0.2663 0.2155 flood
150 0.3427 0.3078 0.2677 0.2183

Values of computed void fractions range from 0.4865 to 0.1658. The lowest air
and liquid flow rates showed the highest void fraction. While, an air flow rate of 70 L/min
with 6.5 L/min liquid water flow rate obtained the lowest value of void fraction. Also, void
fraction values decrease with increasing flow rates for both air and water.

Meanwhile, Reynold’s Number was computed as follows:

DP v0 
N Re  where μ and ρ is for air.
1   
For dry packings where water flow rate was equivalent to 0 L/min, pressure drop versus
the Reynold’s number were plotted as shown on figure 1.
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
P

4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
-20.00 30.00 80.00 130.00 180.00 230.00 280.00 330.00
NRe

Figure 3. Plot for P vs NRe for Dry Packings

Therefore, increasing values for the total pressure drop promotes increasing Reynold’s
number. Additionally, values of Reynold’s number obtained range from 35 to almost 300
which clearly states that fluid motion inside the packed column was of the laminar type.
 The plot for the logarithm of the ratio of total pressure drop for different liquid flow
rates and column height, Z, versus the logarithm of gas mass velocity (G) in lbm/hr-ft2 is
shown in figure 4. Column height is equivalent to 70 cm or 2.296 ft. While, gas mass
𝑣𝑜 𝜌
velocity was computed using the equation 𝐺 = (1−𝜀)
.

1.5000

L=0
1.0000
L=1
L=2
0.5000
Log (P/Z)

L=3
L=4
0.0000
L=5
2.0000 2.2000 2.4000 2.6000
L=6
-0.5000
L=6.5
L=7
-1.0000
Log (G)

Figure 4. Plot of Log (DP/Z) vs Log (G) for Different Liquid Flow Rates

The plot on figure 4 showed an increasing slope with an increase in water flow

rate. Also, change in slope for each flow rate has a drastic change due to the

occurrence of flooding.

Meanwhile, pressure drop was also plotted against the gas loading factor (Gf) for
different liquid loading factors (Lf). The Gf was computed through the formula
986Fs(0.05 Fpd)0.5 where Fs= Utρg0.5 and Fpd =[6(1-ε)]/(ε3Dp). On the other hand, liquid
loading factors was averaged for each liquid flow rate. Figure 5 shows the plot for P vs
Gf .
 200000.00

150000.00

P 100000.00

50000.00

0.00
5000.00 10000.00 15000.00 20000.00 25000.00
-50000.00
Gf

Figure 5. Plot of Pressure Drop (P) vs Gas Loading Factors (Gf)

Loading zone is the enhancement of mass transfer but as rates were increased

further, flooding occurs. This results when gas velocity also becomes the function of the

liquid holdup instead of just a function of liquid rate. It is where the pressure drop

increases at an accelerated rate that eventually leads to flooding. Thus, in figure 5, the

loading zone was described by the shaded region.

Packing factors calculated for different volumetric flow rates of water where

shown on table 3. Average packing factors was also obtained from the calculated

porosity (void fraction) values in each liquid flow rate. From the table, it was observed

that packing factors increases with also an increasing liquid flow rate.

Table 2. Packing Factors of Different Liquid Flow Rates

LIQUID FLOW
Fpd
RATE (L/min)
0 3365.22
1 4602.38
2 7394.10
3 13264.60
4 14850.87
5 18778.86
 6 20885.60
6.5 24582.45
7 20899.59

For dry packings, pressure drop calculated from the Ergun and Robins equation

was compared with the experimental data as shown on the table below.

Table 3. Pressure Drop based on Experimental Data, Ergun Equation and

Robbins Equation

Ergun Robbins
AIR FLOWRATE Experimental Equation Equation
(L/min) (lb/ft2) (lb/ft2) (in H2O/ft)
20 0.4 1.5234 1.88
30 0.4 3.1380 2.42
40 0.4 6.4936 3.47
50 0.8 6.4580 2.84
60 1.6 13.4023 4.49
70 2.0 16.9373 4.78
80 2.9 24.1196 5.74
90 3.3 27.7803 5.83
100 3.7 31.4895 5.89
110 4.5 38.9747 6.50
120 5.3 46.4729 6.98
130 5.7 50.3709 6.94
140 6.1 54.3174 6.91
150 6.5 58.3121 6.88

For non-irrigated systems, pressure drops were influenced by many factors. One

of these factors is the voidage or the percent free space in the bed. Pressure drops

obtained from the Ergun equation was very different with the experimental data while

pressure drops calculated from the Robbins equation were almost similar with the

experimental. The actual data highly deviated with pressure drops from Ergun equation
since this equation only estimates friction factor in packed beds as a function of

modified Reynold’s number. It also cannot predict pressure drop behavior after the

fluidization point because bed expansion was not considered. Although this equation

was commonly used in solving bed porosity problems, wall effects representing pipe-like

flow around the column edges were not included. On the other hand, void fractions were

considered in the Robbins correlation in terms of factors Gf and Lf. Also, as presented in

table 3, both the Ergun and Robbins equation showed an increasing pressure drop as

with the experimental data.

For irrigated packed beds, comparison of the data obtained from experiment with

the one obtained from Robbins’ with a liquid rate of 7 L/min was shown in table 4.

Table 4. Comparison of Experimental Pressure Drop with Robbins’ Equation

for Irrigated Packed Beds

AIR FLOWRATE Experimental Robbins Equation

20 2.0 7470.8071
30 6.1 105041.7996
40 10.6 288366.6636
50 16.7 707797.8328

IV. Answers to Questions

1. What are the characteristics that a packing should have for it to be employed in
mass transfer operation?
Packing characteristics are one of the significant factors involved in packed
tower design since packings are considered to be the heart of a packed tower.
Thus, the properties of packings employed for mass transfer operations should
have: high surface area per unit volume, high ratio of effective area to total area,
high percentage of free space or voidage, irregularity in shape to avoid pattern-
like packing, low side thrust – a function of the packing shape - on tower walls for
 structural reasons, favorable liquor distributing qualities, low apparent density
and high unit strength, low cost, low pressure drop, and lastly, durability [6].

2. Explain the mechanism of gas flow through a packed bed with liquid flowing
countercurrently.
Through the distributing space below the packings, the rich-gas containing
the solute was allowed to flow upwards past the interstices of the packings in the
packed bed column. The packings encourage intimate contact between the liquid
and gas phase since it provides large contact area between the two (2) phases.
The fresh liquid entering from the top of the tower flows countercurrently with the
gas phase and absorbed the solute present in the rich-gas thus, lean gas leaves
the top. The solute-enriched liquid flows down where concentrated liquid leaves
the bottom of the tower through the liquid outlet.

3. Differentiate between static and dynamic or operating holdup. How does this
affect the pressure drop through a packed column?
Static liquid holdup is defined as the volume fraction of liquid that remains in
the bed after complete draining while the dynamic or operating liquid holdup is a
free-draining liquid not contained in the particles of the packed bed and collects
at the bottom of the column after a sudden shutoff of the liquid feed [7].
Liquid holdup is a function of the liquid rate only up to the loading region.
When loading region is entered, it also becomes a function of the gas velocity.
The holdup builds up as the gas flow rate is increased, thereby, resulting in the
reduction of free space. In consequence, the pressure drop also increases at an
accelerated rate and eventually leads to flooding [6].

4. Define loading and channeling? Give the relevance of these two factors in
packed column operation.
Loading is characterized by a mild liquid build-up on the packing where
packed column operation is frequently most economical in this loading region.
 This also gives reasonably high capacity coefficient since the packing is fairly
well wetted and pressure drops are still comparatively low [6].
On the other hand, channeling occurs when the fluid flowing through the
packed bed finds a “preferred path” through the bed. This effect happens when
liquid films grow thicker in some places of the packing surface while thinner in
others, thus, the liquid collects into small rivulets and flows along localized paths
through the packing. In low liquid rates, the packing surface is most likely dry or
covered by a stagnant film of liquid resulting in the poor performance of large
packed towers especially when filled with stacked packings [8].

5. How does the packing factor obtained from the flooding velocity differ from the
one estimated empirically with the use of the correlation of Lobo et al?
Packing factor obtained from the flooding velocity considers the point
where flooding occurs. However, packing factor estimated empirically from the
correlation of Lobo et al is only dependent on the bed porosity and does not
consider flooding. Thus, packing factor value from the Lobo et al correlation is
different from the value obtained from flooding velocity.

V. Conclusion

The void fractions in packed beds, pressure drops and packing factor were
successfully determined in the experiment. Average void fraction for dry packings was
calculated as 0.3824. On the other hand, porosity near all flooding point showed a
smaller value. Thus, further decrease in porosity results because liquid holdups take up
space inside the packings which then eventually leads to flooding. Consequently,
pressure drop was also large when liquid holdup was observed because gas flow could
not pass through without disturbance of the liquid holdup. Meanwhile, 6 mm ceramic
raschig rings used in calculation have an effective diameter of 0.22 inch with 62% void
fraction and a dry packing factor of 5350/m. Packing factor obtained for dry packing
packings experimentally was 3696.75/ft or 12128.44/m.
 Lastly, it was also concluded that flooding is an important matter in packed tower
applications and the appropriate type of packing material was also of importance to
calculate the pressure drop and flooding.
VI. References

1. Geankoplis, C. J. (1995). Stage and Continuous Gas-Liquid Separation

Processes. In C. J. Geankoplis, Transport Processes and Unit Operations (3rd
ed., pp. 584-632). Singapore: Prentice Hall International.

2. Hewitt, G. F. (2011). Void Fraction. Thermopedia.

doi:10.1615/AtoZ.v.void_fraction

3. (n.d.). Void Fractions in Two-Phase Flows. In Engineering Data Book III (pp. 17-1
- 17-33).

4. Fahien, R. (1983). Fundamentals of transport Phenomena. New York: McGraw-

Hill, Inc.

5. Perry, R., & Green, D. (1997). Perry’s Chemical Engineer’s Handbook (7th ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill BookCo.

6. Leva, M. (1953). Tower Packings and Packed Tower Design. Ohio: The United
States Stone Ware Company. Retrieved from
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015000476294;view=1up;seq=7

7. de Klerk, A. (2003). Liquid Holdup in Packed Beds at Low Mass Flux. AIChE
Journal, 49(6), 1597-2000.

8. McCabe, W. L., Smith, J. C., & Harriott, P. (2006). Gas Absorption. In W. L.

McCabe, J. C. Smith, & P. Harriott, Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering (pp.
565-612). New York: McGraw-Hill.
VII. Appendices

Appendix A – Raw Data of Pressure Difference in centimeter

LIQUID
FLOW RATE 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 6.5 7.0
(L/min)
AIR FLOW
PRESSURE DIFFERENCE (cm)
RATE (L/min)
20 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
30 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.2 1.2 2.0 2.2 3.0
40 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.2 1.4 2.2 3.4 4.4 5.2
50 0.4 0.4 1.0 1.8 2.0 4.0 5.2 8.0 8.2
60 0.8 0.8 1.2 2.6 2.8 6.8 10.4 11.4 flood
70 1.0 1.0 1.8 3.6 3.8 9.6 15.8 19.4
80 1.4 1.6 2.8 5.2 5.6 14.6 flood flood
90 1.6 2.2 3.6 7.8 8.0 18.8
100 1.8 2.6 5.6 8.6 11.2 flood
110 2.2 3.2 5.8 9.8 16.4
120 2.6 3.8 6.6 10.8 20.2
130 2.8 4.0 7.2 12.2 25.2
140 3.0 4.6 7.6 16.0 flood
150 3.2 4.8 8.0 16.4

Appendix B – Properties Used in Calculations

3
Densitywater @25C ρL = 62.11017 lb/ft
Gravity g= 32.2 ft/s2
Gravity Constant gC = 32.2 (lbm.ft)/(lbf.s2)
Diametercolumn D= 79.5
mm
3
Densityair @ 25C ρg = 0.073697 lbm/ft
Diameterparticle Dp = 6 mm
Viscosityair @ 25C μg = 0.018616 cP
Lengthcolumn Z= 70 cm
Viscositywater @ 25C μL = 0.000916 Pa.s

Appendix C – Sample Calculations

gh 62.11017(32.2)(0.2 / 30.48) lb
Pressure Drop: P   0.408 f2
gC 32.2 ft

Superficial Gas Velocity:

  20 x0.035 
 
    0.22031 ft
airflowrat e 60
vo 
x sec tionalarea column 3.14  79.5  2 s
 
4  304.8 

Void Fraction (Fahien and Schriver):

1   1.62  PD P2 (solved using shift solve)
2 136 Zv0 