Article No : o08_o01

Distillation, 2. Equipment
JOHANN STICHLMAIR, Technische Universit€at M€unchen, Garching, Germany

1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456 3.1. Design Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466

2. Tray Columns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456 3.2. Operation Region of Packed Columns . . . . . 467
2.1. Design Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456 3.3. Two-Phase Flow in Packed Columns . . . . . . 470
2.2. Operation Region of Tray Columns. . . . . . . 457 3.4. Mass Transfer in Packed Columns . . . . . . . 472
2.3. Two-Phase Flow on Trays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 460 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
2.4. Mass Transfer in the Two-Phase Layer . . . . 464
3. Packed Columns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466

Symbols Greek symbols

a: volumetric surface, m2 =m3 a: orifice discharge coefficient
A: area, m2 b: mass transfer coefficient, m/s
CG : gas capacity factor, m/s e: relative gas content, porosity
d: diameter, m p: circular constant
D: diameter, m; diffusion coefficient, m2/s r: density, kg/m3
DE : dispersion coefficient, m2/s Dr: density difference, kg/m3
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
F: F-factor, Pa1=2 , F
uG  rG s: surface tension, kg/s2
g: acceleration of gravity, m/s2 t: time, residence time, s
_
G: molar gas flow, kmol/s j: relative free area
h: height, m h: viscosity, kg m1 s1
hL : liquid hold-up x; z: orifice coefficient, friction factor
H: height, plate spacing, m
lw : weir length, m Subscripts
L_: molar liquid flow, kmol/s
m: slope of equilibrium line ac: active
^
M: molar mass, kg/kmol c: column
N: transfer units C: condenser (cooler)
N_ : molar flow, kmol/s cl: clearance under downcomer (skirt
p: pressure, bar clearance)
Dp: pressure drop, bar d: downcomer
T: temperature,  C f: froth, froth layer
u: superficial velocity, m/s F: feed
V_ : volume flow, m3/s h: hole, hydraulic
x: molar fraction of liquid G: gas, vapor
y: molar fraction of gas irr: irrigated

2012 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

DOI: 10.1002/14356007.o08_o01
456 Distillation, 2. Equipment
L: liquid
max: maximum
min: minimum
n: number of stage
N: nominal
o: single, initial
1. Introduction
Distillation isbyfarthemostimportant technology
for fractionating fluid mixtures. This article pre-
sents the present state of the art on design and
dimensioning of mass transfer equipment. In the
focus are tray columns and packed columns. The
design principles and the feasible operating re-
gions of both types of columns are presented.
Separate sections concern the two-phase flow
withinthecolumnandtheinterfacialmasstransfer.
Distillation units typically consist of a separa-
tion column, in which the interfacial mass transfer
takes place, a reboiler at the bottom, and a con-
denser at the top of the column for providing a
countercurrent flow of gas and liquid within the
column. Normally, heat is supplied by steam via a
thermosyphon reboiler and removed by cooling
water via a tube heat exchanger. The requirements
on effective mass transfer equipments can be un-
derstood from the basic equation of mass transfer:
N_ ¼ Akðy yÞ ð1Þ
To achieve a high mass transfer rate N_each factor
in Equation (1) should be large. The driving force
ðy yÞ is high at a countercurrent flow of gas and
liquid. A large interfacial area A is provided by
column internals like trays or packings. The mass
transfer coefficient k has high values if the inter-
facial area is steadily renewed. All these require-
ments are well met by tray columns and by
packed columns.
At the present state of the art dimensioning of
distillation columns is performed in two steps. The
first step is the thermodynamic simulation of the
processes taking place in the column (! Distil-
lation, 1. Fundamentals). The results of this rigor-
ous thermodynamic simulation are the flow rates
of gas and liquid within the column, the energy
demand, the number of equilibrium stages, the
internal profiles of concentrations and tempera-
ture, and the product qualities. These data are the
basis for the second step, the sizing of the equip-
Vol. 11
OG: overall gas
OL: overall liquid
p: particle
V: valve
w: weir
ment. In this step all geometrical structures and
dimensions of the equipment (type and dimen-
sions of columns and internals) have to be deter-
mined. This includes the calculation of the
diameter and the height of the column (i.e., the
number of actual trays or the height of the pack-
ing) as well as the dimensioning of reboiler and
condenser.
Two-phase flow and mass transfer in distilla-
tion columns are rather complex mechanisms
that cannot be modeled from first principles
alone. At present, models for column dimension-
ing are – to a large extent – based on empirical
know how developed over decades of industrial
application. Most know how is well described in
the literature [1–6]. Additionally, there is a huge
number of research reports from universities.
Important contributions to the state of the art
originate from industry funded research institutes
as Fractionation Research Inc. (FRI) in Still-
water, OK, and Separation Research Program
(SRP) of the University of Texas at Austin. In
recent years some computer software for column
dimensioning is also available [7–9].
2. Tray Columns
A perspective view of a tray column is shown in
Figure 1. The gas flows upwards and the liquid
flows downwards in the column. On the trays itself
there exists a cross flow of the two phases. The
horizontal trays have openings (holes, caps,
valves) for allowing the gas flow through the plates.
2.1. Design Principles
Three principles for the design of the openings in
the plates can be distinguished (Fig. 2):
. Sieve trays have a large number of round holes
in the plate (6–13 mm in diameter) with an
Vol. 11
Figure 1. Perspective view of a tray column a) Downcomer;
b) Tray support; c) Sieve trays; d) Man way; e) Outlet weir;
f) Inlet weir; g) Side wall of downcomer; h) Liquid seal
open area of about 8–15 % of the active area.
The weeping of liquid is prevented by the
upward flow of gas through the holes
. In bubble cap trays weeping of liquid is pre-
vented by design. A chimney with a cap covers
the openings in the plate. The bubble-caps have
a diameter of 50–80 mm. The relative free area
is about 10–20 %. The pressure drop of bub-
ble-cap trays is rather high
. Valve trays have movable elements in the tray
openings for adjusting the free area to the
actual gas load. This widens the operating
range and reduces the pressure drop at high
gas loads
The two-phase layer on the trays is approxi-
mately 10–30 cm high and has a large volumetric
interface of up to 1000 m2/m3. The liquid crosses
Distillation, 2. Equipment 457
the tray on its way to the outlet weir (3–8 cm
high) and the downcomer. Through a side open-
ing at the lower end of the downcomer the liquid
is fed to the tray beneath. The downcomers are
alternately arranged at the left-hand and right-
hand side of the trays. Typically, tray spacing is
in the range of 0.3–0.6 m. The active area on the
trays is about 80 % of column cross-section. In
large diameter columns special trays are often
used with several downcomers evenly distribut-
ed over the active area (multiple downcomer
trays). In systems with high fouling risk trays
without downcomers (dual-flow trays) are re-
commended. Some characteristic design para-
meters of trays are listed in Table 1.
The gas load, expressed as F-factor, is typi-
cally in the range of 1–2 Pa1/2. The liquid load V_L ,
referred to weir length lw , can be varied from ca.
2–100 m3m1h1. The pressure drop of tray
columns is rather high, typically 7 mbar per
equilibrium stage. Thus, tray columns are not
very well suited for vacuum services.
2.2. Operation Region of Tray
Columns
Tray columns can only be operated within certain
limits of gas and liquid flow as is shown in Figure
3. The upper limits (bold lines) are strong limits
which can never be crossed without causing
mechanical damages. The lower limits (dashed
lines) are soft limits which can be crossed if some
losses of mass transfer efficiency are accepted.
The operation point should allow for a sufficient
safety margin to the operation limits.
Maximum Gas Load. The gas load in the
column is a very important quantity since it
governs the diameter of the column. By conven-
tion, the gas load in columns is expressed by the
F-factor according to the definition:
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
F
uG  rG ð2Þ
The term uG denotes the superficial gas velocity
referred to the active area Aac of the tray. i.e., the
cross-sectional area of the column minus the area
of two downcomers (Fig. 2). The gas load has to
be kept between a maximum and a minimum
value.
458 Distillation, 2. Equipment Vol. 11

Figure 2. Schematic of a tray column showing the most important design parameters A) Vertical section
dcap ¼ cap diameter; dV ¼ valve diameter; dh ¼ hole diameter; hcl ¼ height of skirt clearance of downcomer; hw ¼ weir
height; H ¼ tray spacing; V_L ¼ volumetric flow rate of liquid
B) Cross section a) Small holes with narrow spacing; b) Bubble caps with wide spacing
Ad ¼ cross-sectional area of downcomer; Aac ¼ active cross-sectional area; Dc ¼ column diameter; lL ¼ length of liquid
path; lw ¼ weir length

Table 1. Characteristic dimensions of industrial tray designs

Vacuum Atmospheric High

pressure pressure

Tray spacing, m 0.4–0.6 0.4–0.6 0.3–0.4

Weir length, m (0.5–0.6)  Dc (0.6–0.7)  Dc (0.6–0.8)  Dc
Weir height hw , 0.02–0.03 0.03–0.07 0.04–0.1
m
Skirt clearance 0:7hw 0:8hw 0:9hw
Bubble-cap 0.08–0.15 0.08–0.15 0.08–0.15
diameter, m
Bubble-cap 1:25dcap ð1:25--0:14Þdcap 1:5dcap
spacing, m
Valve diameter 0.04–0.05 0.04–0.05 0.04–0.05
dV , m
Valve spacing, m 1:5dV 1:5dV 1:5dV
Hole diameter 0.004–0.013 0.004–0.013 0.004–0.013
Figure 3. Operation region of tray columns
dh , m
Operating boundaries due to: a) Entrainment; b) Froth height;
Hole spacing (2.5–3)  dh (3–4)  dh (3.5–4.5)  dh
c) Downcomer capacity; d) Weeping; e) Minimum crest over
(triang.), m
weir
Aac ¼ active tray area; V_G ¼ volumetric flow rate of vapor;
Relative free 15–10 10–6 7.5–4.5
area j, %
V_L ¼ volumetric flow rate of liquid
Vol. 11 Distillation, 2. Equipment 459

The maximum gas load is often determined

from the equation of Souders and Brown (1934):
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
F ¼ CG  rL rG ð3Þ

The gas load factor CG , defined by Equation (3),

has to be determined from experimental data or
from empirical correlations of such data [1, 3, 5].
Well known and often used is the correlation
of Fair [10] originally developed for sieve trays
(Fig 4).
A theoretically better founded approach has Figure 4. Correlation of the maximum gas load according to
been developed by Stichlmair [4, 11]. A balance Fair [10]
Plate spacing H: a) 0.91 m; b) 0.61 m; c) 0.46 m; d) 0.30 m;
of weight, buoyancy, and drag forces on a single e) 0.23 m; f) 0.15 m
0
droplet whose size is determined by a critical Values for CG are shown for weir height hw  0.15 H, hole
Weber number yields: diameter dh  6.35 mm, and liquid surface tension ¼ 0.02
0
N/m. The capacity factor is calculated from the chart value CG
0  
 1=4 s 0:2
with the formula: CG ¼ CG 0:02 .
Fmax ¼ 2:5 j2 sðrL rG Þg or ð4Þ Corrections must be made for the relative free hole area j as
 1=4 follows:
0
g j  0.10, CG ¼ CG
CG max ¼ 2:5 j2 s j ¼ 0.08, CG ¼ 0:9CG
0
rL rG 0
j ¼ 0.06, CG ¼ 0:8CG

According to these equations the maximum fea-

sible gas load depends on system properties minimum gas load in the holes, Fh min ¼ Fmin =j,
(density r of gas and liquid, surface tension s) decreases with increasing hole diameter dh . At
as well as on tray design (relative free area j). large hole diameters, however, the minimum gas
Equation (4) describes the entrainment flooding load Fmin =j increases with increasing hole
of trays with very large tray spacing. For smaller diameter since the condition of no-weeping is
tray spacing the froth height on the tray sets a decisive in this case.
lower limitation (see Section 2.3).
Maximum Liquid Load. The liquid flow
Minimum Gas Load. A limitation of the downwards the downcomers is enforced by grav-
minimum gas load is set either by weeping of
liquid through the openings in the tray or by non-
uniform gas flow through those openings. The
condition for uniform gas flow through the holes
of a sieve tray is according to MERSMANN [12]:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Fmin ¼ j 2s=dh ð5Þ

According to Ruff [13], weeping of liquid

through the holes of a sieve tray is prevented if
the gas load is higher than:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1=4
Fmin ¼ j ð0:37dh gðrL rG Þ5=4 Þ=rG ð6Þ

Equations (5) and (6) are determined for sieve Figure 5. Minimum gas load of sieve trays for three different
trays operated with three different systems as systems a) Air–water; b) Benzene–toluene; c) Isobutane–n-
shown in Figure 5. At low hole diameters the butane
460 Distillation, 2. Equipment
ity forces which results in a limitation of the
maximum liquid load. In practice, four empirical
rules of thumb are applied to the determination of
maximum liquid load:
. The relative weir load V_L =lw should be lower
than 60 m3m1h1.
. The liquid velocity in the downcomer should
not exceed the value 0.1 to 0.2 m/s.
. The volume of the downcomer should permit a
residence time of the liquid of more than 5 s.
. The height of the clear liquid in the downcomer
should not exceed half of the tray spacing H.
These rules have been developed by long term
practical experience. However, they do not per-
mit any insight into the limiting physical phe-
nomena. In essence, liquid flow through a down-
comer is comparable with the flow of liquid out of
a vessel, which is described by Torricelli’s equa-
tion:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
uLd ¼ a 2gH
This basic equation has to be adapted to the
conditions present at the outlet area of a down-
comer. According to Stichlmair [4, 11] the fol-
lowing relationship holds for a standard tray
design:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 ffi
V_L max r r
¼ aeLd hcl  2gH L G  1
lw rL
Where eLd denotes the relative liquid hold-up in
the downcomer, hcl the height of the downcomer
clearance, hDp the pressure loss of a tray ex-
pressed in clear liquid height, and hL the clear
liquid height on the tray (see Section 2.3). The
orifice discharge coefficient a has, in most cases,
a constant value of 0.61. For non-foaming sys-
tems, a value of 0.4 is recommended for the
relative liquid hold-up eLd in the downcomer.
Minimum Liquid Load. In principle, a col-
umn tray can be operated even with very small
liquid loads because the necessary height of the
two-phase layer (froth) on the tray is provided by
the exit weir. At extremely low liquid loads,
however, the liquid will flow in an uneven pattern
across the tray resulting in some degree of mal-
Vol. 11
distribution of liquid. Accordingly, it is recom-
mended to ensure a minimum liquid-flow
rate over the exit weir larger than
V_L =lw  2 m3 m1 h1 . In small diameter col-
umns, however, the liquid load can be consider-
ably lower.
2.3. Two-Phase Flow on Trays
Decisive for the performance of tray columns is
the behavior of the two-phase layer on the trays.
Three different structures of the two-phase layer
can be distinguished:
. Bubble regime: The liquid constitutes the con-
tinuous phase. The gas rises in the liquid in
form of discrete bubbles
. Drop regime: The gas forms the continuous
phase and the liquid is dispersed into fine
droplets
. Froth regime: This regime represents the in-
ð7Þ termediate state between bubble and drop
regime. The two-phase layer is intensively
agitated and no univocally dispersed phase
exists
The froth regime is the dominant regime at
normal column operation. Only in vacuum ser-
vices drop regime may sometimes exist on trays.
hDp þhL Relative Liquid Hold-Up. Relative liquid
ð8Þ
eLd H hold-up eL is a very important parameter of the
two-phase layer on a tray. It is defined as the ratio
of clear liquid height hL and froth height hf :
hL
eL ¼ ð9Þ
hf
There exists a large data base of relative liquid
hold-up data and many empirical correlations in
literature. Most published data are well summa-
rized in the following correlation [4, 11]:
eL ¼ 1ðF=Fmax Þ0:28 ð10Þ
The term Fmax (see Eq. (4)) accounts for gas load,
several properties of the system and tray design.
Liquid hold-up decreases significantly with in-
creasing gas load. Its dependency on liquid load
is very small. In most cases the relative liquid
hold-up eL on a tray is as low as 5–10 %.
Vol. 11 Distillation, 2. Equipment 461

Froth height. Knowledge of the height hf of

the two-phase layer on a tray is very important
because it has to be significantly lower than tray
spacing to avoid excessive liquid entrainment.
The decisive mechanism for froth height is the
liquid flow over the weir at the end of the tray.
Thus, froth height cannot fall below weir height
hw . The flow of the two-phase mixture ðV_L =eL Þ
over the outlet weir length (lw ) additionally
contributes to froth height as well as the lifting
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
effect ðF0:2 rG Þ of the gas moving upwards
through the two-phase layer. From a large data
base the following correlation has been devel-
oped by Stichlmair [4, 11]:
 2=3  pffiffiffiffiffiffi
1:45 V_L =eL 125 F0:2 rG 2
hf ¼ hw þ  þ 
g1=3 lw ðrL rG Þg 1eL

pffiffiffiffiffiffi
for F  0:2 rG ð11Þ

Figure 6. Correlation of liquid entrainment versus gas load.

An increasing liquid load increases the froth
height hf according to the second term in Equa-
tion (11) (i.e., Francis formula applied to a two-
phase system). An increasing gas load F results
in an increase of froth height according to both a
decreasing relative liquid hold-up eL (in the
second term) and an increasing third term of
Equation (11).
At normal operation the froth height has
values of ca. 0.1–0.3 m. This requires a tray
spacing of 0.3–0.5 m for safe operation.
The parameter lines stand for tray spacing. Curves are plotted
at indicated values of the parameter (H  hf)  Dr  g/F2max
for a hole diameter of less than 10 mm
H ¼ plate spacing; hf ¼ height of two-phase froth layer;
Dr ¼ density difference; g ¼ acceleration due to gravity
umn is not disturbed severely but mass transfer
efficiency will be reduced to some degree. At
very high entrainment rates, however, the pres-
sure drop rises significantly and, eventually, the
countercurrent flow in the column breaks down
(entrainment flooding).

Entrainment of Liquid. Gas flowing Liquid Mixing. The two-phase layer on a

through the two-phase layer on a tray always
entrains some liquid in form of small droplets.
This liquid entrainment is unfavorable because it
affects the countercurrent flow of gas and liquid
within the column and, in turn, the separation
efficiency of the column. Figure 6 presents an
empirical correlation that summarizes nearly all
data published in the literature so far [4, 11].
The volume of the entrained liquid strongly
increases with increasing gas load ðV_E / F 5 Þ.
Thus, the entrainment data spread over 5 dec-
ades. The sharp increase of the entrainment at a
relative gas load of F=Fmax  0:65 is obviously
caused by the transition from froth regime to drop
regime (phase inversion).
In practice, the entrainment of ca. 10 % of the
liquid fed to a tray is tolerated. Even at higher
entrainment rates two-phase flow within the col-
tray is heavily moved and agitated by the gas
emerging from the tray openings. This intensive
motion effects a partial mixing of the liquid on
the tray resulting in leveling out concentration
gradients. This mechanism affects mass transfer
efficiency of the trays (see Section 2.4).
The degree of liquid mixing on a tray is
expressed by the dimensionless Peclet number
whose definition is:
l2L
Pe
ð12Þ
DE tL
The term tL denotes the residence time of the
liquid in the two-phase layer. A value Pe ¼ 0
stands for complete liquid mixing on a tray, i.e.,
no concentration gradients exist. A value Pe!¥
stands for no back-mixing and, in turn, for plug
462 Distillation, 2. Equipment
Figure 7. Liquid isotherms in the two-phase layer of a bubble-cap tray operated with hot water and air. Data were determined on a
bubble-cap plate with a diameter of 2.3 m, at a relative liquid flow rate V_ L =lw of 10 m3 m1 h1 A) Gas load F ¼ 0.47 Pa1/2;
B) Gas load F ¼ 1.61 Pa1/2;
flow of the liquid across the tray. Here, significant
concentration gradients exist in the liquid on the
tray due to cross flow of gas and liquid.
Predicting the degree of liquid mixing,
expressed in Peclet Pe-number, requires knowl-
edge of the dispersion coefficient DE . Only few
experimental data have been published in litera-
ture. The following correlation is recommended:
 1=2
eL
DE ¼ 1:06hf F
rL rG
Maldistribution of Liquid. Undisturbed
plug flow of liquid across the tray provides the
highest mass transfer rate attainable in a tray
column. In small diameter columns the plug flow
is disturbed by back-mixing of some liquid. In
large diameter columns, however, back-mixing
of liquid is of minor importance. Here maldistri-
bution, i.e., non-uniform liquid flow across the
tray, is the prevailing mechanism. Some charac-
teristic flow patterns are shown in Figure 7
[4, 11]. The lines plotted in the active area of
the trays are liquid isotherms experimentally
determined in the system air–water (hot). In such
a system the mass transfer from water into air
causes a temperature decrease of water (like in a
cooling tower). In a first approximation, the
isotherms are lines of constant residence time of
the liquid in the froth. In case of plug flow the
liquid isotherms are supposed to be parallel
straight lines. Any deviations from straight lines
are caused by local variations of liquid velocities
Vol. 11
in the froth. The shape of the isotherms in Figure
7 proves increased liquid velocities near the walls
and in the center of the tray.
Liquid maldistribution affects mass transfer
efficiency of columns. However, in tray columns
maldistribution is restricted to a single tray since
the liquid is well mixed in the subsequent down-
comer and evenly redistributed to the next tray.
Therefore, tray columns are better suited for
large-diameter columns than packed columns
ð13Þ
where the detrimental effects of maldistribution
accumulate over the packing height (see Section
3.4).
Interfacial Area. One of the most important
quantities of the two-phase layer on a tray is the
size of the interfacial area contributing to mass
transfer. Present knowledge on interfacial
area on trays is rather poor and contradicting.
Figure 8 shows the result of a theoretical estima-
tion [4, 11] of the relative interfacial area a
(interfacial area referred to the volume of the
two-phase layer) for three systems with different
surface tensions. This rough estimation shows
that in aqueous systems the relative interfacial
area is in the range of 500–600 m2/m3. In organic
systems, however, the relative interfacial area
typically reaches values up to 1000 m2/m3 or
even larger.
Pressure Drop. The pressure drop of a gas
flowing through a tray is a very important quan-
tity. Generally, the pressure drop (better pressure
loss) should be as low as possible, in particular in
Vol. 11
Figure 8. Rough estimation of the relative interfacial area in
the froth of sieve trays a) Isobutane–n-butane; b) Acetone–
benzene; c) Air–water
– – – Bubble regime; ——— Drop regime; ——— Pre-
sumed real values
vacuum services. Pressure loss of the gas signifi-
cantly depends on both gas and liquid load as
shown in Figure 9. During operation the pressure
drop exerts an upward force on the mechanical
structure of the tray.
The pressure loss is caused by the gas flow
through the openings in the tray and by the liquid
Figure 9. Pressure drop of a sieve tray versus gas load. The parameter lines denote constant liquid flow rates across the outlet
weir.
Liquid load V_L =lw , m3/(m  h): a) 0 (dry pressure drop); b) 4; c) 10; d) 20; e) 40; f) 60
Distillation, 2. Equipment 463
hold-up hL on the tray:
rG 2
Dp ¼ x u þhf eL rL g ð14Þ
2 Gh
The first term in Equation (14) refers to the dry
pressure loss Dpdry of the plate. It depends on the
gas velocity uGh in the tray openings. The second
term accounts for the liquid head on the tray.
Dry Pressure Loss of Sieve Trays. In sieve
trays, the orifice coefficient x of the holes can be
taken from Figure 10 [4, 11]. The reading yields
the orifice coefficient xo of a plate with a single
hole, i.e., for a relative open area j!0. This
value is transformed into the orifice coefficient of
a tray with j > 0 by:
pffiffiffiffiffi
x ¼ xo þj2 2 xo for s=dh !0 or
2 ð15Þ
x ¼ xo þj 2j for s=dh > 0
Dry Pressure Loss of Bubble-cap and Valve
Trays. Bubble-cap and valve trays have very
complex geometrical structures that make the
rigorous prediction of the orifice coefficients
rather difficult. As such elements are built in
great numbers, the orifice coefficients are exper-
imentally determined by the vendors.
464 Distillation, 2. Equipment Vol. 11

Figure 10. Orifice coefficient jo for a very small relative free area j and for sharp edged holes of a sieve tray
Dashed lines indicate theoretical limits.

For the calculation of the dry pressure loss of
bubble-cap and valve trays a slightly different
approach is recommended. The orifice coeffi-
cient is not related to the velocity in the smallest
geometrical open area but to the whole active
area of the tray since the quality of tray design
depends not only on the pressure loss of a single
element but also on the number of elements
arranged on the tray. The following definition
implies both quantities:
2.4. Mass Transfer in the Two-Phase
Layer
At the present state of the art the mass transfer on
a tray is expressed by tray efficiencies. Two
definitions of tray efficiencies have to be distin-
guished, i.e., point efficiency EOG and tray effi-
ciency EOGM .

0 r
Dpdry
x  u2 ð16Þ
2

A compilation of tray orifice coefficients x0 is

presented in Figure 11 [4, 11]. The symbols are
plotted for the recommended number of elements
per tray. The parameter lines show the orifice
coefficients when less elements are installed.
Such a modification is often necessary for geo-
metrical reasons. The abscissa in Figure 11 is the
smallest relative free area j0 which can be, for
instance, either the slots or the chimney of a
bubble-cap. For comparisons sake, the orifice
coefficient x0 of a sieve tray with xo ¼ 1:7 is
also plotted in Figure 11. The quality of a tray Figure 11. Correlation of the orifice coefficients j0 of bubble-
design is determined by the distance of the rele- cap and valve trays on the relative free hole area j
vant parameter line from the line of a sieve tray Bubble-cap plates: a) Bayer; b) Montz KSG; c) Linde;
d) ACV; e) Thormann 1963; f) Kirschbaum 1951
with xo ¼ 1:0, which is the theoretical minimum Valve trays: g) Koch TK8; h) Stahl VV 12/2; i) Koch A, T;
of a sieve tray with rounded edges. j) Glitsch V-4; k) Glitsch V-1; l) Nutter type 1972
Vol. 11
The point efficiency is discribed by the con-
centrations along an individual stream line of the
gas moving vertically through the froth:
yyn1
EOG
ð17Þ
y ðxÞyn1
The subscript OG indicates that the overall mass
transfer resistance is formally placed into the gas
phase. The point efficiency can reach a maximal
value of 1 assumed the liquid is thoroughly
mixed over the height of the froth. This assump-
tion is well met. Hence, point efficiency is an
important theoretical quantity.
In practice, tray efficiencies (Murphree effi-
ciency) are used which are defined by:
yn yn1
EOGM
ð18Þ
y ðxn Þyn1
where the total gas flow through the tray is
considered. The actual concentrations change
ðyn yn1 Þ is related to
 the maximal  feasible
concentration change y ðxn Þyn1 . The gas
concentration y ðxn Þ is in state of equilibrium
with the liquid leaving the tray. This definition is
arbitrary because the liquid concentration varies
on the tray due to the cross flow of the phases.
Hence, values of tray efficiencies higher than 1.0
are feasible.
Equations (17) and (18) are the definitions of
gas-side efficiencies. Sometimes liquid-side ef-
ficiencies are used to describe the interfacial
mass transfer. However, the gas-side definitions
are preferred since gas-phase resistance is the
dominant mechanism in distillation processes.
Relationship between Point and Tray Effi-
ciency. In case of plug flow of the liquid the
following relationship between point and tray
efficiency holds:
   
EOGM L=_ G_ 1 m The mass transfer coefficients can be estimat-
¼   exp EOG 1 ð19Þ
EOG m EOG _ G_
L=
Plug flow prevails on very large trays only. In
smaller trays there is always some degree of
back-mixing of liquid, which is quantitatively
expressed by the Peclet number (see Section 2.3).
Figure 12 presents the relationship between tray
and point efficiency under consideration of back-
Distillation, 2. Equipment 465
Figure 12. Relationship between tray and point efficiency
under consideration of liquid back-mixing represented by the
P
eclet number Pe
mixing of the liquid. At total back-mixing, tray
efficiency EOGM is equal to point efficiency EOG .
At very low back-mixing Equation (19) holds.
For large-diameter trays very large values of
tray efficiency are found (Fig. 12) since large
trays have a very small degree of liquid back-
mixing. However, large trays normally have
some degree of maldistribution which also exerts
a detrimental effect on tray efficiency. In practice
tray efficiencies are only slightly higher than
point efficiencies.
Point Efficiency. EOG is calculated from
fundamental laws of mass transfer. Adjusting
these laws to tray columns yields:
EOG ¼ 1expðNOG Þ with ð20Þ
abG hf =uG
NOG ¼
1þmðbG =bL ÞðM^L =M^G ÞðrG =rL Þ
The most crucial quantities in this equation are
the interfacial area a (see Section 2.3), the
gas-side mass transfer coefficient bG , and the
liquid-side mass transfer coefficient bL .
ed by the assumption of an unsteady mass trans-
fer [4, 11]. Decisive is the residence time tG of
the gas in the froth since it is the gas present in the
liquid that generates the interfacial area and, in
turn, enables the interfacial mass transfer:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
4DG 4DL
bG ¼ and bL ¼ with tG ¼ hf eL =uG
ptG ptG
ð21Þ
466 Distillation, 2. Equipment Vol. 11

Figure 13. Typical experimental values of gas-side point

efficiency a) NG ¼ 2, NL ¼ 15; b) NG ¼ 2, NL ¼ 2; c) NG
1, NL ¼ 1; d) NG ¼ 0.5, NL ¼ 0.5
Experimental data: e) Distillation; f) Vacuum distillation;
g) Absorption, hL ¼ 10–20 cP; h) Absorption of carbon
dioxide in water; i) Desorption of oxygen from water

In organic systems with low values of the inter-

facial tension, Equation (21) sometimes gives
too low values due to a steady renewal of the
interfacial area.
The weak point of mass transfer prediction,
however, is poor knowledge of the interfacial
area a that contributes to mass transfer (see Figure 14. Perspective view of a packed column (Sulzer)
a) Liquid distributor; b) Liquid collector; c) Structured pack-
Section 2.3). Therefore, empirical values of tray ing; d) Support grid; e) Man way; f) Liquid re-distributor
efficiencies are normally used in practice. In
distillation systems values of tray efficiencies of pressure drop of the gas and a liquid flow which
70 % are often recommended. However, if a is uniform over the cross section of the column.
significant liquid-side mass transfer resistance
exists, tray efficiencies can be much lower. Some
empirical values are presented in Figure 13. 3.1. Design Principles

Two different design principles of packings can

3. Packed Columns be distinguished:

Packed columns are as important as tray columns
in the process industry. Due to novel develop-
ments of packing elements the industrial use of
packed columns is steadily increasing. In packed
columns there exists a genuine countercurrent
flow of gas and liquid as is shown in Figure 14.
An intimate contact between gas and liquid
phases is established by packings that represent
a solid structure with large porosity and large
internal surface. The liquid proceeds downwards
on the packing in form of thin films or rivulets.
Decisive for a good performance are a low
. Random packings consist of a dumped bed of
particles made of ceramic, metal, or plastic
(Fig. 15). The shape of the particles should
ensure a homogeneous structure of the dumped
bed and a low pressure drop of gas flow.
Standard particles (Raschig rings, Berl sad-
dles) have a closed surface. Modern particles
are characterized by net structures (Pall rings)
or grid structures (Super rings). The size of the
particles must not exceed 5–10 % of the col-
umn diameter. The porosity of a bed is as high
as 70 % (ceramic particles) and more than
Vol. 11
Figure 15. Examples of random packing elements
Ceramic packings are shown in the top row, metal packings in the middle row, and plastic packings in the bottom row
90 % (metal particles). The volumetric surface
of a bed depends on particle size and on column
diameter. Typical values are 50–300 m2/m3
(Table 2). The separation efficiency of random
packings strongly depends on column diame-
ter. Typical values of industrial columns are in
the range of 1–2 equilibrium stages per meter
packing height.
. Structured packings have been increasingly
used since the mid 1960s because they better
meet the requirements for homogeneous bed
structures. The standard design consists of
parallel corrugated metal sheets, ca. 20 cm in
height, with alternating orientation of subse-
quent layers (Fig. 16). The porosity of struc-
tured beds is significantly higher than 95 %.
The specific surface area is typically
250 m2 =m3 or higher (Table 3). Structured
packings have a lower pressure drop and a
better mass transfer efficiency than random
packings. Mass transfer efficiency is as high
as 2–4 equilibrium stages per meter. The pres-
Distillation, 2. Equipment 467
sure drop per equilibrium stage is typically as
low as 0.5 mbar.
Very important for all types of packings is a
uniform liquid distribution at the top of the bed
and a bed-height limitation of 6–8 m. Beneath
each bed, the liquid has to be collected, mixed,
and redistributed. These measures intend to sup-
press the maldistribution of liquid because it
strongly affects mass transfer rates. The design
of liquid distributors, liquid collectors, support
grids etc. should provide a high open area in order
to assure the countercurrent flow of gas and liquid.
3.2. Operation Region of Packed
Columns
Packed columns can be operated within certain
limits of gas and liquid loads only. A typical
operation region of packed columns is shown in
Figure 17. The mechanisms that set limitations to
468 Distillation, 2. Equipment Vol. 11

Table 2. Characteristic data of some random packings

Type dN, mm e a, m2/m3

Raschig rings (ceramic) 10 0.65 440

25 0.726 192
38 0.76 140
50 0.77 98
Raschig rings (metal) 10 0.744 520

Raschig super rings (metal) 20 0.970 250

25 0.98 180
30 0.98 150
38 0.98 120
50 0.98 100
Pall rings (metal) 25 0.94 210
35 0.945 141
50 0.96 102
90 0.97 65
Figure 16. Structured packing (Sulzer)
Pall rings (ceramic) 25 0.73 220
35 0.76 165
50 0.78 120
an operating pressure loss of ca. 3 mbar=m is
Raflux rings (metal) 25 0.94 215
35 0.95 145 often recommended for column dimensioning.
50 0.97 120
90 0.97 65 Maximum Gas and Liquid Load. The
Hiflow (metal) 25 0.97 200 upper operation limit of packed columns (flood-
28 0.97 200 ing) is caused by a too high pressure drop that
50 0.98 99 blocks off the countercurrent flow of gas and
58 0.987 92
liquid. There exist numerous empirical correla-
Hiflow (ceramic) 20 0.72 280 tions for predicting flooding of packed columns
35 0.76 128
50 0.78 102
[3]. The correlation of MERSMANN [14, 15] is
75 0.76 70 illustrated in Figure 18. In principle, the gas load
IMTP (metal) 15 0.964 282
is plotted versus the liquid load in this diagram.
25 0.972 225 However, the gas load is substituted by the dry
40 0.981 150 pressure drop of the gas flowing through the
50 0.979 100 packing. The abscissa is a dimensionless liquid
Torus saddles (ceramic) 25 0.724 185 load. The parameter lines denote constant values
38 0.76 128 of the dimensionless pressure drop of the irrigat-
50 0.76 142
75 0.78 92
90 0.78 68 Table 3. Characteristic data of some structured packings

Type e a, m2/m3

Flexipac (metal) 0.91 558

0.94 223
gas and liquid flow rates are flooding and poor 0.96 135
surface wetting. Flooding is a strong limitation 0.98 70
that cannot be surpassed. Insufficient surface Gempak (metal) 0.9475 525
wetting is a soft limitation that can be crossed 0.96 394
at the expense of poor mass transfer efficiency. It 0.961 262
0.974 131
is important to note that the operation range of the
liquid is further narrowed down by the liquid Mellapak (metal) 0.975 250
0.975 500
distributor. The gas load can be very low in a
packed column. Montzpak (metal) 0.972 300
The operation point has to assure a sufficient 0.98 200
0.99 100
safety margin to the operation limit. In practice,
Vol. 11 Distillation, 2. Equipment 469

Figure 17. Operation region of packed columns a) Minimum liquid load; b) Operating region of liquid distributor; c) Flooding;
d) Operating region of packing

ed packing. Flooding point and loading points are the following equation [16]:
also marked in this diagram.
 2=9  
A more rigorous approach to flooding is based r s3 g 1=2
uL min ¼ 7:7106  L4  ð22Þ
on pressure drop models of irrigated packed beds hL g a
(see Section 3.3).

Minimum Liquid Load. The minimum liq- For industrial practice the following values are
uid load of random packings can be estimated by recommended:

Figure 18. Correlation of flooding of packed columns according to Mersmann [14, 15]
Calculated cuves are shown for different values of the pressure drop in an irrigated packing, Dpirr / (H  rL  g): a) 0.2; b) 0.1;
c) 0.05; d) 0.04; e) 0.03; f) 0.02; g) 0.01; h) 0.005
470 Distillation, 2. Equipment
. For aqueous systems: uLmin  10 m3m2h1
. For organic systems: uLmin  5 m3m2h1
Structured wire mesh packings can be operat-
ed with organic systems down to 0.2 m3m2h1.
This value is in the order of magnitude of a heavy
tropical rainfall.
An additional limitation to liquid load is
set by the liquid distributor as shown in Figure
17. In most cases the operation of the distrib-
utor is less flexible than that of the packing
itself.
3.3. Two-Phase Flow in Packed
Columns
The geometrical structures of packed beds are too
complex for mathematical description. There-
fore, the real bed structures are replaced by model
structures, e.g., by a system of parallel channels
or a system of dispersed particles. The model
structures should have the same interfacial area a
and the same porosity e as the packed bed. From
both conditions follows the hydraulic diameter
dh of the channel model structure:
dh ¼ 4e=a ð23Þ
The same conditions lead to the particle diameter
dp of the particle model structure:
1e
dp ¼ 6 ð24Þ
a
It must be noted that dh characterizes the open
structure and dp the solid structure of the packed
bed, respectively. The round channels intersect at
large porosities of the bed. The particles
(spheres) of the particle structure do not touch
each other like in a fluidized bed. Thus, the
particle model is more realistic and preferred in
this chapter.
Pressure drop. The pressure drop of a gas
flowing through a packed bed is one of the key
quantities in the design of packed columns. It is
dominated by the gas and liquid load as well as by
the structure of the bed.
Pressure Drop of a Dry Bed. The pressure
drop of a gas flowing through a dry bed of
Vol. 11
dispersed particles is [4, 11]:
Dpdry 3 1e u2
¼ xo  4:65 rG  G ð25Þ
H 4 e dp
Equation (25) differs from the well known Ergun
equation [3] by the exponent 4.65 on the porosity
e. The improved porosity term allows the predic-
tion of the pressure loss of a bed of dispersed
particles from knowledge of the friction factor xo
of a single particle. Hence, Equation (25) holds
for the whole range of bed porosity. Figure 19
presents a graphical correlation of the friction
factors xo for several dumped and structured
packings [4, 11].
In a limited range of Reynolds numbers, the
values presented in Figure 19 are correlated by:
uG dp rG
xo ¼ bReð2þcÞ
o with Reo
ð26Þ
hG
Some values of the factor b and the exponent c are
listed in Table 4.
Pressure Drop of Irrigated Beds. Typical
values of the pressure drop of dry and irrigated
beds are presented in Figure 20. The pressure
loss of irrigated beds is always significantly
higher than that of dry beds since the character-
istic quantities of the bed are changed by the
liquid accumulated within the bed (liquid hold-
up hL ).
Figure 19. Correlation of the friction factor jo according to
the particle structure model a) Raschig rings, metal;
b) Raschig rings, ceramic; c) Pall rings; d) Saddles;
e) Cylinders; f) Spheres; g) Structured packings
Vol. 11 Distillation, 2. Equipment 471

Table 4. Values of the factor b and the exponent c in Equation (26)

Packing material Factor b Exponent c Reynolds number

Raschig rings (ceramic) 7.4 0.17 6101 to 3103

Raschig rings (metal) 16 0.13 1101 to 2102
Pall rings (metal) 4.8 0.15 1102 to 3103
Saddles 5.5 0.20 7101 to 6103
Spheres 1.7 0.20 2102 to 5103
Cylinders 3.0 0.23 6101 to 2103
Structured packings 4.8 0.38 4101 to 3103

The liquid hold-up hL changes the bed char-

acteristics in different ways. Of great importance
are the reduction of the bed porosity e, the
enlargement of the particle diameter dp and the
reduction of the friction coefficient xo . All three
effects can be modeled giving [4, 11]:
Figure 21. Liquid hold-up hL as a function of pressure drop
in the irrigated packing Dpirr. Packed column with 25 mm
Bialecki rings (metal) [17]
Liquid velocity uL, m/h: a) 80; b) 60; c) 40; d) 20; e) 10

  
Dpirr 1eð1hL =eÞ ð2þcÞ=3 hL 4:65
¼  1 ð27Þ
Dpdry 1e e
packing volume, are presented in Figure 21 [17].
Here, the experimental values of the hold-up hL
Evaluation of this equation demands knowledge are plotted versus the pressure drop in the packed
of the liquid hold-up hL in the bed. bed Dpirr =ðHrL gÞ. Two regions can be distin-
guished in this diagram:
Liquid Hold-up in Packed Beds. Liquid
hold-up is a decisive parameter of two-phase . A region of low pressure drop (low gas load)
flow in packed beds. Typical values of the where the hold-up depends on liquid load only
hold-up hL , defined as ratio of liquid volume to (horizontal parameter lines)
. A region of high pressure drop (high gas load)
where the hold-up is further increased by
pressure drop

The transition between these two regions is

called loading point. The parameter lines in
Figure 21 end at the flooding point.
In the region below the loading point the
liquid hold-up hLo depends on liquid load, liquid
properties, and packing structure only. The
following correlation holds for random packings
[18]:
 2 0:33  2 3 0:125  2 0:1
u a h a sa
hLo ¼ 3:6 L  L2  ð28Þ
g rL g rL g

At column operation above the loading point,

the liquid hold-up is further influenced by the
Figure 20. Pressure drop Dp of a packed column composed pressure drop of the column. This influence is
of 25 mm metal Bialecki rings (porosity 0.94). The parameter described by:
lines denote constant liquid load [17]
Liquid velocity uL, m/h: a) 0; b) 10; c) 20; d) 40; e) 60; f) 80 "   #
Measurement were made using air–water at 20 C and 1 bar in Dpirr 2
hL ¼ hLo  1þ20 ð29Þ
a column with packing height of 1.5 m and a diameter of HrL g
0.15 m.
472 Distillation, 2. Equipment
Flooding of Packed Columns. As shown in
Figure 20, the condition for flooding is an infinite
increase of pressure drop with increasing gas
load. Taking the dry pressure loss as measure
for the gas load gives the following flooding
condition:
qDpirr qDpdry
¼ ¥ or ¼0 ð30Þ
qDpdry qDpirr
Combining Equations (27) and (28) to (29) and
performing the derivation (see Equation (30))
gives [4, 11]:
1 40ð2þcÞ=3hLo 186hLo
¼ þ with ð31Þ
D2 1eþhLo ð1þ20D2 Þ ehLo ð1þ20D2 Þ
Dpirr
D

HrL g
Equation (31) can be solved by iteration only. As
flooding of random packings typically occurs at
values of the dimensionless pressure drop
Dpirr =ðHrL gÞ  0:1 to 0:3, a value of D ¼ 0:1
is a good first estimation.
Figure 22 presents the result of the evaluation
of Equation (27) together with Equations (28)
and (29) for a random packing of Bialecki rings.
This plot is almost identical with the empirical
flooding correlation of Mersmann (Fig. 18). Just
the dimensionless liquid load is replaced by the
liquid hold-up hLo below loading.
3.4. Mass Transfer in Packed Columns
By convention, mass transfer in packed columns
is described by the model of transfer units since
a countercurrent flow of gas and liquid prevails
in packed beds. According to this model the
required height H of the packing within the
column is:
H ¼ HOG NOG ð32Þ
The term NOG denotes transfer units which is a
measure of the difficulty of the separation !
Distillation, 1. Fundamentals. The mass transfer
in a packed bed is expressed by the height of a
transfer unit HOG . In practice empirical values of
the height of a transfer unit are often used for
column dimensioning. Sometimes, empirical va-
lues of the height equivalent of an equilibrium
Vol. 11
Figure 22. Pressure drop and flooding of a packed column in
an irrigated packing composed of 25-mm Bialecki rings
(metal). The values of the abscissa are determined from
Equation (28)
Calculated curves are shown for different values of the
pressure drop in an irrigated packing, Dpirr/(H  rL  g):
a) 0.3; b) 0.2; c) 0.1; d) 0.06; e) 0.04; f) 0.02; g) 0.01;
h) 0.006; i) 0.004; j) 0.002
stage (HETP) are also determined and applied to
column dimensioning. A more rigorous approach
is based on the following equation valid for
undisturbed plug flow of gas and liquid within
the packing:
!
uG b M ^ r
HOG ¼  1þm G  L  G ð33Þ
bG aeff bL M^G rL
This rather simple equation contains three cru-
cial quantities that depend on design and opera-
tion of the packed column. These quantities are
the effective interfacial area aeff , the gas-side
mass transfer coefficient bG , and the liquid-side
mass transfer coefficient bL . According to the
present state of the art, no models based on first
principles are available for the prediction of
these rather crucial quantities. Therefore, sev-
eral empirical correlations have been published
so far [3].
Empirical Correlations for Mass Transfer
Prediction. Often recommended is the empiri-
cal model developed by Onda [19]. His correla-
tion of the effective interfacial area is:
Vol. 11 Distillation, 2. Equipment 473

Table 5. Values of critical surface tension in Equation (34) [19] Table 6. Selected values of the factors CV and CL in Equations (39)
and (40) according to [21]
Packing material scrit , N/m
Packing CV CL
Polyethylene 0.033
Poly(vinyl chloride) 0.040 Raschig rings (ceramic) 50 0.210 1.416
Ceramic 0.061 25 0.412 1.361
Glass 0.073
Raschig super rings (metal) 1 0.440 1.290
Stainless steel 0.071
2 0.400 1.323
Steel 0.075
3 0.300 0.850
Bialecki rings (metal) 50 0.302 1.721
35 0.390 1.412
25 0.331 1.461
aeff
¼ 1exp
a Pall rings (metal) 50 0.410 1.192
"      0:05  2 0:2 # 35 0.341 1.012
scrit 0:75 uL rL 0:1 u2L a u r
1:45    L L 25 0.336 1.440
s ahL g sa
Pall rings (ceramic) 50 0.333 1.278
ð34Þ
Intalox (ceramic) 0.488 1.677
Some values of the critical surface tension scrit Ralupak (metal) YC-250 0.385 1.334
are listed in Table 5. The corresponding equa-
Impuls packing (metal) 250 0.270 0.983
tions for the mass transfer coefficients are: (ceramic) 100 0.327 1.317
   1=3
rG uG 0:7 hG Montz packing (metal) B1-200 0.390 0.971
bG ¼ C  ðadN Þ2 ðaDG Þ ð35Þ (metal) B2-300 0.422 1.165
ahG rG DG

     
ghL 1=3 rL uL 2=3 rL DL 1=2
bL ¼ 0:0051   ðadN Þ2=5
rL aeff hL hL  
uL DL 1=2
ð36Þ bL ¼ CL 121=6  ð40Þ
hL dh
The factor C is 2 for small ðdN < 15 mmÞ and
5.24 for larger packing elements. Values of the factors CV and CL are listed in
BRAVO and FAIR [20] published a model that Table 6.
combines the correlations of Onda for the mass
transfer coefficients with a new correlation for Problems of Mass Transfer Prediction. At
the effective interfacial area: the present state of the art all models for predic-
  tion of mass transfer in packed columns are
aeff h uL uG rG 0:392
¼ 19:76s0:5 H 0:4  L  ð37Þ insufficient to some degree. One problem is a
a s ahG
poor knowledge of the interfacial area effective
for mass transfer. Published studies differ signif-
In this correlation, the term H 0:4 accounts for the icantly and their results are often contradicting.
influence of maldistribution on mass transfer. Furthermore, the existing models for predicting
Equation (37) is valid for the units m and kg/s2 mass transfer coefficients are not sufficiently
for the height H and the surface tension s, reliable.
respectively. The main reason for the deficiencies of the
BILLET and SCHULTES [21] developed the present knowledge is, however, the maldistri-
following correlations for all three unknowns: bution of gas and liquid in packed beds. Many
   0:75  2 0:45 studies reveal that there exist large deviations
aeff r uL dh 0:2 rL u2L dh uL
¼ 1:5ðadh Þ0:5  L   from plug flow of gas and in particular of liquid
a hL s gdh
within the bed. The degree of maldistribution as
ð38Þ
well as its effect on mass transfer is unknown
 1=2    1=3 and hence not accounted for in existing mass
a r uG 3=4 hG
bG ¼ CV ðehL Þ1=2  DG  G  transfer models. Thus, the published data for
dh ahG rG DG
interfacial area and mass transfer coefficients
ð39Þ
comprise the maldistibution in an undefined
474 Distillation, 2. Equipment
Figure 23. Maldistribution in a packed column indicated by liquid isotherms. Column diameter 0.63 m, packing height 6.8 m.
A) Uniform liquid feed; B) Single-point liquid feed
Bottom row: Orientation of vertical cross sections.
manner. The data are not true values but pseudo-
values which are not predictable within the plug
flow model.
Figure 23 presents some experimental results
of a packed column operated with hot water and
air (like a cooling tower) [6]. In this system the
mass transfer of water from liquid into gas phase
Vol. 11
causes a decrease of liquid temperature which
can be easily measured. The lines drawn within
the packed bed are liquid isotherms that should
be horizontal and straight in case of plug flow.
Any deviations from straight lines are caused by a
non-uniform gas and, in particular, liquid flow
through the packed bed.
Vol. 11
In the experiments performed with uniform
liquid distribution at the top (Fig. 23 A), the
degree of maldistribution increases on the way
of the liquid downwards through the bed. At non-
uniform initial liquid distribution (Fig. 23 B),
however, the degree of maldistribution decreases.
Thus, the degree of maldistibution depends on
both the liquid distributor and the packed bed
itself. At present it is not possible to predict either
the degree of maldistribution or its effect on mass
transfer. As the effects of maldistribution accu-
mulate over packing height, it is important to
suppress the maldistribution by dividing the pack-
ing into several short sections. This measure for
suppressing the maldistribution requires the in-
stallation of multiple support grids, liquid collec-
tors, liquid mixers, and liquid distributors.
References
1 R.H. Perry, D.W Green: Perry’s Chemical Engineers’
Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York 2008.
2 H.Z. Kister: Distillation Operation, McGraw-Hill, New
York 1989.
3 H.Z. Kister: Distillation Design, McGraw-Hill, New
York 1992.
4 J.G. Stichlmair, J.R. Fair: Distillation - Principles and
Practice, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim 1998.
5 M. J. Lockett: Distillation tray fundamentals, Cambridge
University Press, New York 1986.
6 A. Mersmann, M. Kind, J. Stichlmair: Thermische
Verfahrenstechnik, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg,
New York 2005.
7 KG-Tower of Koch-Glitsch, USA, www.kochglitsch.
com.
Distillation, 2. Equipment 475
8 SulCol of Sulzer, Switzerland, www.sulzerchemtech.
com.
9 TrayHeart of Welchem, Germany, www.welchem.com.
10 J.R. Fair,: ‘‘How to predict sieve tray entrainment and
flooding’’, Petro/Chem. Eng. 33 (1961) no. 10, 45 – 52.
11 J. Stichlmair: Grundlagen der Dimensionierung des Gas/
Fl€ussigkeit-Kontaktapparates Bodenkolonne, Verlag Che-
mie, Weinheim 1978.
12 A. Mersmann: ‘‘Wann werden alle L€ocher einer Siebbo-
den-Lochplatte durchstr€omt?’’, Chem.-Ing. Tech. 35
(1963) no. 2, 103 – 107.
13 K. Ruff, Th. Pilhofer, A. Mersmann: ‘‘Vollst€andige
Durchstr€omung von Lochb€oden bei der Fluid-Dispergier-
ung’’, Chem.-Ing.-Tech. 48 (1976) no. 9, 759 – 764.
14 A. Mersmann: ‘‘Zur Berechnung des Flutpunktes in
F€ullk€orpersch€uttungen’’, Chem. Ing. Tech. 37 (1965)
218 – 226.
15 A. Mersmann, K. Bornh€utter: ‘‘Druckverlust und
Flutpunkt in berieselten Packungen’’, VDI-W€ armeatlas,
VDI-Verlag, D€usseldorf 2002.
16 R. Schmidt: ‘‘The lower capacity limit of packed
columns’’, Inst. Chem. Eng., Symp. Ser. 56 (1979) , no.
2, 3.1 – 1-14.
17 R. Billet, J. Mackowiak: ‘‘How to use the absorption data
for design and scale-up of packed columns’’, Fette Seifen
Anstrichmittel 86 (1984) no. 9, 349 – 358.
18 V. Engel: ‘‘Fluiddynamik in Packungskolonnen f€ur
Gas–Fl€ussig-Systeme’’, Fortschrittsberichte VDI, Reihe
3, no. 605, VDI Verlag D€usseldorf 1999.
19 K. Onda, H. Takeuchi, Y. Okumoto: ‘‘Mass transfer
coefficients between gas and liquid phases in packed
columns’’, Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan 1
(1968) 56 – 62.
20 J.L. Bravo, J.R. Fair: ‘‘Generalized correlation for mass
transfer in packed distillation columns’’, Ind. Eng. Chem.
Process Des. Dev. 21 (1982) Vol. 1, 162 – 170.
21 R. Billet, M. Schultes: ‘‘Prediction of mass transfer
columns with dumped and arranged packings’’, Trans
IChemE 77 (1999) Part A, 498 – 504.