Aerosol Science and Technology

ISSN: 0278-6826 (Print) 1521-7388 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uast20

Venturi Scrubber Optimization Revisited

Douglas W. Cooper & David Leith

To cite this article: Douglas W. Cooper & David Leith (1984) Venturi Scrubber Optimization
Revisited, Aerosol Science and Technology, 3:1, 63-70, DOI: 10.1080/02786828408958994

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02786828408958994

Published online: 06 Jun 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1442

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uast20
Venturi Scrubber Optimization Revisited
Douglas W. Cooper and David Leith
Physical Sciences and Engineering, Harvard School of Public Health, 665 Huntington Avenue,
Boston, MA 02115
A previous paper of ours on venturi scrubber optimiza-
tion used a model by Calvert et al. to describe particle
collection. Several assumptions in this model are im-
proved in the present work; actual values for droplet drag
coefficient are used rather than the Ingebo approxima-
tion, and the actual scrubber geometry is used rather
than assuming the scrubber is a duct infinitely long and
constant in diameter. Results from the present model
NOMENCLATURE
cross-sectional area of scrubber (m2)
cross-sectional area of droplets (m2)
Cunningham slip correction factor
drag coefficient
drag coefficient evaluated at throat
velocity
droplet diameter (m)
particle diameter (m)
constant in equation by Calvert et al.
(1972)
impaction parameter
maximum value for impaction para-
meter
mass of one droplet (kg)
pressure drop across the scrubber
(N m-')
fractional penetration
gas volumetric flow rate (m3sec-')
liquid volumetric flow rate
(m3sec-l)
Reynolds number
time (sec)
droplet velocity (m s e c ')
gas velocity (m sec-l)
gas volume swept clean of particles
by droplets (m3)
Aerosol Science and Technology 3:63-70 (1984)
0 1984 Elsevier Science Publishing Co.. Inc.
suggest that the scrubber geometry affects the effective-
ness with which liquid is utilized and the effectiveness
with which energy is utilized. Furthermore, the conditions
necessary to obtain optimum venturi performance change
with particle diameter, throat velocity, and scrubber
geometry. With these results, the conditions necessary
for theoretically optimum performance of the scrubber
can be readily identified.
VG gas vohme (m3)
VL liquid volume (m3)
11, target efficiency of single droplet
pG gas viscosity (kg m-' sec- ')
PG gas density (kg m-3)
pp particle density (kg m-3)
7 particle relaxation time (sec)
INTRODUCTION
Venturi scrubbers are often used when inter-
mittent, high-efficiency control of particulate
emissions is necessary. These scrubbers have
relatively low initial cost but relatively h g h
energy consumption in comparison with
other control devices of comparable
efficiency.
Our previous paper on venturi scrubber
optimization (Leith and Cooper, 1980) con-
tains descriptions of a typical venturi and of
models to predict venturi performance. The
present paper gives the results of continued
investigations into improving venturi perfor-
mance. The goal of t h s work is to optimize
venturi performance, considering collection
efficiencyand the consumption of scrubbing
liquid and of power.

METHODS
We prepared a mathematical model to en-
able us to investigate theoretically the effects
of scrubber geometry on scrubber perfor-
mance. This led to a study of the choices
others have made for droplet drag coefficient
and to a general review of the theory un-
derlylng such models. The model we de-
veloped is similar to that of Boll (1973). It
assumes one-dimensional gas flow in the axial
direction, with velocity equal to the gas volu-
metric flow rate divided by the duct cross-
sectional area:
The droplet velocity was determined by
equating droplet mass times acceleration with
the drag force on the droplet:
We used the expression for particle collec-
tion by impaction used in the model of
Calvert et al. (1972),
in whlch qd is the ratio of the cross-sectional
area of the gas swept clean by a droplet to
the cross-sectional area of the droplet, and K
is the impaction parameter:
The particle relaxation time r is (Fuchs,
1964):
Scrubber Geometry
Figure 1 shows the scrubber geometries used
in this study. First is the geometry of the
scrubber we are using for laboratory experi-
ments now in progress. This laboratory
scrubber had a throat 0.056 m in diameter
and 0.06 m long attached to a diverging
section 0.44 m long, which connected the
throat to a duct 0.12 m in diameter and 0.90
m long. The second scrubber geometry, called
Douglas W. Cooper and David Leith
LABORATORY SCRUBBER
"GRADUAL" SCRUBBER
J
1
"ABRUPT" SCRUBBER
50
DISTANCE ALONG SCRUBBER. m
FIGURE 1. Scrubber geometries studied.
the gradual geometry here, had the same
throat dimensions but a diverging section
1.34 m long, as long as the diverging and
final duct sections of the laboratory scrubber
combined. The third scrubber geometry,
called the abrupt geometry here, had a throat
the same dimensions as the other two
scrubbers, but no diverging section; the
throat emptied directly into the 0.12-m-diam
duct. The total length for each of these
scrubbers was 1.40 m. Additional modeling
was conducted for a scrubber of effectively
infinite length, modeled as a straight pipe
with diameter 0.056 m and length 50 m.
Drag Coefficient
We evaluated several relationships for the
drag coefficient with this model. The Ingebo
(1956) relationship used in the model of
Calvert et al. (1972) is
A different relationship for C, was pre-
sented by Hollands and Goel (1975) and
used by Yung et al. (1977) in a revision of
Venturi Scrubber Optimization Revisted
80
the model of Calvert et al. (1972):
c, = c,,,/&, (7)
in whch C,,, was evaluated at the throat
conditions from the "standard" curve given
by Dickenson and Marshall (1968):
C, = 0.22 + (24/Re)(l + 0.15Reo6).
The rationale for extrapolation from Eq. (8)
seems questionable, however, when (8) itself
can be used. Boll (1973) also developed a
model for venturi performance based on the
standard curve to determine the drag coeffi-
cient. Most of our work also used the stan-
dard curve, as discussed later.
RESULTS
Comparison with Previous Theoretical Results
Our model, using (6) for the drag coefficient,
was used to compare optimization predic-
tions for the scrubber with 50-m throat
against the predictions by our model for the
laboratory scrubber geometry. Our previous
theoretical work (Leith and Cooper, 1980)
was based on the model by Calvert et al.
(1972), which uses (6) for the drag coeffi-
cient. We wanted to determine whether our
new model would behave the same as the
Calvert et al. (1972) model under the same
assumptions regarding the geometry and drag
SCRUBBER CROSS SECTION
DISTANCE ALONG SCRUBBER, m
FIGURE 2. Predicted gas velocity, droplet veloc-
ity, and volume swept clean per volume of liquid
versus distance along scrubber, measured from
scrubber throat inlet.
coefficient. With this baseline information,
we could determine the extent that predic-
(8)
tion of the scrubber performance is affected
by assumptions about the scrubber geometry
and drag coefficient. The present model con-
firmed that the 50-m scrubber would give
best performance at the conditions previ-
ously predicted (Leith and Cooper, 1980),
fK = 1, where f is an empirical factor some-
what smaller than 1 (often f = 0.5).
In contrast to the 50-m scrubber, the
laboratory scrubber geometry had best per-
formance for fK near 10, for a throat velocity
of 61 m sec-'. Even larger values of fK were
optimal for our laboratory scrubber geome-
try at velocities higher than 61 msec-l. The
difference in these predictions shows the
weakness of models that assume infinite
throat length.
Droplet Motion Through Scrubber
The remaining work reported here used (8)
for the drag coefficient. Figure 2 shows typi-
cal results. Here, the droplet diameter was 50
ym; the particle aerodynamic diameter was 1
ym. The horizontal axis in this figure is the
66
distance from the throat entrance. The left
vertical axis is the droplet or gas velocity.
The right vertical axis gives the ratio of gas
volume each droplet sweeps clean of par-
ticles to the volume of each droplet, V*/VL,
called the "specific cleaning volume" by
Loffler and Schuch (1981). The volume swept
clean, V*, is the integrated product of the
droplet collection efficiency q,, the droplet
cross-sectional area A,, and the distance the
droplet travels through the gas:
V * = I t q , ~ , l u d - uGjdt.
0
Figure 2 shows that the gas velocity in
the throat was 61 msec-' and slowed to
13 msec-I in the final straight section of the
scrubber. The droplet velocity increased
rapidly from zero in the initial portion of the
scrubber, driven by the high relative velocity
between gas and droplet. At a point about
0.2 m downstream of the throat entrance in
this case, the gas and droplet velocities were
equal. From there on, the droplet velocity
decreased because, from there on, the gas
velocity was less than the droplet velocity.
The gas volume swept clean of particles,
V*, increased with the droplet efficiency,
which in turn increased with the relative
velocity between droplets and gas. In the
venturi throat, the relative velocity between
droplets and gas was especially high, and the
gas volume swept clean, V*, increased
rapidly. At the point where the droplet and
gas velocities were equal, no sweeping took
place and the plot of specific cleaning volume,
V*/VL, is constant with distance. Addi-
tional collection took place on the down-
stream side of the drop from the equal
velocity point to the end of the scrubber, and
the volume swept clean increased accord-
ingly. All together, this droplet swept a
volume about 1200 times its own volume.
One-third of the sweeping occurred after the
venturi throat.
If perfect mixing across the flow direction
causes particle concentration to be uniform
perpendicular to the direction of flow, the
Douglas W. Cooper and David Leith
penetration Pn of particles of a given size is
Pn = exp(- v*/vG). (10)
Here the argument of the exponential func-
tion is the ratio of the volume swept clean to
the volume of gas:
The second set of parentheses contains the
liquid-to-gas ratio, so that the values of the
specific cleaning volume, V*/VL, from Fig-
ures 2-4 can be used to estimate the penetra-
tion once a liquid-to-gas ratio is selected.
Geometry, Particle Size, Gas Velocity, and
Liquid Utilization
Results from simulations like that in Figure
2 are compiled in Figure 3 for different
scrubber geometries, gas velocities, and
droplet diameters. The particle diameter was
fixed at 1 pm. Figure 3 displays the ratio of
the volume of gas swept clean by a given
droplet per unit droplet volume as a function
of droplet size for three different throat
velocities and for several scrubber geome-
tries.
Figure 3 shows that the specific cleaning
volume V*/VL increased strongly with gas
throat velocity. At 345 msec-' the throat
velocity is sonic, requiring a pressure up-
stream twice that downstream. This situation
is rarely encountered but may have applica-
tion to mitigating the effects of an accident
at a nuclear power plant (Cooper, 1982).
Analyses like that in Figure 2 determined
that particle collection occurred on the up-
stream side of the drops as they accelerated
in the venturi throat, and also on the down-
stream side of the drops as they decelerated
through the venturi diverging section and
final duct. For each geometry considered
here, the venturi throat was identical. Be-
cause most drop acceleration occurred in the
throat, collection during acceleration was
about the same for each geometry under
identical operating conditions.
Venturi Scrubber Optimization Revisted
5 10 20 50 100 200 500
DROPLET DIAMETER, p m
FIGURE 3. ' Predicted volume swept clean per
volume of liquid versus droplet diameter for
abrupt (A) and gradual (G) scrubber geometries,
at three throat velocities (10,61, and 345 msec-I).
Scrubber geometry, however, did affect
particle collection as the droplets decel-
erated. For effective collection the droplet
impaction parameter K should be between
0.1 and 10. If K < 0.1, then qd < 0.02 and the
drops are inefficient targets. If K > 10, then
qd > 0.9; in t h s case the higher relative
velocities necessary to generate larger K do
not cause substantially higher qd, because qd
due to impaction alone cannot exceed unity.
At high throat velocity, the abrupt
scrubber geometry caused relative velocities
-
between droplets and gas to be so high that
K > 10 and q, 1 for most of the droplet
deceleration. Although collection on the
downstream side of the droplets was effec-
tive, it occurred only immediately down-
stream of the throat, because the droplets
decelerated quickly. In contrast, the gradual
scrubber geometry allowed gradual droplet
deceleration over the entire length of the
scrubber diverging section. At h g h throat
velocity, the relative velocity obtained was
67
sufficiently high to maintain K between 1
and 10, so that the target efficiency qd re-
mained high over the entire scrubber length.
Accordingly, the total volume swept clean
was greater with the gradual geometry at
high throat velocities.
At low throat velocities the relative veloc-
ity between droplets and gas was also low.
With the abrupt scrubber geometry, which
maximized the relative velocity during drop-
let deceleration, the relative velocity was high
enough to cause some effective sweeping dur-
ing droplet deceleration. With the gradual
geometry, even though sweeping did occur
throughout the scrubber length, the relative
velocities acheved were so low that sweeping
was ineffective. Accordingly, the total volume
swept clean was greater with the abrupt
geometry at low throat velocity.
These conclusions were based on a model
that assumed plug flow for the gas throughout
the scrubber [Eq. (I)]. Actually, the abrupt
geometry will cause a gas jet downstream of
the throat, causing the abrupt scrubber to
behave more like a scrubber with gradual
geometry than the present analysis suggests.
Optimal Liquid Utilization
A h g h value for the specific cleaning volume
V * / V L corresponds to effective utilization of
the scrubbing liquid. If V * / V L is at its
highest value possible, scrubber efficiency is
maximum. Figure 4 shows the volume of gas
swept per volume of liquid used, V * / V L ,
plotted against the impaction parameter at
the throat entrance, K, for particles 0.3, 1.0,
and 3.0 pm in diameter, all having the den-
sity of water, for the sonic velocity (345
m sec-I), a typical velocity (61 m sec-l), and
an unusually low velocity (10 m sec-l). These
calculations were done for the laboratory
scrubber geometry. Other geometries would
give somewhat different results, as illustrated
in Figure 3. Figure 4 shows some clear trends,
but no simple relationship is evident for the
dependence of specific cleaning volume,
 Douglas W. Cooper and David Leith

l0,OOO -
-
I I I

/p-: -

FIGURE 4. Predicted volume swept

clean per volume of liquid versus E
-1000 0.3pm
,,A\
-.
__--_
-'. -
2 500- \ \
-
impaction parameter for the labora-
tory scrubber for three particle
aerodynamic diameters (0.3, 1, and >i 200 - /
/ ,/
I,,'
/'
*------
-. 03 \
\
3
-
3 pm) and three throat velocities $ loo - / /
I
-
(---, 10 msec-';- -, 61 msec-'; - c---_
-
, 345 msec-I). , 0.3
- -
lo- I I I I l l I l l 1 1 -
0.1 1 2 5 1 0 100 1000

IMPACTION PARAMETER. K

V * / V L ,on impaction parameter and throat
velocity. Unlike our previous model (Leith
and Cooper, 1980), which assumed that Eq.
(6) describes the drag coefficient and that the
venturi is adequately characterized as a throat
of infinite length, the present, more realistic,
model showed that no single value for the
impaction parameter always provides opti-
mum collection. Note, however, that the val-
ues for the highest velocity, 345 msec-',
have been calculated with a theory that did
not include the effects of gas compressibility,
even though these effects may be important
(Cooper, 1982).
Our previous work (Leith and Cooper,
1980) predicted that the specific cleaning
volume V */ VLwould increase with increas-
ing particle diameter d , and gas velocity u,,
although to much higher values than found
here. Furthermore, the previous model pre-
dicted that maxima in plots of V * / V Lagainst
K occur at a constant value of K,, = l.l/f,
where f is the constant from the venturi
model of Calvert et al. (1972). The present
model predicted that the smallest value
for K,, should be about unity for the small-
est values of d , and u,. At larger values
of d , and u,, K,, was displaced to higher
values.
Both a reduction in specific cleaning
volume V * / V L and a displacement of the
maximum V * / V L to higher values of K oc-
cur because, in the present model, limited
opportunity existed for sweeping. The actual
gas volume swept clean was less than that
possible in an infinite throat. This limited
opportunity was most important for larger
particles and higher velocities, which can
better use a longer scrubber. Because the
extent of sweeping was constrained by the
scrubber geometry in the present model,
the sweep efficiency became more important.
As a consequence, high values of the impac-
tion parameter were necessav to ensure
maximum target efficiency for each drop,
and curves of V * / V L against K were dis-
placed toward higher K. Again, this displace-
ment was greater for larger particles and
higher velocities, for which the scrubber
geometry constraints were more severe. The
conditions that led to most effective collec-
tion cannot, apparently, be stated concisely.
The differencesbetween the "infinite" and
the finite throat lengths were least for a
collection of small particles at low gas veloc-
ity. Under these conditions most collection
occurred in the venturi throat, as discussed
in conjunction with Figure 3. In this case the
scrubber geometry constraints were less im-
portant; collection was reasonably modeled
by an infinite throat, as assumed by Calvert
et al. (1972), and previous results based on
the Calvert model compare well with those
given here.
Venturi Scrubber Optimization Revisted
Optimal Energy - Utilization
The energy spent accelerating a droplet to its
maximum velocity is twice its kinetic energy
at this velocity, mdui. If, as is usually as-
sumed, none of the kinetic energy is re-
covered as pressure regain in the diverging
section, and if this maximum velocity is the
gas throat velocity, then the pressure drop is
proportional to the volume fraction of liquid
employed and the square of the throat veloc-
ity. For each throat velocity shown in Figure
4, energy utilization is minimum at the same
value of the impaction parameter where
liquid consumption is minimized, that is,
where the specific cleaning volume V */ VLis
maximized.
Comparing one throat velocity against
another, however, shows the energy ad-
vantage of operating at low throat velocities:
a tenfold increase in optimum V * / V L for
1-pm particles, achieved by going from 10 to
61 msec-' in throat velocity (see Figure 4),
would come at the expense of about a 37-fold
increase in pressure drop with the liquid
volume ratio held constant and assuming
that pressure drop is proportional to the
throat velocity squared.
Application of Results
The results given in Figure 4 are useful for
scrubber design. First, pick a gas velocity;
this choice may be changed later, as explained
shortly. Using the curves from Figure 4 as a
guide, and for particles of the relevant size,
determine the value of K that maximizes
V * / V L for the gas velocity selected. From
t h s K value, determine the droplet diameter
required, using Eq. (4) with ud = 0. Next,
determine the necessary liquid-to-gas ratio
QL/QG using the Nukiyama-Tanasawa
(1938) relationship, Eq. (12), or some other
similar expression:
SI units must be used for the droplet diame-
ter and gas velocity in Eq. (12). Nukiyama
and Tanasawa studied a range of gas veloci-
ties from 70 to 230 m/sec, and extrapolating
69
beyond that range is less reliable than inter-
polating within it.
For the conditions selected, determine the
value of V * / V L from Figure 4; this value
will be the maximum on the curve for the
velocity and particle size selected. Use
V * / V L with the liquid-to-gas ratio in (9)
and (10) to determine the scrubber penetra-
tion. If the penetration is unacceptable,
choose another gas velocity and repeat the
process.
Scrubbers having geometries substantially
different from the laboratory scrubber geom-
etry used here would require their own ana-
logs to Figure 4. The scrubber diameters do
not enter into the analysis, but the ratios of
diameters do, as do the lengths.
SUMMARY
The simplifications of most theoretical mod-
els are listed elsewhere (e.g., Leith and
Cooper, 1980). The model we used incorpo-
rated many of these approximations, but also
allowed for a variety of scrubber geometries
and an improved relationship for drag coeffi-
cient. The results are expressed as the volume
of gas cleaned per volume of liquid used,
V */VL. These results suggest that maxima
in V*/VL occur at impaction parameters
that increase with increasing particle diame-
ter and gas velocity. The results can be used
to determine scrubber operating conditions
that, theoretically, permit more effective
operation of the venturi.
Although the information described in t h s article has
been funded in part by the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency under grant R809003010 to Harvard Uni-
versity, it has not been subjected to the Agency's required
peer and administrative review. Therefore, this paper
does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency and
no official endorsement should be inferred. The authors
thank their colleague, Dr. Stephen N. Rudnick, for his
valuable comments and suggestions.
REFERENCES
Boll, R. H. (1973). Particle collection and pressure drop
in venturi scrubbers, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundamentals
12:40-50.
70
Calvert, S., Lundgren, D., and Mehta, D. (1972). Ven-
tun scrubber performance, J. Air Pollut. Control
Assoc. 22:529-532.
Cooper, D. W. (1982). Venturi scrubbing for filtered
vented containment, 17th DOE Nuclear Air Clean-
ing Conf., Denver, CO, August.
Dickenson, D. R., and Marshall, W. R. (1968). The rates
of evaporation of sprays, AIChE J. 14:541-552.
Fuchs, N. A. (1964). The Mechanics of Aerosols.
Pergamon, New York.
Hollands, K. G. T., and Goel, K. C. (1975). A general
method for predicting pressure loss in venturi
scrubbers, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundamentals 14:16-22.
Ingebo, R. D. (1956). Drag coefficients for droplets and
Douglas W. Cooper and David Leith
solid spheres in clouds accelerating in airstreams,
NACA Tech. Note 3762.
Leith, D., and Cooper, D. W. (1980). Venturi scrubber
optimization, Atmos. Enuiron. 14:657-663.
Loffler, F., and Schuch, G. (1981). Wet scrubber design,
Fzltr. Sep. 18:70-74.
Nukiyama, S. and Tanasawa, Y. (1938). Experiments on
the atomization of liquids in an air stream. Trans.
SOC.Mech. Engrs. (Japan) 436.
Yung, S.-C., Calvert, S., Barbarika, H. F., and Sparks,
L. E. (1977). Venturi scrubber performance model,
Enuiron. Sci. Technol. 12:456-459.
Received 25 July 1983; accepted 20 November 1983