LOADING AND FLOODING

CHARACTERISITICS IN A PACKED
COLUMN
Experiment No.4

Name: Aman Agrawal

Roll No :18CH30003
Subject: Mass Transfer Lab
Objective of the Work
1. To determine the loading and flooding velocities for air-water system in a
packed tower
2. To plot log (∆P/L) vs log(G) where (∆P/L) is the pressure gradient and G is the
mass velocity of air
3. To compare the experimental values of the flooding velocity with those
obtained from Sherwood plot
Theory
Packed towers are used for continuous countercurrent and cocurrent contact of
liquid and gas. The towers are vertical columns filled with packings which provide
large interfacial area.
The tower can be operated at a particular liquid flow rate (can be maintained
constant) while the gas flow rate can be progressively increased. After some time,
it can be seen that a liquid hold up is built-up inside the column packing.
Then if the gas flow rate be increased further, no liquid would come out from the
bottom of the tower, and the tower would be flooded with liquid. At flooding, the
velocity of the gas with reference to the liquid rate maintained is the flooding
velocity.
The gas velocity in an operating packed column must obviously be lower than the
flooding velocity. However, as flooding is approached most of the packing surface
is wetted, maximizing the contact area between gas and liquid. The flooding
velocity depends strongly on the type and size of packing, and the liquid mass
velocity.
Since it is difficult to identify the flooding and loading velocity visually, a
conventional approach is to obtain the same from a log-log plot of (∆P/L) vs G.
Flooding is detected by an abrupt change in the nature of the curve.
The curve is initially linear with a particular slope which is a function of liquid
velocity, nature of packing, etc. With onset of flooding the curves become almost
vertical showing the increased pressure drop with a slight increase in gas velocity.
It can be assumed to occur at a pressure drop of 2.0 psi of packing. Accordingly,

PAGE 1
it is determined as the onset of vertical lines in the log (∆P/L) vs log G plot, while
the termination of the linear portion of the curve gives the loading point.
It is important to estimate the loading point since the column operates most
efficiently at or near this point. For low liquid rates, the flooding velocity varies
with about the - 2.0 to -0.3 power of the liquid rate and the 0.6 to 0.7 power of
the packing size.
The effects of liquid rate and packing size become more pronounced at high
liquid mass velocities

Schematics

Experimental Schematics

PAGE 2
Experimental Set-up
The set-up essentially consists of a perpendicular column filled with Raschig
rings (ID 1.25 cm), a compressor, centrifugal pump, an orifice meter for
measuring gas flow rate, a rotameter for water flow rate and a manometer
for pressure drop across the column.

Table:
1 Liquid flow rate = 0LPH

∆h for calculating packed bed ∆h for calculating gas

pressure(cm) velocity(cm)
52 2.5
54 3.0
58 3.5
66 4.0
83 6.0

2 Liquid flow rate = 27.5LPH

∆h for calculating packed bed ∆h for calculating gas

pressure(cm) velocity(cm)
14 9.5
16 10
18 11.5
23 14.5
26 16

PAGE 3
3) Liquid flow rate = 42.5 LPH

∆h for calculating packed bed ∆h for calculating gas

pressure(cm) velocity(cm)
10 10.5
12 11
14 13.5
15 16.5
16 19

4 Liquid flow rate = 50 LPH

∆h for calculating packed bed ∆h for calculating gas

pressure(cm) velocity(cm)
4 10.5
6 11.5
8 14
10 17
13 19

5 Liquid Flow Rate = 57LPH

∆h for calculating packed bed ∆h for calculating gas

pressure(cm) velocity(cm)
5 10.5
7 12
7 13.5
7 16.5
12 19.5

PAGE 4
Graph

Log(∆P/L) vs Log(G`)
1.6
1.55
1.5
1.45
1.4
1.35
-0.3 -0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0

Liquid flow rate = 0LPH

4
Log(∆P/L) vs Log(G`)
3.95
3.9
3.85
3.8
3.75
3.7
3.65
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16

Liquid flow rate = 27.5LPH

Log(∆P/L) vs Log(G`)
3.8

3.75

3.7

3.65

3.6

3.55
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

Liquid flow rate = 42.5LPH

PAGE 5
 Log(∆P/L) vs Log(G`)
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

Liquid flow rate = 50LPH

Log(∆P/L) vs Log(G`)
3.7
3.65
3.6
3.55
3.5
3.45
3.4
3.35
3.3
3.25
3.2
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2

Liquid flow rate = 57LPH

Calculations :
For Liquid flow rate = 27.5LPH
L=26.8 cm
∆h for calculating packed bed pressure(cm) =14 cm
∆h for calculating gas velocity(cm)= 9.5 cm

PAGE 6
 ∆𝑃/𝐿 = (þ ∗ 𝑔 ∗ ∆ℎ 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒(𝑐𝑚))/𝐿
= (1000 * 9.8 * 14/100)/(0.268)
= 263.64 Kg/m2s2

𝐶0 2∆𝑃
𝑉0 = √ ; 𝐺 = 𝑉0 ∗ þ𝑎𝑖𝑟
√1 − 𝛽 4 𝜌𝑓

Mass Velocity

Where 𝑉0 is the fluid

𝐶0 = 0.61

𝛽 = 0.5

𝜌𝑓 is the density of fluid

∆𝑃 is the pressure drop

Height of column=L=26.8 cm

V0=(0.61/sqrt(1-0.54))*sqrt(2*g*∆h for calculating gas velocity(m))

=8.4m/s
G= V0* (1.23 Kg/m3) < density of air
G=20.34 Kg/m2s

PAGE 7
 Sherwood Plot Theoretical Graph Correlation

Results And Conclusion

From the Calculation
∆P/L =263.64 Kg/m2s2
Mass Velocity= G=20.34 Kg/m2s

From the Sherwood correlation we can conclude that how the theoretical
approximation is correlated with the experimental approach while calculating
flooding and loading point for each Liquid flow rate.

PAGE 8
Discussion
1)As the flow rate increases the mass velocity of system got decreases as the
liquid flow from the opposite side has a high pressure from the liquid which slow
sown the superficial gas mass velocity
2)Generally operational velocity is industry is considered to be half the flooding
velocity which is safer as it to prevent the further danger and accident on the spot
3)The theoretical Sherwood correlation and the experimental log graph quite in
similar nature which further solidify its practical viability
4)Flooding is approached when most of the packing surface is wetted, maximizing
the contact area between gas and liquid.
5)The flooding velocity depends strongly on the type and size of packing, and the
liquid mass velocity
6)Loading velocity is defined when the gas velocity is high enough to restrict the
flow of liquid. After this point, the pressure drops at a much faster rate till
flooding point which is generally lower than the other point and it is the indicator
of danger on the equipment process

Sources of Error/Precaution
1)Take adequate amount of mixture feed so that temperature sensor remains
dipped in the solution throughout the experiment. This caused some of the error.
2. While taking sample solution for measuring the refractive index, IF we took
more amount than optimally required as we had to do it manually using a pipette.
If a micropipette was provided, we can increase the accuracy of the experiment.
3. Constant heat flux should be provided for the distillation of the binary mixture
of Acetone and Toluene.

PAGE 9
PAGE 10