Name: Camille B.

Sudario Date Performed: March 15, 2018

Section: 4ChE-B Date Submitted: April 5, 2018

Experiment No. 6
Pressure Drop and Flooding in a Packed Column

Introduction
Gas absorption involves the use of liquid and gas flowing countercurrently and the mass
transfer of solute in the gas into the liquid. The liquid fed at the top flows downward, irrigating the
packings, while the gas fed at the bottom flows upward. In this unit operation, the liquid has a
minimum flowrate while the gas has a maximum flowrate required to prevent flooding. At very
low liquid rates, the effective open cross section of the packing is not that different from that of
dry packing and the pressure drop is due to the flow through a series openings or void spaces in
the bed. At higher liquid rates, the effective cross section is smaller due to the presence of the
liquid and the pressure drop is higher. At even higher gas rates, a portion of the energy of the gas
stream is used to support an increasing quantity of liquid in the column and a zone called the
loading zone is reached where in the increase in pressure drop is due to the accumulation of liquid
in the packing voids. As the liquid holdup increases, the effective orifice diameter or void spaces
becomes so small that the liquid surface becomes continuous across the cross section of the
column. Pressure drop will now shoot up with only a slight change in the gas rate and result to
flooding. A phase inversion also occurs where gas bubbles through the liquid. However, the
column can still be brought back to a gas phase continuous operation by simply reducing the gas
rate [1].
For void fractions less than 0.5 the Blake-Kozeny equation is used for laminar flow while
Burke-Plummer is used for turbulent flow in the calculation of pressure drop in a packed column.
On the other hand, Ergun equation is used for void fractions less than 0.44 to determine the
pressure drop across a certain length of packed bed assuming that the effect of laminar and
turbulent flow are additive to give the equation for intermediate region:

∆𝑃 150𝜇𝐺 𝑣𝑜 (1 − 𝜀)2 1.75𝜌𝐺 𝑣𝑜 2 (1 − 𝜀)

= + 10 < 𝑁𝑅𝑒,𝑝 < 1000 (𝑒𝑞. 1)
𝑍 𝜀 3 𝐷𝑝 2 𝜀 3 𝐷𝑝 2
∆𝑃 150𝜇𝐺 𝑣𝑜 (1 − 𝜀)2
= 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑟 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 (𝑒𝑞. 2)
𝑍 𝜀 3 𝐷𝑝 2

∆𝑃 1.75𝜌𝐺 𝑣𝑜 2 (1 − 𝜀)
= 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 (𝑒𝑞. 3)
𝑍 𝜀 3 𝐷𝑝 2

Where:
∆𝑃 = pressure drop, Pa
Z = length of packed bed column, m
 𝜇𝐺 = gas viscosity, Pa.s
𝑘𝑔
𝜌𝐺 = gas density, 𝑚3
𝑚 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒
𝑣𝑜 = superficial gas velocity, ; 𝑣𝑜 = 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛 𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎
𝑠
𝜀 = void fraction, dimensionless
𝐷𝑝 = particle diameter, m ; 𝐷𝑝 = 𝐷𝑐𝑦𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 [2]

For gas flow through dry packings, pressure drop may be estimated by the use of an orifice
equation. For irrigated packings, pressure drop increases because of the presence of the liquid,
which effectively decreases the available cross section for gas flow. In principle, there should be
a method for correlating the dry pressure drop for the presence of liquid. This approach was used
by Leva (1954) but a more recent method by Robbins (1990) utilizes the same approach.

The total pressure drop is calculated using:

∆𝑃𝑡 = ∆𝑃𝑑 + ∆𝑃𝐿 (𝑒𝑞. 4)

∆𝑃𝑑 = 𝐶3 𝐺𝑓2 10(𝐶4 𝐿𝑓 ) (𝑒𝑞. 5)

For Leva method, 𝐺𝑓 , 𝐿𝑓 and ∆𝑃𝐿 and are calculated using:

𝐿𝑓 0.1
∆𝑃𝐿 = 0.4 [ ] ∆𝑃𝑑 0.4 (𝑒𝑞. 6)
20000

𝐹𝑝𝑑 0.5
𝐺𝑓 = 986𝐹𝑠 [ ] (𝑒𝑞. 7)
20

𝐹𝑠 = 𝑈𝑡 𝜌𝐺0.5

62.4 𝐹𝑝𝑑 0.5

𝐿𝑓 = 𝐿𝜇𝐿0.1 [ ][ ] (𝑒𝑞. 8)
𝜌𝐿 20

For Robbins method, ∆𝑃𝐿 is obtained from the plot of pressure drop vs. gas loading factor for
different 𝐿𝑓 /𝐺𝑓 after 𝐺𝑓 and 𝐿𝑓 are calculated using:
𝐹𝑝𝑑 0.5 0.3𝜌
𝐺𝑓 = 986𝐹𝑠 [ ] 10 𝐺 (𝑒𝑞. 9)
20

62.4 𝐹𝑝𝑑 0.5

𝐿𝑓 = 𝐿𝜇𝐿0.2 [ ][ ] 𝐹𝑝𝑑 > 200 (𝑒𝑞. 10)
𝜌𝐿 20
 0.5
62.4 20
𝐿𝑓 = 𝐿𝜇𝐿0.1 [ ][ ] 𝐹𝑝𝑑 < 15 (𝑒𝑞. 11)
𝜌𝐿 𝐹𝑝𝑑

Where:
2 𝑖𝑛 𝐻 𝑂 2 𝑚𝑚 𝐻 𝑂
∆𝑃𝑡 = total pressure drop, 𝑓𝑡 𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 (x 83.3 = 𝑚 𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 )
∆𝑃𝑑 = dry pressure drop
∆𝑃𝐿 = pressure drop due to liquid presence
𝐶3 = 7.4𝑥10−8
𝐶4 = 2.7𝑥10−5
𝐹𝑝𝑑 = dry packing factor specific for a specific packing type and size, 𝑓𝑡 −1
𝑓𝑡 𝑙𝑏 0.5
𝐹𝑠 = superficial F-factor for gas, ( 𝑠 ) (𝑓𝑡 3 )
𝑈𝑡 = superficial gas velocity
𝑙𝑏
𝐺𝑓 = gas loading factor, hr.ft2
𝑙𝑏
𝐿𝑓 =liquid loading factor, hr.ft2
𝑙𝑏
G = gas mass velocity, hr.ft2
𝑙𝑏
L = liquid mass velocity, hr.ft2
𝑙𝑏
𝜌𝐺 = gas density, 𝑓𝑡 3
𝑙𝑏
𝜌𝐿 = liquid density, 𝑓𝑡 3
𝜇𝐿 = liquid viscosity, cP

Lobo et al empirically estimated the dry packing factor:

6(1 − 𝜀)
𝐹𝑝𝑑 = (𝑒𝑞. 12)
𝜀 3 𝐷𝑝

Where:
𝜀 = void fraction, dimensionless
𝐷𝑝 = particle diameter

This study aims to determine the void fractions of the packed beds; determine the packing
factor experimentally with the use of flooding velocity calculations; and examine the air pressure
differential across the column as a function of air flow rate for different water flow rates down the
column
Methodology
For the experiment, an Armfield Gas Absorption Column UOP7 made of two 75 mm inside
diameter borosilicate glass sections joined end to end to give a total column length of 1.4 m;
installed vertically on a mild steel floor standing framework; filled with 10 mm x 10 mm glass
Rashig rings was used as shown by the figure below (Fig. 1). The two fluids fed to the packed
column in a countercurrent flow were air and water and their set flowrate ranges were 20 to 140
L/min and 0 to 7 L/min respectively. The packed column was first dried by letting the air flow for
15 min at a flowrate of 150 L/min then the sump tank was filled with water up to 75% of its
capacity. Data were gathered by setting a constant water flowrate, then gradually increasing the
air flowrate by increments of ten, both fluids starting from their respective minimum flowrates up
to their maximum range, and recording the resulting pressure drop in mm𝐻2 𝑂. This process was
repeated for a total of three trials.

Water flow
control valve
Water Gas flow
manomete control valve
r
Packed bed
Water pump
switch

Air compressor
switch
Air compressor
Water pump
Sump tank

Figure 1. Gas/Liquid Absorption Column

Results and Discussion
Table 1 below shows the recorded pressure drops in mm𝐻2 𝑂 at different air and water flow
rates.

Table 1. Trial 1 Pressure Drop in mm𝐻2 𝑂

Air / Water Flow Rate (L/min) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 6.5 7
20 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.6 2 3 2.4 1.8
30 0.2 0.6 0.6 1 0.2 3 4 3.6 5
40 0.1 0.6 1 1.6 2 3.4 7 9 12.2
50 0.2 0.6 1.8 2.4 4 5.2 15.6 18 19
60 0.4 0.6 2.2 3.6 5.2 11.6 22 36 56.2
70 0.8 0.6 3 5.4 8 15.8 33 48 74
80 1.2 0.8 4.6 7.4 14.4 36 65 73 flood
90 1.6 0.8 6 11.2 25.2 70 86 flood
100 2.2 1.2 7.4 15.2 63 84 flood
110 2.6 1.4 9.2 22 92.2 flood
120 3 6 12 30.2 flood
130 3.4 8.4 15 49
140 3.8 9.8 18.4 56

Using the Ergun equation and assuming laminar flow, the void fractions in Table 2 below
were calculated and the corresponding average void fractions for the different water flow rates
were computed. The properties of the gas at 25℃ (𝜇𝐺 = 1.8448𝑥10−5 𝑃𝑎. 𝑠 , 𝜌𝐺 =
𝑘𝑔
1.1859 ⁄𝑚3 ) were obtained using the Handbook [1].
Table 2. Trial 1 Void Fraction, 𝜖
Air / Water Flow
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 6.5 7
Rate (L/min)
0.540 0.540 0.609 0.609 0.49 0.383 0.348 0.3675 0.393
20
14 14 87 87 936 89 19 9 47
0.649 0.540 0.540 0.488 0.64 0.383 0.358 0.339
30 0.3676
73 14 14 85 973 89 36 24
0.739 0.569 0.517 0.470 0.44 0.398 0.335 0.3145 0.290
40
53 19 64 79 897 73 15 5 75
0.697 0.591 0.481 0.452 0.40 0.380 0.289 0.2783 0.274
50
94 65 21 94 433 35 03 3 36
0.649 0.609 0.479 0.431 0.39 0.326 0.276 0.2424 0.214
60
73 87 38 43 694 88 98 7 28
0.596 0.625 0.464 0.407 0.37 0.314 0.258 0.206
70 0.2337
54 15 01 71 192 3 94 97
 0.569 0.609 0.435 0.390 0.33 0.262 0.222 0.2157
80
19 87 5 99 28 21 91 7
0.552 0.621 0.421 0.364 0.29 0.225 0.212
90
04 56 41 39 732 65 98
0.530 0.591 0.411 0.347 0.23 0.220
100
52 65 6 06 923 85
0.523 0.585 0.400 0.324 0.22
110
29 74 22 1 098
0.517 0.448 0.383 0.305
120
64 98 89 64
0.513 0.424 0.371 0.274
130
11 37 07 95
0.509 0.416 0.359
140
38 81 61
0.583 0.551 0.451 0.405 0.38 0.321 0.287 0.2885 0.286
Average
75231 9323 9654 72667 6158 86111 8175 72857 5117

Table 3 shows the calculated data for different air flow rates of the dry packings, meaning
the water flow rate is at zero (0) L/min. the superficial gas velocity was calculated by dividing the
air flow rate by the cross sectional area of the column, the pressure drop was converted to Pa, and
the gas mass velocity was calculated by dividing the air flow rate by its density.
Table 3. Trial 1 Dry Packings

Air Flow Superficial

∆P /Z
Rate Gas Velocity ∆P (Pa) Nre log(∆P/Z) G log(G)
(Pa/m)
(L/min) (m/s),Vo
116.5231 2.80182 0.4474406 0.0894 -
20 0.075451056 3.922552
622 2857 74 77407 1.04829
174.7847 1.40091 0.1464106 0.1342
30 0.113176584 1.961276 -0.8722
433 1429 78 16111
-
233.0463 0.70045 0.1789 -
40 0.150902112 0.980638 0.1546193
244 5714 54814 0.74726
2
291.3079 1.40091 0.1464106 0.2236 -
50 0.18862764 1.961276
054 1429 78 93518 0.65035
349.5694 2.80182 0.4474406 0.2684 -
60 0.226353168 3.922552
865 2857 74 32221 0.57117
407.8310 5.60364 0.7484706 0.3131 -
70 0.264078695 7.845104
676 5714 7 70925 0.50422
 11.76765 466.0926 8.40546 0.9245619 0.3579 -
80 0.301804223
6 487 8571 29 09628 0.44623
15.69020 524.3542 11.2072 1.0495006 0.4026 -
90 0.339529751
8 298 9143 65 48332 0.39507
21.57403 582.6158 15.4100 1.1878033 0.4473 -
100 0.377255279
6 109 2571 63 87036 0.34932
25.49658 640.8773 18.2118 1.2603540 0.4921 -
110 0.414980807
8 92 4857 31 25739 0.30792
699.1389 21.0136 1.3225019 0.5368 -
120 0.452706335 29.41914
731 7143 37 64443 0.27014
33.34169 757.4005 23.8154 0.5816 -
130 0.490431863 1.3768596
2 542 9429 03146 0.23537
37.26424 815.6621 26.6173 1.4251642 0.6263 -
140 0.528157391
4 352 1714 79 4185 0.20319

P drop/Z (Pa/m) vs Nre forDry Packings

30
25
∆P drop/Z (Pa/m)

20
15
10
5
0

Nre

Figure 2. Pressure Drop over Height of Column vs. Reynold Number for Dry
Packings
 log(P /Z) (Pa/m) vs log (G)
of Different H20 Flow Rates
3
0 L/min H20
log(P drop/Z) (Pa/m)
2.5
1 L/min H20
2
1.5 2 L/min H20
1 3 L/min H20
0.5 4 L/min H20
0
5 L/min H20
-0.5
6 L/min H20
6.5 L/min H20
log (G) 7 L/min H20

Figure 3. Log of Pressure Drop vs. Log of Gas Mass Velocity for
Different 𝐻2 𝑂 flowrates

Looking at the data it can be seen that for a constant water flowrate, as the gas flowrate
increases, the pressure drop increases (Table 1) as well while for a constant air flowrate, as the
water flowrate increases, the void fraction decreases (Table 2). For the dry packings, it can be seen
in Fig. 2 that as the glass flowrate and consequently the corresponding Reynolds increases, the
pressure drop per height of column increases. For the dry and wet packings, it can be seen in Fig.
3 that as the air mass velocity increases, along with the water flowrate increase, the logarithmic
pressure drop per height of column increases as well.
Answers to Questions
Packed bed columns make use of packings in order to increase the efficiency of the
equipment by maximizing the specific surface area (surface area per unit volume), maximizing
liquid-vapor contact area; spreading the surface area uniformly, increasing liquid-vapor contact;
maximizing void space per unit column volume, minimizing resistance to gas upflow; having a
shape with aerodynamic characteristics, minimizing friction; and minimizing cost through the
development of packings with increased size (random packing) or increased space between layers
(structured packing) [1]. They are used in many unit operations including gas absorption, stripping,
liquid-liquid extraction and leaching.
In a gas absorption packed column, a liquid and gas flowing countercurrently is used to
transfer a mass of solute from the gas into the liquid. The liquid fed at the top flows downward,
irrigating the packings, while the gas fed at the bottom flows upward. Due to the packings, both
fluids come in contact with each other and mass and heat transfer occur more efficiently. However,
channeling may occur at low liquid rates where packings are not wetted evenly so some of the gas
are not able to come in contact with the liquid resulting to a less amount of mass transfer. Loading
can also occur where in a portion of the energy of the gas is used to support an increasing quantity
of liquid in the column, some of the liquid are being held-up by the gas. If this continues, the void
spaces of the packings will be filled with water because the liquid or gas or both flowrates are very
high that a large amount of water is being held-up by the gas and the gas has to bubble through the
liquid so it can pass.
Total liquid hold up refers to the volume of liquid being held up per volume of the column
and is the summation of the static and dynamic liquid hold ups. Static liquid holdup is the volume
of liquid per unit volume of bed which remains in the bed due to a balance between gravitational
and surface tension forces after draining the bed [3] while the dynamic liquid hold up is the
draining liquid collected from the column after interruption of the input liquid [4].
The packing factor obtained from the flooding velocity is more accurate since it considers
the gas flowrate which varies while the one empirically estimated using the correlation of Lobo et
al is less accurate since it only considers the particle diameter and the void fraction.

Conclusion
For different water flow rates, as the air flow rate increases, the pressure drop increases as
well. However, the range of possible air flow rates will decrease with the increase in water flow
rate because the void spaces will be irrigated with water resulting to a reduction of void spaces, as
shown by the decreasing void fractions calculated, the gas can flow through. At a point where the
liquid rate is very high, the liquid will become continuous along the cross section of the column,
meaning almost all void spaces will be filled with water, and the gas which also has a high flow
rate would block some of the liquid from flowing downward while bubbling through it in order to
pass, resulting to flooding.
Recommendations
For the data gathering, it is instructed by the manual to use a maximum gas flow rate of
150 L/min however, 140 L/min should be used instead since it is the maximum gas flow rate that
the air compressor used in the laboratory can supply to the gas absorption column. While reading
the pressure drop in the water manometer, the lower meniscus should be used since the liquid is
colored. The water manometer should also be closely monitored at all times because at flooding,
where the pressure difference is very high, the colored water inside can travel into the other tubes
connected to it. This would result to the reduction of the amount of liquid needed in the manometer
to accurately read pressure drops, and the contamination of the other tubes. It is also recommended
to keep a proper distance from the packed column to avoid getting wet during flooding since liquid
or water droplets can escape the column.
 References
[1] Perry, R. H., & Green, D. W. (2008). Perry's Chemical Engineeris' Handbook (8th ed.). New
York: McGraw Hill.
[2] Geankoplis, Christine J., Transport Process and Unit Operations, 3rd Ed. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1993.
[3] Sáez, A. E., et al. “Static Liquid Holdup in Packed Beds of Spherical Particles.” AIChE
Journal, vol. 37, no. 11, 1991, pp. 1733–1736., doi:10.1002/aic.690371117.
[4] Schubert, C. N., et al. “Experimental Methods for Measuring Static Liquid Holdup in Packed
Columns.” AIChE Journal, vol. 32, no. 11, 1986, pp. 1920–1923.,
doi:10.1002/aic.690321119.
[5] McCabe, W. L., Smith, J. C., & Harriott, P. (2005). Unit operations of chemical engineering
(7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
[6] Fahien, R. Fundamentals of transport Phenomena. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1983.
[7] Gavhane, K. A., Unit Operations II: Heat & Mass Transfer, 23rd ed., (Pratibha Book
Distributors, 2009)., p. 9.10