See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340166460

Empirical correlations for packed column

Thesis · December 2018

CITATIONS READS
0 924

1 author:

Nurlan Yashar Azizli

Heriot-Watt University
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

My University Project View project

Sustainable water treatment technologies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nurlan Yashar Azizli on 22 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 School of Engineering & Physical Sciences

Heriot-Watt University

B.Eng. Chemical Engineering

Research Project Report Final Year

Academic Year 2018 – 2019

Title Empirical correlations for packed column

Author Nurlan Azizli

Registration H00239734
Number

Supervisor Mrs. Sevda Zargarova

Page 1 of 19
Abstract
This article shows the review of the well-known and recent mathematical
correlations developed to model the packed column. First, the pressure drop formulas
describing the pressure drop through the packed beds of spherical and non-spherical
particles with infinite diameters are presented. Next, pressure drop correlations for
slender packed bed are shown. After that, the pressure drop caused by the internals of
the column were analyzed, and relevant correlation is put forward. After the discussion
of pressure drop formulas, the parameters affecting the mass transfer in packed beds
were explained, and necessary models are given. Final section the paper gives the
computer formulas, to calculate the parameters of the pulsed packed liquid-liquid
extraction column.

Table of Contents
Abstract.................................................................................................................................................. 2
Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 3
Packed beds with spherical particles. ............................................................................................. 3
Slender Packed beds. ...................................................................................................................... 4
Pressure Drop Correlations for packed beds with spherical particles.............................................. 5
Pressure Drop Correlations for slender packed beds ..................................................................... 10
Pressure drop Correlation for the internals of packed column ....................................................... 11
Mass transfer correlations for the packed column ........................................................................... 12
Correlations for pulsed packed liquid-liquid extraction column....................................................... 13
Conclusion........................................................................................................................................... 15
References .......................................................................................................................................... 16
Webinar Summaries ........................................................................................................................... 18
Webinar from company "Chemical processing" about the achievement of good column
efficiency .......................................................................................................................................... 18
Teledyne ISCO chromatography webinar about "Flash chromatography" ................................ 18
Webinar from University of Colorado about the packed column height determination ............. 19

Page 2 of 19
Introduction
Packed column is a widespread equipment used throughout various industries
for manufacturing, refining, and treating purposes. The applications are distillation,
absorption, and liquid-liquid extraction. The attracting property of the packed bed that
makes it useful to be used is distillation is lower pressure drop of packing bed compared
to trays. In many cases, the mixtures contain heat-sensitive components, whose
distillation at high temperatures will result in undesirable processes, such as
polymerization or thermal degradation. Therefore, the boiling points of these mixtures
are decreased by carrying out the procedure at vacuum conditions. The benefit of the
use of packed bed is the less pressure drop across the column (between the column
head and sump), and hence low bottom operating pressure [15]. In absorption
processes, packing are utilized to separate the gas mixtures into its components by
introducing liquid solvent flowing counter-currently. The process is carried out using
packed columns. For example, specific chemical solvents (mono-ethanol-amine or
aqueous ammonia) for the purification of gases from CO2 before releasing into the
atmosphere [19]. Liquid-liquid extraction is another widely-used separation process
applied since 1930, in food, hydrometallurgy, petroleum and other industries. The
process is bases on separating two liquid phases by introducing another liquid phase,
which is miscible with one of the components in mixture, but immiscible with the other.
Pulsed liquid-liquid extraction is a type of the extraction, applied in nuclear industry for
the treatment of nuclear waste. The operation is based on creating turbulence, by
imparting an external pulsation into the inlet streams. The advantage of the external
pulsation is that the pulsing device is remote from the column, which minimizes the
leakages, and eliminated the need for internal mechanical parts, and thus simplifies the
column structure. Furthermore, it was proven that the required column height for the
desired separation is several times less under pulsation, compared to standard
operation [12].

Packed beds with spherical particles.

An awareness of attributes of the fluid flow through a packed bed is mandatory to
build the layout of packed bed. The influence of the fluid velocity on the pressure drop
characterizes the fundamental transport principles through packed bed. The transport
dynamics of other flows in similar structures, such as membranes, filters, and soil, can
also be interpreted in the same manner. The need for the precise pressure drop
correlation for the packed bed emerges from significance of the calculation of the
powers and sizes of the blowers and pumps.
One of the very old and still prominent equations, Ergun equation, is developed
to predict pressure for fluid flow in packed beds. The equation is valid for the

Page 3 of 19
incompressible flows, and beds built from spherical similar size particles. Moreover, the
column diameter must be much larger than the particle diameter for the validity of the
equation. When the equation was developed, it was assumed that the pressure drop in
the packed bed is a result of two different factors. First is the head loss due to the
frictional factors, which is proportional to superficial flow velocity. Second is the head
loss due to inertial factor, which is proportional to square of flow velocity. Ergun
equation is formulated as follows [4]:
∆𝑃 (1 − 𝜀)2 𝑢 (1 − 𝜀) 𝑢2
= 𝐴𝜇 + 𝐵𝜌 (1)
𝐿 𝜀 3 𝑑𝑝2 𝜀 3 𝑑𝑝
The coefficients A and B was empirically determined by Ergun himself, to be 150 and
1.75. In general, this simple equation yields pressure drop value with adequate
precision. Nevertheless, historically there has been objections to this equation. For
example, in the article by Nemec and Levec in 2005 [13], the values of the coefficients
A and B was criticized not to be constant as Ergun claimed, but changing depending on
the flow regime (i.e. turbulent or laminar), particle shape, and bed porosity. A novel
model for the estimation of pressure drop via granular porous media was developed by
Wu et al. in 2007 [17], which is based on hydraulic radius, and channel model with
expansions and contractions. Another, objection to the Ergun equation was that the
model is not valid for the cases when the column aspect ratio was not remarkably high.
The Ergun equation does not take into account the effect of surrounding walls.
However, when the aspect ratio of the column is not remarkably high, the effect of wall
friction is not negligible, and the flow is not distributed evenly throughout the bed.
Several papers published bases on the modification of Ergun equation, by inserting wall
correction factor into the original equation. For example, Eisfeld and Schnitzlein (2001)
[6] presented a model for the packing containing spherical particles, based on 2300
data point. The average deviation of the actual data from the model is 16%. The
deficiency of the model is that, the approach was entirely based on data, without any
physical reasoning. Another model was presented by Di Felice and Gibilaro (2004) [5].
The principle is to divide the flow into high Re number regime, and low Re number
regime. Next, the pressure drop is estimated based on corrected average superficial
fluid velocity. The model was successful in terms of the prediction in low Re number
conditions. Nevertheless, it does not successfully predict the pressure drop at high Re
number conditions. Yong C. and Sung J. (2008) [4] investigated the flow of confining
wall to the bed pressure drop, and developed a semi-empirical correlation for the
packed bed consisting of spherical particles. The investigation showed that the Re
number and column aspect ratio have an obvious impact on the wall effect.

Slender Packed beds.

An array of investigations was done is the last decades related to the random
packed beds. The construction of the random packed beds are also more
straightforward compared with the structured packing. It is widely utilized as catalytic
Page 4 of 19
bed in catalytic reactors. The deficiency of the random packing is that, it causes
significantly larger pressure drop and the heat transfer is less intensive than structured
packing. The high resistance of the packed beds and poor heat transfer in radial path in
packed bed reactors having high aspect ratios cause huge suffer in industry, in terms of
difficulty to cool down the reactors in which exothermic reactions proceed, using cooling
jackets, and thus the emergence of hot spots. Thus a need emerges for the type of the
random packing being competitive to the structured packing to be applied in the
processes where low pressure drop is required.
The hopeful alternative is novel packing arrangement, called slender bed, which
has small aspect ratio, being between 2 and 3. Slender packing arrangement is also
used as tubes inside the columns, to reduce the pressure drop, and increase the
efficiency of the separation. It is also a hopeful suggestion to enhance the packed bed
reactors. Several recent articles have investigated the experimental use of slender
packed beds, and have built appropriate models to predict pressure drop (Zehua G. and
Zhongning S., 2017)[9][10].

Pressure Drop Correlations for packed beds with spherical

particles
Ergun equation and modeling the fluid flow through porous media, in terms of
hydraulic radius approach, have been subjected to a remarkable number of objections
in recent decades. Building a model based on assumption of porous media to be as
collection of same sized channels was asserted to be an ignorant interpretation. The
model is not applicable for the prediction of fluid behavior through all sorts of porous
environment, despite its successful implementation in specific constructions. For
example, this model is inapplicable for the fluid flow evaluation in fibrous beds.
The article by Nemec and Levec (2005) [13] investigated the pressure drop
within moderate flow conditions that is observed within the fluid flow through packed
bed reactor(The Reynolds number was in between 10 and 500). The experimental
setup was the packed bed with particles having various shapes, but similar size. The
porosity of the bed was evaluated to be between 0.37 and 0.52. The analysis of the
results presented that when the aspect ratio of the column is more than 10, the
confining wall does not have a noticeable impact on the pressure drop through packed
bed. Thus, it was concluded that the original Ergun equation, with Ergun constants, is
an appropriate model to predict pressure drop through packed bed reactors with
spherical particles. Nevertheless, it was also shown that the equation fails to evaluate
the pressure drop through non-spherical particles. The article also presents empirical
corrections for the constants of Ergun equations in the case of four different prominent
groups of particles, based on the particular characteristics them. The average relative

Page 5 of 19
deviation of the given correlations from the actual experimental data was found about
10%. Thus the means was claimed to be better than the other approaches of its time.
Following correlations describe the dependence of Ergun coefficients on
spherictiy (𝜑) of particles. For cylindrical particles:
𝐴 = 150⁄ 3/2 (2)
𝜑𝑠
𝐵 = 1.75⁄ 4/3 (3)
𝜑𝑠
For ring particles:
𝜀3 (𝑆𝑓𝑐 + 𝑚𝑆𝑖 ) 𝑑𝑒
𝐴 = 150 [ 3
]×( ) (4)
(1 − (1 − 𝜀)(𝑉𝑓𝑐 − 𝑚𝑉𝑖 )/𝑉𝑝 ) 𝑉𝑝 6
2
𝜀3 (𝑆𝑓𝑐 + 𝑚𝑆𝑖 ) 𝑑𝑒
𝐵 = 1.75 [ 3
]×( ) (5)
(1 − (1 − 𝜀)(𝑉𝑓𝑐 − 𝑚𝑉𝑖 )/𝑉𝑝 ) 𝑉𝑝 6
For polylobed particles:
𝐴 = 150⁄ 6/5 (6)
𝜑𝑠
𝐵 = 1.75⁄𝜑2 (7)
𝑠
Another article by J. Wu and B. Yu (2007) [17] investigated resistant forces of
granular porous media against the fluid flow, and formulated a novel resistance model,
in accordance with a model of channel with expansions and contractions, and hydraulic
radius. The model describes the resistance to be a parameter affected by fluid
properties and bed properties, such as particle diameter, porosity, and tortuosity. Thus
the Ergun constants was interpreted as a function of bed porosity. The discussion of the
results showed that the suggested model well agrees with the experimental data, and i
proven to be more accurate compared with Ergun equation:
𝐴 = 72𝜏 (8)
3𝜏 3 1 5
𝐵 = ( + 4 − 2 ) 𝑅𝑒𝑝 (9)
4 2 𝛽 2𝛽
In the formulas above, 𝜏 represents bed tortuosity, which is a function of porosity. The
empirical relationship between the tortuosity and porosity is given by Yu and Li (2004):
2
1 1
√( − 1) + 4
1 1 √1 − 𝜀
𝜏= 1 + √1 − 𝜀 + √1 − 𝜀 (10)
2 2 1 − √1 − 𝜀

[ ]
𝛽 is the ratio of pore diameter to throat diameter, and is a function of porosity:
𝛽 = 1⁄(1 − √1 − 𝜀) (11)
Next article is from Eisfeld and Schnitzlein (2001) [6]. The article studied the
impact of the surrounding walls on the pressure drop through packed bed for the finite

Page 6 of 19
packings. The literature review of the about 2300 data points resulted in the conclusion
hypothesis that pressure drop depends on the Reynolds number. The existence of the
outer borders increases the drag losses in low Reynolds number regime, whilst the
measured pressure drop is than the prediction of the correlation for infinite beds in high
Reynolds number regime. The reason for this phenomena is opposing impacts of the
drag force caused by walls, the relatively higher porosity in zones near outer
boundaries. The article compared 24 correlations that are present in literature, anc
concluded correction of Ergun equation suggested by Reichelt is the most appropriate
among others. The article presented several additional enhanced correlations for the
particles having different shapes, using experimental data fit. The average deviation of
the predictions from actual data is about 16%.
Reichelt correction of the Ergun equation coefficients is given below:
2
𝐴=1+ (12)
𝐷
3 (𝑑 ) (1 − 𝜀̅)
𝑝
2
𝑑𝑝 2
𝐵 = [𝑘1 ( ) + 𝑘2 ] (13)
𝐷
k1 and k2 are specific coefficients, that changes depending on the particle shape. For
example, for spheres k1 = 1.15 and k2 = 0.87, whereas for cylinders k1 = 2.00 and k2 =
0.77. The average values of these coefficients for all particles are k 1 = 1.42 and k2 =
0.83.
The article by R. Di Felice and R. G. Gibilaro (2004) [5] also studied the impact of
the wall container on the pressure drop, and built a simple model. The model is
developed for the flow in the bed of spherical particles. The approach is to use Ergun
equation for evaluation the unaffected large portion of bed. It was observed that, the
pressure drop increases with an increase in wall impact in viscous flow regime.
Conversely, the pressure drop decreases with an increase in wall impact in inertial flow
regime. The model is claimed to be the first model that completely explains the fluid
behavior in packed bed, despite its simplicity.
Two parameters ub and 𝜀𝑏 are important to mention. The former is the fluid velocity in
bulk region, and the latter is bulk porosity. According to the article, bulk porosity, 𝜀𝑏 , is
about 0.4. Bulk zone flux can be evaluated using following formula, for all flow regimes:
𝑢
𝑢𝑏 = 2 (14)
𝐷
(𝑑 ) − 1
𝑝
2.06 − 1.06 ( )
𝐷
( )
𝑑𝑝
After that, these values are used in Ergun equation(1) to estimate the pressure drop.
Another article Yong C. and Sung J. (2008) [4], summarized the findings of the
articles presented above and prepared a semi-empirical approach for the estimation of
pressure drop in the packed beds consisting of spherical particles, but having small
Page 7 of 19
aspect ratio. The effect of the porosity in zones near surrounding wall and wall friction
onto the pressure drop was considered in theoretical terms. The empirical side of the
model considers the bed as a cluster of vein tubes having orifice plates. The model
includes the correction factor in the pressure drop in inertial terms. The orifice diameter
of the tubes in central zones of the bed is different that of tubes near the wall. The
model calculated inertial resistance that is result of particle friction for finite and
homogenous packing, and proposed a wall correction factor for both. The Ergun
equation was modified by including a wall correction factor and modified hydraulic
diameter, and thus a new correlation was suggested to predict pressure drop. The
correlation was useful for a wide range of flow conditions (100<Re<1000). The
predictions from the correlation were matched with actual data, and also compared with
the evaluations presented before, and the well agreement between the predictions and
data observed, for all flow conditions, and a wide range of bed aspect ratio values. It
was evident from the calculations that, both the column aspect ratio and Reynolds
number have a significant impact on the wall effect. When the column aspect ratio is
less 40, the wall effect on pressure drop is remarkable. However, when the aspect ratio
is more than 40, the wall effect is insignificant, regardless of the flow condition.
The modified Ergun equation for the evaluation of pressure drop across the packed bed,
that includes the impact of porosity and wall impact, is presented by the article as
follows:
∆𝑃 (1 − 𝜀)2 𝜇𝑀2 1 − 𝜀 𝜌𝑀𝐶𝑤 2
= 150 3 2
𝑢 + 1.75 3 𝑢 (15)
𝐿 𝜀 𝑑𝑝 𝜀 𝑑𝑝
The symbol M represents the influence of wetted surface onto the surrounding wall, in
physical terms, and formulated as follows:
2𝑑𝑝
𝑀=1+ (16)
3𝐷(1 − 𝜀)
The symbol Cw is wall correction factor, and represents porosity effect. The coefficient is
defined as the ratio of resistance of finite packing to the resistance of homogeneous
packing, and derived via semi-empirical method presented in article:
−1
𝜏(𝑛 𝑇 − 𝑛𝑤 ) 𝑛𝑤
(𝐶 + 2𝐶 )
𝐷,𝐶𝐶𝑃 + 𝐶𝐷,𝐶𝐿𝑃 𝐷,𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙
𝐶𝑤 = −1 (17)
𝜏𝑛 𝑇
(𝐶 )
𝐷,𝐶𝐶𝑃 +𝐶
𝐷,𝐶𝐿𝑃
nT and nW are the total number of capillary tube and the number of tubes close to
surrounding wall respectively. CD,CCP, CD,CLP, and CD,wall are drag coefficients.
Following article is presented by Esra E. and Omer A. (2015) [7]. The article
investigated all 38 available correlations from the literature, presented the results of the
experiment carried out using 9 different glass spheres whoses sizes differ from one
another, and ranges from 1.18 mm to 9.99 mm. The experiment were repeated several
times at different porosities for each glass. The fluid was selected to be water. The

Page 8 of 19
overall conclusion from the analyze of the results were that it is not recommended to
use Ergun equation when the Reynolds number exceeds 500. In addition to that, a new
simple correlation was suggested, which depicts the empirical relationship between the
friction factor and Reynolds number:
𝑓𝑣 = 160 + 𝑅𝑒𝑝904 (18)
Here the term Rep represents the modified Reynolds number, and fv denotes specific
friction factor, included by Ergun himself:
𝑅𝑒𝑝 = 𝑅𝑒⁄(1 − 𝜀) (19) 𝑓𝑣 = 150 + 1.75𝑅𝑒⁄(1 − 𝜀) (20)
The equation (18) was determined to have the smallest relative errors compared with
the equations reviewed.
Several additional new correlations were derived, based on old formulas, to be used in
modern software packages. For example, an old formula Rose equation is expressed:
1000 60
𝑓𝑝 = ( + + 12) × ℎ(𝜀) (21)
𝑅𝑒 √𝑅𝑒
fp denotes modified particle friction factor. The term ℎ(𝜀) was used to be determined
from Rose and Rizk chart. The chart was mapped into following polynomial, to facilitate
computer calculations:
ℎ(𝜀) = 54.3218𝜀 4 − 156.3496𝜀 3 + 169.7978𝜀 2 − 83.0717𝜀 + 0.248662 (22)
Similarly, the tortousity term in the work of Hayes and Afacan, was formulated as a
function of porosity, in following polynomial:
𝜏(𝜀) = 1.078147𝜀 3 − 1.469031𝜀 2 + 0.970189𝜀 + 0.248662 (23)
The article also shows that, the Carman equation is a reliable means of modeling for
large Re number regimes (Re>300), and for low Re number regimes Ergun equation is
shown to be more accurate than Carman model. The Carman equation is presented
below:
𝑅𝑒 0.9 (1 − 𝜀)2
𝑓𝑝 = (180 + 2.871 ( ) ) 3 (24)
1−𝜀 𝜀 𝑅𝑒
The major part of the data was collected from the experiments where the column aspect
ratio is less than 10. Nevertheless, no correction factor, due to wall effect, was included.
Next article by K.G. Allen (2013) [1] investigates impact of particle shape and
size distribution, packing arrangement, and particle surface roughness on the pressure
drop through packed bed, to build a relevant correlation to model packed beds in
thermal storages, or solar power plants. It is presented that the Ergun equation is not
recommended to be applied through modeling the fluid flow where Ergun modified Re
number exceeds 700, because the predictions of the formula is higher than actual data.
The experiment compared the flow of air in packing of non spherical particles, such as
small stones, cubes, cylinders having smooth surface, along with the spherical particles
having remarkable surface roughness. The article shows that the real pressure drop
values for the all types of particles described above are different from the evaluations of
Ergun equation. The relative deviations in some cases exceeds 100%, for the cubes
Page 9 of 19
and cylinders. Furthermore, it was found that the surface roughness of the particles, as
well as its shape, and packing structure significantly affects the pressure drop in
packing. The results were also different from the correlations presented before the
article, to model packing with non-spherical particles. Similarly, when the results of
packing with unevenly shaped stones analyzed, it becomes evident that the pressure
drop values also depends on the directions of the particles comparative the direction of
air flow. Thus the random packed bed may be anisotropic, in some cases. The final
point of the article is that the evaluation of the pressure drop of random packing can be
done only via formulation of the empirical correlation that is specific for the given
packing arrangement.

Pressure Drop Correlations for slender packed beds

In order to build more convenient column structure that will cause less pressure
drop, new type of random packing structure was developed. An article by Zehua Guo
(2017) [7], studied the pressure drop through packing having very small aspect ratio. It
was found that the pressure drop is remarkable affected by the channel width lining up
through the center. Thus, lower pressure drop is observed in the packed column having
relatively larger bed-to-particle diameter ratio (between 1.5 and 3), as the fluid tunnel
broadens. Because correlations present in literature fails to accurately model the given
packing arrangement, new empirical formula derived, by modifying the well-known
Carman equation. The analyze of the suggested equations yields very small average
relative deviation, roughly 4%, from the actual data points. The arrangement of the
particles observed to have considerable impact on the pressure drop. The pressure
drop is significantly less than that of structured and random packed beds. The results of
the experiment can be a decent experimental information for industrial operations. The
modified Carman equation, proposed by article, is presented below:
𝑑𝑝
𝑓𝑝 = 180 + (9.5374 − 2.8054)𝑅𝑒𝑝0.97 (25)
𝐷
Another article published in the same year, by Zehua Guo [8], investigated more
extensively the pressure drop in slender packed bed. Water used as fluid in
experimental setup. For the columns having small aspect ratios, the ratio of column to
particle diameter has strong influence on the coefficients A and B in Ergun equation.
Therefore the investigation of the pressure drop is carried out in the range in which
aspect ratio is grated than 1.025 and smaller than 2.88. The article also present the
study of the effects of the assembly methodology on pressure drop. The article revealed
that, in slender packed bed, the pressure drop is barely affected by the bed porosity. In
addition, an observation that is conflicting with the accepted hypothesis was made that
an increase in bed porosity lead to an increase in pressure drop. The pressure drop is
also influenced by the means of assembly. When the aspect ratio is in between 2 and 3,
the packing via pouring-vibrating method will probably result in the formation of the

Page 10 of 19
structure having a high order, and a channel lining up through the center. It will cause
the emergence of bypass flow facing with significantly less resistance. Thus this method
can be applied in industry to reduce the pressure loss. When the aspect ratio is
between 1 and 2, the experimental pressure drop values showed a functional
dependence on the value of aspect ratio, and Reynolds number. Thus a new correlation
was developed, by modifying the Ergun equation, to evaluate the pressure drop, by
modifying Ergun equation:
𝐷 −9.69 𝐷 𝐷 −1 𝐷
1004 ( ) + 57.6 ( ) 1964 ( ) + 502.7 ( ) − 1984
𝑑𝑝 𝑑𝑝 𝑑𝑝 𝑑𝑝
𝑓𝑘 = + (26)
𝑅𝑒𝑝 𝐷 −1 𝐷
(−3.183(𝑑 ) −1.785(𝑑 )+5.241)
𝑝 𝑝
𝑅𝑒𝑝

Pressure drop Correlation for the internals of packed column

The typical example for the application of the packing is vacuum distillation, due
to their relatively low pressure drop compared with trays. The separation processes
conducted at the pressures less than 100 mbar, in order to prevent any polymerization
or thermal cracking, necessitates limited pressure drop, otherwise the pressure
difference between the column head and column sump will enormous. In distillation
column the side streams and feed streams disrupts the ideality of the downward liquid
flow, and leading to liquid maldistribution. Thus, and additional equipment, called liquid
collectors and redistributes have been arranged beneath each packed bed, in order to
repair flow ideality, and avoid maldistribution. Two types of liquid collectors, chevron
type, and chimney type collectors are widespread in industry. However, the collectors
and distributors are also sources of pressure drop, and this phenomena may cause
serious problems in vacuum distillation, as the bottom operating pressure increases
relative to top pressure. Therefore, it requires to avoid any kind of pressure drop, except
the head loss caused solely by the irrigated packed bed [15].
An article by A.Rix and Z. Olujic (2008) [15], studied the pressure drop caused
solely by the column internals, i.e. liquid collectors and redistributors. An appropriate
correlation was suggested to predict the pressure through typical column internals
existing between two packing, such as chimney and chevron type collectors and
distributors, based on experimental data. The pressure drop is depicted as a function of
relative open area. Then the empirical formula are employed to evaluate the effect of
column internals onto the value of pressure difference across the pilot column,
consisting of five packed beds, and it was revealed that about 11-12% of the overall
pressure drop across the column is the result of column internals. Thus, based on that,
the article concluded that, the internals has significant contribution on the total pressure
drop across the column, and they should be neglected in estimations for any packed
column.

Page 11 of 19
The correlation presented by article is shown below:
2
𝑛𝑐𝑐 𝛾𝑐𝑐 𝑛𝑐𝑡 𝛾𝑐𝑡 𝑛𝑙𝑑 𝛾𝑙𝑑 𝐹𝐺𝑠
∆𝑃𝑖𝑛𝑡 = ( 2 + 2 + 2 ) × (27)
𝜃𝑐𝑐 𝜃𝑐𝑡 𝜃𝑙𝑑 2
n denotes the number of individual units, 𝛾 denotes the loss coefficient, and 𝜃 denotes
the relative free area. The subscripts cc, ct, and ld denote the chevron collector,
chimney type collector, and liquid distributor respectively.

Mass transfer correlations for the packed column

Several articles that studied the influence of operational parameters on the mass
transfes for packed column has been reviewed and summarized in this section.
First article is from B. Benadda and K. Kafoufi (2000) [3] investigated the high
pressure liquid reactors hydrodynamic characteristics, as well as mass transfer. Gas-
liquid absorption experiments are conducted within the specified range of pressure
values, from standard pressure up to 1300 bar, using packed column. Plug flow model
of the fluids with axial dispersion was analyzed, using the means of residence time
distribution. The mass transfer parameters have been found to be considerably
dependent on the pressure. The impact of the pressure on gas flow was also observed,
whilst the liquid flow was found to be independent of pressure. Thus, the overall
observation results in an outcome that gas-liquid reactors or absorbers operating at
elevated pressures cannot designed based on same hypothesis with those at standard
pressure. The interfacial mass transfer area was found to be increasing with an
increase in pressure, within the given pressure range. Similarly, pressure rise also
increases the value of liquid side film transfer coefficient. However, no noticeable effect
of pressure on liquid side overall transfer coefficient was observed. The article does not
present a new correlation for the mass transfer parameters, but states that the relevant
figures was obtained through solution of systems of differential equations with numerical
methods, using Turbo Pascal.
Second article is from Q. Zeng and Y. Guo (2011) [19] studies the carbon dioxide
absorption into the aqueous solution of ammonia in packed beds. The partial pressure
of carbon dioxide was about 15 kPa, and the ammonia concentration in solution was in
a range of 2 to 16%. The experiment was carried out within the temperature range of
200C to 500C. The measurement of the concentration of carbon dioxide was done at two
ends of the column, and compared with the measured value of overall mass transfer
coefficient. The conclusion from the discussion of the results was that the overall mass
transfer coefficient is remarkably affected by the ammonia concentration in aqueous
phase. Moreover, the liquid phase resistance was found to be major parameters that
controls the mass transfer. The article presents an empirical formula for the evaluation
of mass transfer coefficient as a function of ammonia concentration and liquid rate:
0.9
𝐾𝐺 𝑎𝑣 = 3.24 × 𝐿0.52 × 𝐶𝑁𝐻 3
(28)

Page 12 of 19
KG is overall mass transfer coefficient, a v is interfacial area, L is liquid flow rate, and
CNH3 represents ammonia concentration.
Final article in this section is from Ahmad R. and Zoha A. (2010) [14]. The main
core investigation subject of the paper is mass transfer in liquid-liquid extraction
columns with packed beds. The experimental setup is pilot column with structured
packing. Two different liquid systems were employed. First is toluene/acedic acid/and
water, and the other is n-butyl/acetic acid/water. The comparison of different models
available in literature against the experimental data concluded that Handlos-Baron's
model yields more accurate prediction that others. However, the article also states that
it is possible to obtain more precise predictions for mass transfer coefficients, by
modifying Newman equation. The modification is done by using effective diffusivity,
instead of standard diffusivity, which is multiplication of standard diffusivity with
enhancement factor. The decline in solute concentration was observed, with an rise in
packing height. This also reduces the mass transfer. The system with lower interfacial
tension was revealed to have larger mass transfer value in dispersed phase. Finally, the
article presented an empirical correlation for the enhancement factor for the Newman
equation that is the function of packing height. Following is the original equation
presented by Newman:
∞
𝑑 6 1 4𝑅𝐷𝑑 𝜋 2 𝑛2 𝑡
𝐾𝑑 = − ( ) ln [ 2 ∑ ( 2 ) 𝑒𝑥𝑝 (− )] (29)
6𝑡 𝜋 𝑛 𝑑2
𝑛=1
Dd is standard diffusivity, d is drop size, and t is contact time. K d represents dispersed
phase mass transfer coefficient. R denotes enhancement factor. The empirical formula
presented by article is following:
𝑅 = 0.272(1 + ℎ−1 )𝑅𝑒 1.258 (30)
h represents packing height in the above correlation.

Correlations for pulsed packed liquid-liquid extraction

column
The parameters improving the mass transfer are available interfacial area,
diffusion constant and the turbulence within the system. The diffusivity is specific
characteristics of the given liquid system, whilst the turbulence degree within the system
and interfacial area can be increased. One way of increasing the turbulence is imparting
an external pulsation to the liquid streams. The benefit of this technology is that
because the agitator is remote from the column, the column structure becomes simpler,
and undesirable leakages are eliminated.
An article by Khooshhein S. and Safdari J. (2013) [12] shows the summary of
the investigation of the two-phase pressure drop, employing three liquid systems
(toluene/acetone/water) with interfacial tensions differing from one another. The

Page 13 of 19
experiments were conducted by using the pilot plant that contains packed bed built with
ceramic Raschig rings, whose average diameter is about 63 cm. The major study object
of the experiment is to answer the question how operational parameters will affect the
pressure drop. The pulsation intensity was identified to be a rigorous parameter
influencing the pressure drop, as well as the flow rate of the phases, so that the rise in
the value of one of the mentioned parameters will cause an increase in the pressure
drop as well. The article presented a modified version of Khan and Varma model to
correlate relationship between pressure drop and the combined effects of flow rates and
pulsation intensity. The comparison of the new correlation against actual data, showed
that the average relative deviation of the prediction from the true values is 4.2% which is
very good approximation:
0.8446 0.187 4 0.1579
−0.6595 0.612
𝜎 𝜇𝑑4 𝑔 (𝐴𝑓 ) 𝜌𝑐
𝑓𝑡 = 229.15𝑅𝑒𝑝,𝑐 𝑅𝑒𝑝,𝑑 ( ) ( ) ( ) (31)
𝜇𝑐 𝑢𝑠,𝑐 𝜌𝑐 𝜎 3 𝑔𝜎
ft denotes pulsation intensity, 𝜎 denotes interfacial tension, g denotes acceleration due
to gravity, and Af represents the pulsation intensity. The subscripts c and d denotes
continuous and dispersed phases respectively.
Another article by M. Torab-Mostaedi and J. Safdari (2009) [16] examined the
mass transfer in pulsed extraction column and found that, the dispersed phase flow rate
has remarkable influence on the mass transfer coefficient, while the impact of the
continuous phase is negligible. The article presented an empirical correlation for the
calculation of enhancement factor to insert into well-known Gröger equation. The
enhancement factor is depicted as a function of Reynolds number, Schmidth number,
and viscosity ratio:
𝑅 = −2.57 + 1326.07𝑅𝑒 0.50 𝑆𝑐𝑐−0.94 (1 + 𝜖)−0.8 (32)
Next article by Sajad K. and Mohammad M. (2017) [11] investigates the mass
transfer coefficient, as well as other hydrodynamic specifications in horizontal-vertical
pulsed pilot extraction column. The core object of the investigation is the dependence of
overall mass transfer coefficient on operational parameters. The paper concluded that
the pulse intensity had remarkable impact on overall mass transfer coefficient and
average droplet diameter. The rise in the pulse intensity resulted in increase in the mass
transfer coefficient in horizontal and vertical sections of the packed column. A less
remarkable impact of the phases flow rates on mass transfer was observed. The
parameters that is under investigation was observed to increase when the dispersed
phase flow rate is increased. The article presents two correlations to estimate the mass
transfer coefficients. For horizontal section:
1.35
𝐾𝑜𝑐 𝑑32 𝐴𝑓 𝑢𝑐 1.31
= 0.00224𝑅𝑒 3.44 ( ) ( ) (33)
𝐷𝑐 𝑈𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑝 𝑢𝑑
For vertical section of the column:

Page 14 of 19
 4.95
𝐾𝑜𝑐 𝑑32 𝐴𝑓 𝑢𝑐 1.19
= 2 × 10−5 𝑅𝑒 5.29 ( ) ( ) (34)
𝐷𝑐 𝑈𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑝 𝑢𝑑
Next article by Asadollazadeh M. and M. Safdari (2012) [2] investigated the
dispersed phase hold-up and pulsed column characteristic velocity. The conclusion was
that the pulsation intensity and the interfacial tension significantly affects the hold-up. So
that, the increase in the pulsation intensity and phase ratio caused an increase in the
height of the dispersed phase hold-up. The mathematical model for the liquid hold-up is
proposed which involves packing characteristics, system physical properties and
operating variables:
𝑢𝑑 𝑢𝑐 𝑢𝑑
𝑥𝑑3 − 2𝑥𝑑2 + (1 + − ) 𝑥𝑑 − = 0 (35)
𝑒𝑢0 𝑒𝑢0 𝑒𝑢0
xd is liquid hold-up, and is calculated by solving the cubic equation.
The final article by G. Samani and M. Haghighi (2012) [8] focused on the
investigation average drop size and distribution of the drop size, which is also very
useful for the determination of the interfacial area. A pilot plant packed column and
three different liquid systems are employed throughout the experiment. The
measurement of the drop size is conducted at four different points through the column.
The conclusion was that the interfacial tension and the pulse intensity have the most
significant impact on the distribution of the drop size along the column, whereas the
phases flow rates did not affect seriously the relevant figures. The drop size distribution
was also found to be heavily affected by the column height in the column sump region,
whilst the effect is not so remarkable in the upper regions. Two correlations were
suggested to model the system, which include the column height and flow rates, as well
as the pulse intensity and the liquid properties. The relative deviation of the predictions
was calculated to be ranging between 7 and 9%. The first correlation describes Sauter
mean diameter as a function of flow rates:
−0.2304 −0.0514
−5
𝐴𝑓 4 𝜌𝑐 𝜇𝑐4 𝑔 𝑄𝑐 −0.0321
𝑑32 = 8.26 × 10 ( ) ( ) (1 + ) (36)
𝜎𝑔 ∆𝜌𝜎 3 𝑄𝑑
Following correlation depicts the Sauter mean diameter as a function of packing height
−0.239 −0.0473
−5
𝐴𝑓 4 𝜌𝑐 𝜇𝑐4 𝑔 ℎ −0.1645
𝑑32 = 7.1 × 10 ( ) ( ) (1 + ) (37)
𝜎𝑔 ∆𝜌𝜎 3 𝐻0

Conclusion
The article presented the correlations to estimate the parameters required for the
design of various packing structures and materials. The original and modified
correlations for homogeneous infinite packed beds, as well as modified Ergun and
Carman equations are shown for novel type packed bed with very small aspect ratios. In
addition, the empirical formula for the prediction of pressure drop caused by the column
internals was given. The simple empirical formula depicting the mass transfer in CO 2

Page 15 of 19
absorption form ammonia, and modified Newman and Gröger equations presented for
mass transfer in liquid-liquid extraction are described. Finally, the mass transfer, mean
drop-size diameter, and liquid hold-up correlations for pulsed packed column were
presented. The modified Khan and Varma correlation for the pressure drop through
packed beds are given.

References
1. Allen, K., von Backström, T. and Kröger, D. (2013). Packed bed pressure drop
dependence on particle shape, size distribution, packing arrangement and
roughness. Powder Technology, 246, pp.590-600.
2. Asadollahzadeh, M., Safdari, J., Haghighi-Asl, A. and Torab-Mostaedi, M. (2012).
Dispersed phase hold-up and characteristic velocity in a pulsed packed
extraction column. Chemical Industry and Chemical Engineering Quarterly, 18(2),
pp.255-262.
3. Benadda, B., Kafoufi, K., Monkam, P. and Otterbein, M. (2000). Hydrodynamics
and mass transfer phenomena in counter-current packed column at elevated
pressures. Chemical Engineering Science, 55(24), pp.6251-6257.
4. Choi, Y., Kim, S. and Kim, D. (2008). A Semi-empirical Correlation for Pressure
Drop in Packed Beds of Spherical Particles. Transport in Porous Media.
5. Di Felice, R. and Gibilaro, L. (2004). Wall effects for the pressure drop in fixed
beds. Chemical Engineering Science, 59(14), pp.3037-3040.
6. Eisfeld, B. and Schnitzlein, K. (2001). The influence of confining walls on the
pressure drop in packed beds. Chemical Engineering Science, 56(14), pp.4321-
4329.
7. Erdim, E., Akgiray, Ö. and Demir, İ. (2015). A revisit of pressure drop-flow rate
correlations for packed beds of spheres. Powder Technology, 283, pp.488-504.
8. Gholam Samani, M., Haghighi Asl, A., Safdari, J. and Torab-Mostaedi, M. (2012).
Drop size distribution and mean drop size in a pulsed packed extraction
column. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 90(12), pp.2148-2154
9. Guo, Z., Sun, Z., Zhang, N., Ding, M. and Liu, J. (2017). Pressure drop in slender
packed beds with novel packing arrangement. Powder Technology, 321, pp.286-
292.
10. Guo, Z., Sun, Z., Zhang, N., Ding, M. and Wen, J. (2017). Experimental
characterization of pressure drop in slender packed bed (1 < D / d < 3). Chemical
Engineering Science, 173, pp.578-587.
11. Khooshechin, S., Moosavian, M. A., Safdari, J., & Mallah, M. H. (2017). Mass
transfer investigation in a horizontal–vertical pulsed packed extraction
column. RSC Advances,(87), 55326-55335. doi:10.1039/c7ra07999k

Page 16 of 19
12. Khooshechin, S., Safdari, J., Moosavian, M. and Mallah, M. (2013). Prediction of
pressure drop in liquid–liquid pulsed packed extraction countercurrent
columns. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 44, pp.684-691
13. Nemec, D. and Levec, J. (2005). Flow through packed bed reactors: 1. Single-
phase flow. Chemical Engineering Science, 60(24), pp.6947-6957.
14. Rahbar, A., Azizi, Z., Bahmanyar, H. and Moosavian, M. (2010). Prediction of
enhancement factor for mass transfer coefficient in regular packed liquid-liquid
extraction columns. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 89(3),
pp.508-519.
15. Rix, A. and Olujic, Z. (2008). Pressure drop of internals for packed
columns. Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification, 47(9-
10), pp.1520-1529
16. Torab-Mostaebedi, M., & Safdari, J. (2009). Prediction of mass transfer
coefficients in a pulsed packed extraction column using effective
diffusivity. Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering,26(4), 685-694. DOI:
10.1590/S0104-66322009000400007
17. Wu, J., Yu, B. and Yun, M. (2007). A resistance model for flow through porous
media. Transport in Porous Media, 71(3), pp.331-343.
18. Yu, B., & Hua, L. J. (2004). A Geometry Model for Tortuosity of Flow Path in
Porous Media. Chinese Physics Letters,21(8), pp. 1569-1571.
19. Zeng, Q., Guo, Y., Niu, Z. and Lin, W. (2011). Mass Transfer Coefficients for
CO2Absorption into Aqueous Ammonia Solution Using a Packed
Column. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 50(17), pp.10168-10175.

Page 17 of 19
Webinar Summaries

Webinar from company "Chemical processing" about the achievement of

good column efficiency
https://www.chemicalprocessing.com/articles/2008/207/
The separation processes like, extraction, absorption, and distillation works based on
direct contact. Generally, a good tower design is necessary to improve the mass
transfer efficiency, which in turn contributes to overall process effectiveness. When the
mass-transfer equipment is projected, the number of theoretical equilibrium stages are
determined first. After that, the inner structure of the column is designed, and relevant
material are chosen. The height of the packing is a parameter that provides the
equilibrium, which also depends of the packing mechanical structure. Thus, the webinar
explains how the liquid distributors affect the column performance .

Teledyne ISCO chromatography webinar about "Flash chromatography"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jsFL-aeut8&feature=youtu.be
Packed bed has a wide application in chromatography. The design of the
environmentally friendly chromatography techniques is prepared by the series of
NextGen. The purpose of new design is to enhance the concentration gradients, to use
less quantity of solvent, and too shorten the time required for separation. Thus, the
laboratory will work more efficiently both in terms of time and expenditures, and
environmental footprint will decline. Nextgen's novel technology will enable the use of
safer solvents, that is not widespread in typical chromatography.
The webinar also explains the creation of new methods, by selecting alternative
green solvents. The system properties are summarized within several examples, to
show the ways of improvements in purification, while to have minimum hazards to
environment.

Page 18 of 19
 Webinar from University of Colorado about the packed column height
determination
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WI2sMIa5r0
A faculty member from the University of Colorado explains the method for the calculation of
the packing height of the binary distillation column separating equimolar mixture of hexane and
octane. The packing contains Raschig ring with about 1 inch diameter. Before the calculation of
the HTU for packed bed, the preliminary step is to determine the number of transfer units. The
number of equilibrium stages are identified by using Mc-Cabe Thiele diagram. The top and
bottom operating lines are sketched. Then the integration boundaries is determined, based on
the intersections of top and bottom lines. Then the pick points on both operating lines are
revealed. Next, the term 1/(1-y) is sketched against y. Next step is numerical integration, using
trapezoidal, or Simpsons rule. The bed heights for stripping and enriching sections are
calculated, and finally the total packing height is determined by summing them together.

Page 19 of 19

View publication stats