Department of Chemical Engineering

University of San Carlos-Technological Center

Nasipit, Talamban, Cebu City

CHE 422L
Chemical Engineering Laboratory 1

Absorption
(Hydrodynamics in a Packed Absorption Column)
A laboratory report submitted to
Engr. May V. Tampus
Instructor, CHE 422L

By
Daniot, Donna Mae L.

January 10, 2013

1. Introduction
Absorption refers to the physical transfer of a solute from the gas phase to the liquid
phase

[Strigle,

1994].

Gas

absorption

is

the

separation

of

solute

gases

from gaseous mixtures of non-condensable by transfer into a liquid solvent. This

recovery is achieved by contacting the gas stream with a liquid that offers specific or
selective solubility for the solute gas or gases to be recovered [McGraw-Hill, 2003].
Gas absorption at an industrial scale is most commonly practiced in packed towers. A
packed tower is essentially a piece of pipe set on its end and filled with inert material or
"tower packing [Cussler, 2001]. Tower packings are divided into three principal types:
those that are dumped at random into the tower, those that must be stacked by hand,
and those known as structured or ordered packings. Dumped tower packings are made
of cheap, inert materials such as clay, porcelain, or various plastics. Thin-walled metal
rings of steel or aluminium are sometimes used [McCabe et. al., 1993].
In the experiment, Hydrodynamics in a Packed Absorption Column, the packed
towers are used for continuous countercurrent contacting of gas and liquid in absorption.
The gas enters the distributing space below the packed section and rises upward
through the openings or interstices in the packing and contacts the descending liquid
flowing through the same opening. A large area of intimate contact between the liquid
and gas is provided by the packing [Geankoplis, 2003].
Any countercurrent flow separation device is subject to a capacity limitation due to
flooding. Flooding is related to the ability of the column to let two phases flow in sufficient
quantity in opposite directions through each other within the column. Due to the friction
and firm drag caused by the packing and falling liquid, some pressure drop is required in
order to let the rising gas phase flow. The pressure at the top of the column must be
lower than the pressure at the bottom.
In the majority of cases the gas flow is turbulent and the general form of the relation
between the drop in pressure P and the volumetric gas flow rate per unit area of
column is shown in curve A of Figure 1. If in addition to the gas flow, liquid flows down
the tower, the passage of the gas is not significantly affected at low liquid rates and the
pressure drop line is similar to line A. When gas rate reaches a certain value, pressure
drop rises more quickly as shown in section XY in curve C. Over this section the liquid
flow is interfering with the gas flow and the hold-up of liquid is progressively increasing.
The free space in the packings is therefore being continuously taken up by the liquid,
2

and thus the resistance to flow rises quickly. At gas

flows beyond Y, P rises very steeply and the
liquid is held up in the column. The point X is
known as the loading point, and point Y as the
flooding point for the given liquid flow. If the
flowrate of liquid is increased, a similar plot D is
obtained in which the loading point is achieved at a
lower gas rate though at a similar value of P
[Coulson and Richardson, 2001].
For flow of fluids in packed bed, pressure drop
can
Figure1. Pressure drop in wet
packings (logarithmic axes)

be

estimated

using

150 (1 )2
2 3

Erguns

equation:

1.75 2 (1 )
3

where P is the pressure drop, v is the fluids superficial velocity, and are the fluid
viscosity and density, respectively, Dp is the packing diameter, L is the length of the
packed bed and is its porosity. The first term is significant at low velocities (laminar
flow) while the second term becomes significant at high velocities (turbulent flow).
It is important to be able to predict the drop in pressure for the flow through a packed
column. However, there is no very accurate expression, but there are several
correlations that are useful for design purposes [Coulson and Richardson, 2001]. One is
the first generalized correlation for flooding of packed columns based on tests primarily
done with air-water system proposed by Sherwood, Shipley, and Holloway:
2

0.2 =
3


where ap is the total area of packing, l and g are the densities of liquid and gas,
respectively, is the fractional voids in dry packing, g is the gravitational constant, is
the liquid viscosity, v is the superficial gas velocity, and L and G are the liquid and gas
mass rates. The left-hand term is dimensionless and can be regarded as the ratio of the
kinetic energy in the gas to the potential energy in the liquid while the right-hand term is
a dimensionless flow parameter which is a measure of the liquids kinetic energy to that
of the gas [Cussler, 1997].

2. Objectives of the Experiment

Determine experimentally the pressure drop across a wet column as a function of

the air flow rate and compare the results with the theoretically calculated values.

Determine through visual observation and by graphical methods the loading and
the flooding points of the packed column at pre-set values of water flow rates.

Construct from experimental data the loading and the flooding curves of the
packed column based on the generalized correlations proposed by Sherwood,
Shipley and Holloway.

3. Methodology
3.1 Materials
Ruler
Thermometer
3.2 Equipment and Apparatus
Packed Absorption Column

Figure 422-5.5 Schematic diagram

of the Set up

Figure 422-5.4 Packed Absorption Column

Parts:
1. A sump tank
2. Valve in the discharge pipe to the sump tank
4

3. Water (left) and mercury (right) manometer

4. Air flow meter
5. Gas analyzing equipment
6. Air flow control valve
7. Higher Stopcock
8. Water flow control valve
9. Water flow meter
10. Gas flow meter
11. Lower Stopcock
12. Air pump
13. Water pump
3.3 Procedures
3.3.1 Preliminary Preparations
Table 422-5.1 Packed Column Setting

Sampling Points
Water Flowrates for Part
Part B
Part C
C, L/min
1
water
S1 snd S3 S1 and S3
1, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 5
2
water
S2 and S3 S1 and S3 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4.5, 5
3
water
S1 and S2 S1 and S2 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5
4
water
S2 and S3 S1 and S2
1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4
*Please refer to Figure 422-5.5 for the nomenclature

No.

Manometer
Type

From table 422-5.1, the packed column setting assigned to us was setting no. 3.
Before filling the tank up to three fourths of its volume with distilled water, the valve in
the water discharge tube was opened. It was made sure that the drains under the tank
and down-coming tube were closed. The 3-way cocks between the manometer and the
column was positioned in such a way that only the water manometer was used to
measure the pressure drop. For the setting assigned to us, the pressure drop between
S1 and S2 were the ones desired to be obtained so, the tube connected to S2 was
pulled out and was replace with the one connected to S3. The manometer was checked
to not indicate a pressure drop when S2 was opened.
3.3.2 Pressure Drop in Wetted Column
Before starting this part of the experiment, the gas and water flow meters and the
stopcock were ensured to be close while C4 is fully open. The column was then wetted
by turning on the water pump and adjusting the water flow controller to a water flow rate
of 3.5 L/min. The pump was allowed to run for three minutes before it was turned off.
The column was then allowed to drain for five minutes. When the column completely
5

drained, the manometer was checked to ensure that no pressure drop was indicated
without air and water flow. Then, manometer readings of pressure differences across the
column for a range of airflow were taken by opening S2. The readings were taken
starting with the low rate. Ten flow rates between 20 to 170 L/min were tested. Also the
temperature of water and air before and after the experiment was recorded.
The above procedures were then repeated, but this time the manometer readings
were taken starting from the high rate to the lower rate.
3.3.3 Identifying the Loading and Flooding Points
In this part of the experiment, manometer readings of pressure difference across the
column with 10 appropriate airflow rates for each water flow rate given in setting 3 were
taken. Temperature of the liquid and gas phase during the experiment as well as the
appearance of the column at each setting were also recorded.
When all the necessary readings that needed to be taken were recorded, the water
from the tank and the down-coming tube were drained. When the draining was
complete, the valves of the down-coming tube and drain were closed.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1 Objective 1
Table 1. Constant Parameters
Water Flow Rate, vL [L/min]
o

3.5

Water Temperature, TL [ C]

29

Air Temperature, Tg [oC]

31

Density of Water, L [kg/m3]

995.337

Density of Air, g [kg/m3]

1.161

Viscosity of Water, L [kg/ms]

7.843E-04

Viscosity of Air, g [kg/ms]

Cross-sectional Area of Column, A
[m2]
Diameter of Packed Column, D [m]
Height of Packed Column, L [m]
Porosity,

1.873E-05

Particle Diameter, Dp[m]

0.009

Total Area of Packing, ap[m2/m3]

2

Gravitational Constant, g [m/s ]

0.0044
0.075
0.73
0.63
420
9.81

Table 1 contains the summary of all the constants needed in this experiment. It
includes the properties of water, air, as well as of the column and its packing. These
constant parameters were used to compute for different quantities such as pressure
drop, superficial velocity of air, air mass flow rate, etc.
Table 2. Pressure Drop in a Wetted Column (Trial1)

Air Flow
Rate, vg
[L/min]
20.0

Manometer
Reading, h
[cm]
0.4

0.08

Experimental
Pressure Drop,
Pexp [Pa]
39.01

Theoretical
Pressure Drop,
Ptheo [Pa]
2.95

40.0

0.6

0.15

58.52

9.70

60.0

0.8

0.23

78.02

20.25

80.0

1.4

0.30

136.54

34.61

100.0

2.0

0.38

195.06

52.77

120.0

2.8

0.45

273.08

74.74

140.0
150.0
160.0

3.6
4.0
4.4

0.53
0.57
0.60

351.10
390.11
429.13

100.50
114.81
130.08

170.0

4.8

0.64

468.14

146.29

Experimental
Pressure Drop,
Pexp [atm]
468.14
429.13
390.11
351.10
273.08
195.06
136.54
78.02
58.52
39.01

Theoretical
Pressure Drop,
Ptheo [atm]
146.29
130.08
114.81
100.50
74.74
52.77
34.61
20.25
9.70
2.95

Air Superficial
Velocity, v' [m/s]

Table 3. Pressure Drop in a Wetted Colum (Trial 2)

Air Flow
Rate
[L/min]
170.0
160.0
150.0
140.0
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0

Manometer
Reading
[cm]
4.8
4.4
4.0
3.6
2.8
2.0
1.4
0.8
0.6
0.4

Air Superficial
Velocity, v' [m/s]
0.64
0.60
0.57
0.53
0.45
0.38
0.30
0.23
0.15
0.08

Tables 2 and 3 shows the manometer reading, experimental pressure drop, and
theoretical pressure drop corresponding to different air flow rates in ascending and
descending manner respectively. As you can see in the following tables, the manometer
reading for a specific air flow rate remained the same despite the order it was taken.
This is to be expected since all conditions and parameters other than the air flow rate
7

were made constant. Pressure drop on a wetted column is calculated as the product of
the difference of the densities of water and air with the gravitational constant and the
manometer reading. An increase in air flow rate corresponds to an increase in
manometer reading, and thus an increase in pressure drop. This result is just reasonable
and can be explained by the law of conservation of energy. In this part of our
experiment, the only varying variable is the air flow rate. So if the air flow rate is
increased, the kinetic energy of the air molecules also increases, and since energy
cannot be created nor destroyed but can only be transformed, the only way to
compensate for the increase in kinetic energy is to decrease the pressure so as to
maintain equilibrium within the system.
The last two columns in Tables 2 and 3 show the experimental and theoretical
pressure drop respectively. The experimental values are the pressure drops obtained
from a wetted column while the theoretical values are the pressure drops along the
length of a dry absorption column. The theoretical pressure losses was calculated using
Erguns equation, a friction factor correlation which is used to express the frictional force
that act upward to counteract the effect of gravity when there is an airflow. For the entire
range of air flow rates, the experimental values are far greater than the theoretical
values. This is because liquid water occupied some part of the void volume in the
packing which resulted to the decrease in cross-sectional area available for the air to
pass through and correspondingly lead to an increase in the velocity of the air. So at a
specific superficial velocity, the actual air flow used in a wetted column is greater and
thus results to a greater pressure drop than in a dry column.
The results obtained were in accordance to Plancks who stated that In ordinary
operation of a packed tower the liquid circulated over the packing occupies an
appreciable fraction of the voids and reduces the mean free cross-section open to
passage of the gas. Thus in columns with wet packings, at a seemingly constant
superficial gas velocity, the actual gas velocity are increased, and the pressure drop is
appreciably greater than when the packing is dry. The introduction of liquid into the
tower increases the frictional resistance and viscous drag affecting gas flow and so the
pressure drop is greater in the wet tower than in the dry tower.

4.2 Objective 2
Table 4. Loading and Flooding Points through Visual Observation (Setting 1)

Water Flow Rate, vL = 1.5 L/min

Air Flow
Manometer
Rate,
Reading, h
Observations
vg
[cm]
[L/min]
20
0.2
no water accumulation
40
0.6
no water accumulation
60
1.0
no water accumulation
80
2.0
no water accumulation
100
3.2
no water accumulation
water starts to
120
6.6
accumulate at the base
more water accumulated
140
10.2
in the column
more water accumulated
150
13.6
in the column
more water accumulated
160
19.8
in the column
170
37.4
flooding occurs

Air Mass
Flow Rate,
G [kg/s-m2]

Pressure
Drop, P
[Pa]

P/L
[Pa/m]

0.09
0.18
0.26
0.35
0.44

19.51
58.52
97.53
195.06
312.09

26.72
80.16
133.60
267.20
427.52

0.53

643.69

881.77

0.61

994.79

1362.73

0.66

1326.39

1816.97

0.70

1931.07

2645.30

0.74

3647.57

4996.67

Table 5. Loading and Flooding Points through Visual Observation (Setting 2)

Water Flow Rate, vL = 2.0 L/min

Air Flow
Manometer
Rate,
Reading, h
Observations
vg
[cm]
[L/min]
20
0.2
no water accumulation
40
0.6
no water accumulation
60
1.8
no water accumulation
80
3.2
no water accumulation
90
5.2
no water accumulation
water starts to
100
7.2
accumulate at the base
more water accumulated
110
10.0
in the column
more water accumulated
120
15.6
in the column
more water accumulated
130
19.2
in the column
140
32.4
flooding occurs

Air Mass
Flow Rate,
G [kg/s-m2]

Pressure
Drop, P
[Pa]

P/L
[Pa/m]

0.09
0.18
0.26
0.35
0.39

19.51
58.52
175.55
312.09
507.15

26.72
80.16
240.48
427.52
694.72

0.44

702.21

961.93

0.48

975.29

1336.01

0.53

1521.45

2084.17

0.57

1872.55

2565.14

0.61

3159.93

4328.67

Table 6. Loading and Flooding Points through Visual Observation (Setting 3)

Water Flow Rate, vL = 2.5 L/min

Air Flow
Manometer
Rate,
Reading, h
Observations
vg
[cm]
[L/min]
20
0.2
no water accumulation
40
0.8
no water accumulation
50
1.6
no water accumulation
60
2.0
no water accumulation
70
3.0
no water accumulation
80
4.2
no water accumulation
water starts to
90
6.2
accumulate at the base
more water accumulated
100
8.6
in the column
more water accumulated
110
16.2
in the column
120
30.6
flooding occurs

Air Mass
Flow Rate,
G [kg/s-m2]

Pressure
Drop, P
[Pa]

P/L
[Pa/m]

0.09
0.18
0.22
0.26
0.31
0.35

19.51
78.02
156.05
195.06
292.59
409.62

26.72
106.88
213.76
267.20
400.80
561.12

0.39

604.68

828.33

0.44

838.75

1148.97

0.48

1579.96

2164.33

0.53

2984.38

4088.19

Table 7. Loading and Flooding Points through Visual Observation (Setting 4)

Water Flow Rate, vL = 3.0 L/min

Manomet
Air Flow
er
Rate, vg
Observations
Reading,
[L/min]
h [cm]
20
0.2
no water accumulation
30
0.4
no water accumulation
40
0.8
no water accumulation
50
1.6
no water accumulation
60
2.4
no water accumulation
70
4.0
no water accumulation
water starts to
80
6.4
accumulate at the base
more water accumulated
90
8.8
in the column
more water accumulated
95
10.0
in the column
100
26.5
flooding occurs

Air Mass
Flow Rate,
G [kg/s-m2]

Pressur
e Drop,
P [Pa]

P/L
[Pa/m]

0.09
0.13
0.18
0.22
0.26
0.31

19.51
39.01
78.02
156.05
234.07
390.11

26.72
53.44
106.88
213.76
320.64
534.40

0.35

624.18

855.05

0.39

858.25

1175.69

0.42

975.29

1336.01

0.44

2584.51

3540.42

10

Table 8. Loading and Flooding Points through Visual Observation (Setting 5)

Water Flow Rate, vL = 3.5 L/min

Air Flow Manometer
Rate, vg Reading, h
Observations
[L/min]
[cm]
20
0.2
no water accumulation
30
0.4
no water accumulation
40
1.0
no water accumulation
50
1.8
no water accumulation
60
2.6
no water accumulation
water starts to
70
5.0
accumulate at the
base
more water accumulated
75
6.0
in the column
more water accumulated
80
8.0
in the column
more water accumulated
85
9.2
in the column
90
22.0
flooding occurs

Air Mass
Flow Rate,
G [kg/s-m2]
0.09
0.13
0.18
0.22
0.26

Pressure
Drop, P
[Pa]
19.51
39.01
97.53
175.55
253.57

26.72
53.44
133.60
240.48
347.36

0.31

487.64

668.00

0.33

585.17

801.61

0.35

780.23

1068.81

0.37

897.26

1229.13

0.39

2145.63

2939.22

P/L
[Pa/m]

Table 9. Loading and Flooding Points through Visual Observation (Setting 6)

Water Flow Rate, vL = 4.0 L/min

Air Flow
Rate, vg
[L/min]

Manometer
Reading, h
[cm]

20
30
40
50

0.2
0.6
1.2
2.8

60

3.6

65

5.6

70

7.2

75

8.4

80

11.6

85

15.6

Observations
no water accumulation
no water accumulation
no water accumulation
no water accumulation
water starts to
accumulate at the base
more water accumulated
in the column
more water accumulated
in the column
more water accumulated
in the column
more water accumulated
in the column
flooding occurs

Air Mass
Flow Rate,
G [kg/sm2]
0.09
0.13
0.18
0.22

Pressure
Drop, P
[Pa]

P/L
[Pa/m]

19.51
58.52
117.03
273.08

26.72
80.16
160.32
374.08

0.26

351.10

480.96

0.28

546.16

748.17

0.31

702.21

961.93

0.33

819.24

1122.25

0.35

1131.33

1549.77

0.37

1521.45

2084.17

11

Table 10. Loading and Flooding Points through Visual Observation (Setting 7)

Water Flow Rate, vL = 4.5 L/min

Air Flow
Manomete
Rate,
r Reading,
Observations
vg
h [cm]
[L/min]
20
0.2
no water accumulation
30
0.8
no water accumulation
40
1.6
no water accumulation
50
2.8
no water accumulation
water starts to
55
3.2
accumulate at the base
more water accumulated
60
3.8
in the column
more water accumulated
65
7.2
in the column
more water accumulated
70
10.4
in the column
more water accumulated
75
13.2
in the column
80
20.0
flooding occurs

Air Mass
Flow Rate,
G [kg/s-m2]

Pressure
Drop, P
[Pa]

P/L
[Pa/m]

0.09
0.13
0.18
0.22

19.51
78.02
156.05
273.08

26.72
106.88
213.76
374.08

0.24

312.09

427.52

0.26

370.61

507.68

0.28

702.21

961.93

0.31

1014.30

1389.45

0.33

1287.38

1763.53

0.35

1950.57

2672.02

Loading point is the point where the liquid flow is hindered by the gas flow and
pressure drop over the column increases. It is also at this point where liquid water starts
to accumulate in the column. While flooding point is the point where liquid water can no
longer pass through the column and thus overflowed. This occurs when the gas flow is
too high and pressure drop increases more rapidly causing the liquid to build up.
Tables 4 10 indicate the loading and flooding point at different water flow rate via
visual observation. At a water flow rate of 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 L/min, the
corresponding loading points are 120, 100, 90, 80, 70, 60, 55 L/min while the flooding
points are 170, 140, 120, 100, 90, 85, 80 L/min respectively. It is evident that as the
water flow rates increases, the air flow rate needed to reach the loading and flooding
point decreases. This is because as water flow rate increases, more water competes
and occupies the void volume of the packing which further reduces the cross-section
area available for the air to pass through. It also increases the resistance encountered
by the air as it flows upward and thus increases the pressure drop across the packing.
If the gas flow rate remains constant, the pressure drop will increase with an increase
in the liquid flow rate. This occurs because as the liquid fills the voids in the column, the
cross-sectional area available for gas flow is reduced. Up to the loading point, the
pressure drop graphs at constant liquid rate show slopes that are fairly linear and
12

approximately equal to that of the dry run. Above the loading point, an increase in slope
occurs, indicating a more rapidly increasing pressure drop with increasing gas velocity.
This continues until gas can no longer pass freely up the column, nor the liquid pass
freely down it. The frictional drag becomes so great that the downward flow of liquid is
substantially impeded and the column is to flood. At the flooding point, the slope
becomes exponential and the drag force of the gas bubbling through the downcoming
liquid is the predominate cause of the pressure drop across the column.
Figure 2. Pressure Drop in a Packed Column for Water Flow Rate of 1.5L/min

Figure 3. Pressure Drop in a Packed Column for Water Flow Rate of 2.0 L/min

13

Figure 4. Pressure Drop in a Packed Column for Water Flow Rate of 2.5 L/min

Figure 5. Pressure Drop in a Packed Column for Water Flow Rate of 3.0 L/min

14

Figure 6. Pressure Drop in a Packed Column for Water Flow Rate of 3.5 L/min

Figure 7. Pressure Drop in a Packed Column for Water Flow Rate of 4.0 L/min

15

Figure 8. Pressure Drop in a Packed Column for Water Flow Rate of 4.5 L/min

Figures 2-8 present the graphical determination of the loading point and freezing
point of different water flow rates. In doing graphical method, we plotted the air mass
flow rate against the change in pressure over the change in length of the packing. At low
velocity, air mass flow rate is linearly related to P/L. When air mass flow rate, G, is
further increased, a sudden change in slope occurs. This is the loading point of the
system where liquid starts to accumulate at the bottom of the packed column. Passed
this point, the amount of liquid retained in the column rapidly increased which in turn also
increases the pressure drop across the packing. When a further sharp increase in
pressure drop occurs at high value of G, flooding happened. At this point the column is
now filled with water and air can no longer pass through the liquid. The column is now
drowned with the liquid water. In the graph, this is indicated by a very steep slope way
past the loading point. Also, it is evident that as the water flow rates increases, the
distance between the occurrence of the loading and flooding point is getting shorter.

16

Table 11. Loading and Flooding Points through Visual Observation

Water
Flow
Rate, vL
[L/min]

Water Mass
Flow Rate, L
[kg/s-m2]

1.5

5.63

2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5

7.51
9.39
11.26
13.14
15.02
16.90

Loading Point
Air Flow
G, [kg/sRate,
vg
m2]
[L/min]
0.53
120
0.44
0.39
0.35
0.31
0.26
0.24

Flooding Point
G, [kg/sm2]

Air Flow Rate,

vg [L/min]

0.74

170

0.61
0.53
0.44
0.39
0.37
0.35

140
120
100
90
85
80

100
90
80
70
60
55

Table 12. Loading and Flooding Points through Graphical Method

Water
Flow
Rate, vL
[L/min]
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5

Loading Point

Flooding Point

Water Mass
Flow Rate, L
[kg/s-m2]

G, [kg/sm2]

Air Flow Rate,

vg [L/min]

G, [kg/sm2]

Air Flow Rate,

vg [L/min]

5.63
7.51
9.39
11.26
13.14
15.02
16.90

0.471
0.3760
0.2910
0.2900
0.2760
0.2480
0.2400

107.5356
85.8458
66.4392
66.2109
63.0145
56.6217
54.7952

0.637
0.508
0.4650
0.4270
0.3820
0.3410
0.3370

145.4356
115.9832
106.1657
97.4898
87.2157
77.8549
76.9416

Tables 11 and 12 show the summary of the loading and flooding points obtained from
the experiment via visual observation and graphical method respectively. Both tables
illustrate that as water flow rate increases, lower air flow rate is needed to achieve the
loading and flooding point of the packed column. Also, as water flow rate increases, the
difference between the flooding and loading point is getting smaller. These are all in
accordance on what we had observed during the experiment.

17

4.3 Objective 3
Table 13. Loading and Flooding Curves of a Packed Column using Correlation of
Sherwood, Shipley and Holloway

L
[kg/sm2]
5.63
7.51
9.39
11.26
13.14
15.02
16.90

Loading Point
G,
[kg/sm2]
0.471
0.3760
0.2910
0.2900
0.2760
0.2480
0.2400

Flooding Point

v'
[m/s]
0.4057
0.3239
0.2506
0.2498
0.2377
0.2136
0.2067

0.008
0.005
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002

0.408
0.682
1.102
1.327
1.626
2.068
2.405

G,
[kg/sm2]
0.637
0.508
0.4650
0.4270
0.3820
0.3410
0.3370

v' [m/s]

0.5487
0.4376
0.4005
0.3678
0.3290
0.2937
0.2903

0.0144
0.0091
0.0077
0.0065
0.0052
0.0041
0.0040

0.3020
0.5049
0.6895
0.9010
1.1750
1.5043
1.7125

Figure 9. Loading and Flooding Curves in a Packed Bed using Generalized Correlation

Loading and Flooding Curves

0.200

2.000

0.010
Loading points
Flooding points
____ loading curve
____ flooding curve

0.001

Figure 9 shows the loading and flooding curves of the packed column constructed
from the experimental data based on the generalized correlations proposed by
Sherwood, Shipley, and Holloway. This correlation is based on tests primarily done with
air-water system. The vertical axis of the graph is a dimensionless factor which is the

18

ratio of the kinetic energy in the gas to the potential energy in the liquid while the
horizontal axis is a dimensionless flow parameter which is the measure of relative kinetic
energy. The correlation shows that the flow is inversely proportional to the capacity
parameter, which means that at higher gas velocities, there is an increase in the ratio of
the kinetic energy in the gas to the potential energy in the liquid. This correlation is
based on the assumption that droplets are formed in the void spaces of the packing
elements, which then fall down into the packing elements.
5. Conclusion
The pressure drop across a wet column was determined experimentally. Also, the
theoretical pressure drop which is based on a dry absorption column was calculated
using Erguns equation. These values were tabulated in Tables 2 and 3. It was evident
that the experimental values of pressure drop were a lot greater compared to the
theoretical values.
The loading and the flooding points of the packed column at pre-set values of water
flow rates determined through visual observation and graphical methods were shown in
tables 11 and 12. The values obtained both for loading and flooding points are greater in
visual observation than in the graphical method.
The loading and flooding curves of the packed column constructed from the
experimental data based on the generalized correlations proposed by Sherwood,
Shipley, and Holloway was shown in Figure 9.
6. References

Geankoplis, C.J. (2003). Principles of Transport Processes and Separation

Processes, 4th edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

McCabe et. al. (1993). Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering, 5th edition,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Singapore.

Ergun, S., Fluid Flow through Packed Columns, Chemical Engineering Progress,
Vol 48, No. 2, 1952.

Coulson, J.M., Richardson J.F. (2001). Chemical Engineering, 5th edition,

Elsevier Science Linacre House, Oxford.

Strigle R. (1994). Packed Tower Design and Application, 2th edition, Gulf
Publishing Company, Texas.

Cussler, E. (1997). Diffusion, Mass Transfer in Fluid Systems, 2th edition,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

7. Appendices
19