Energy 36 (2011) 1415e1423

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

A new and applicable method to calculate mass and heat transfer coefcients and
efciency of industrial distillation columns containing structured packings
Hamidreza Sadeghifar a, b, *, Ali Akbar Safe Kordi a
a
b

Department of Chemical & Petroleum Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Azadi Avenue, 11365-9465 Tehran, Iran
Tehran Renery, Old Qom Road, Rey City, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 28 July 2010
Received in revised form
17 January 2011
Accepted 20 January 2011
Available online 27 January 2011

Most of the methods developed for efciency estimation of distillation columns were based on the
empirical mass transfer and hydraulic relations correlated to laboratory data. Therefore, these methods
cannot estimate efciency of industrial columns with sufcient accuracy. In this paper, a new and
applicable method was developed for calculation of efciency (and mass and heat transfer coefcients) of
distillation columns containing structured packings. This method has potential advantages; e.g., it can
calculate efciency without using any empirical mass transfer and hydraulic correlations and models,
and without the need to estimate the operational and hydraulic parameters of column. Therefore, it will
be free of errors, limitations, and complexities of such empirical items. In addition, precision of the
method does not decrease with increasing complexity of operating conditions and design parameters of
column. The method can be used for efciency calculation of any structured packing, including new ones,
in distillation columns.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Efciency
Distillation
Structured packing
Mass transfer

1. Introduction
Among the separation equipments and processes, the distillation columns packed with structured packing are widely used in
chemical and petrochemical industries. Accurate prediction of
efciency of such industrial columns is essential for their successful
design and operation [1e3]. In fact, it is important to know efciency in order to determine column performance and desired
purity requirements [4].
A number of different methods have been cited in the literature
for estimation of packing efciency. Unfortunately, these methods
are of shortcomings and limitations in practice, as they cannot
estimate efciency over a wide range of operating conditions with
sufcient accuracy (see, e.g., Refs. [4e15]). Even some of them give
quite different estimates of packing efciency for a specied case
[4,7,9,10,13] and can be off by 15e50% [6] or even more [8,12,14].
In general, most of the packing efciency estimation methods
include empirical mass transfer relations with two or more empirically determined packing-type and size-specic constants. This
limits usefulness of these methods with mainly an academic background [10]. Moreover, due to complexity and somewhat erratic
* Corresponding author. Department of Chemical & Petroleum Engineering,
Sharif University of Technology, Azadi Avenue, 11365-9465 Tehran, Iran.
Tel.: 98 9126169712; fax: 98 21 66202853.
E-mail address: h_sadeghifar@alum.sharif.edu (H. Sadeghifar).
0360-5442/$ e see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2011.01.031

nature of packed bed hydraulics and operations, accuracy of these

empirical relations is not universal and therefore, their usefulness is
limited to systems on which they were tested [8,16,17]. In other
words, the empirical relations are limited in application, as they do
not extrapolate very well outside the range of ow characteristics
and system physical properties to which they were correlated [7,18].
Most importantly, the conventional models are able to estimate
mass transfer efciency in the preloading or up to in the loading
region, whereas industrial columns often operate above the loading
region [13]. Above (or even in) the loading region, the relationship
between effective mass transfer area, geometrical features of the
packing, physical properties of the system, and operating conditions
is very complex, and not yet understood good enough to enable
development of a purely fundamental model. In other words, our
present understanding of phenomena in or above the loading region
is probably not sufcient to justify more sophisticated attempts at
modeling [13,18]. Meanwhile, since the conventional models rely on
empirical relations and constants, for extension of their applicability
to new conditions or developing new similar models, at least one
hydraulic experiment and/or one total reux experiment is required
for each type and size of packing. This currently is not very easy,
with only a few of the suitable test facilities being available for these
purposes [10].
Therefore, based on the abovementioned explanations, it is clear
that any empirical mass transfer efciency model may be of
signicant errors when applied to industrial conditions. On the

1416

H. Sadeghifar, A.A. Safe Kordi / Energy 36 (2011) 1415e1423

Nomenclature
ap
ae
AMIW
c
C
~p
C

specic surface area of packing, m2 m3 (m1)

effective interfacial area, m2 m3 (m1)
AcetoneeMethanoleIsopropanoleWater
number of components or number of equations
molar density, kmol m3
molar heat capacity at constant pressure, J (kmol)1 K

DAB

diffusion coefcient of component A in component B in

binary mixtures, m2 s1
average diffusion coefcient, m2 s1
diffusion coefcient of component light key in
component heavy key in multicomponent mixtures,
m2 s1
total energy (heat) transfer rate across the interface, J h1
total energy (heat) transfer rate at the interface, J h1
height of packing in packed bed, m
low-rate heat transfer coefcient (in Eqs. 11 and 12 and
in Table 5 with the unit J s1 K1), J h1 K1
nite-rate heat transfer coefcient, J h1 K1
rate of enthalpy of inlet vapor ow, J h1
rate of enthalpy of outlet vapor ow, J h1
rate of enthalpy of inlet liquid ow, J h1
rate of enthalpy of outlet liquid ow, J h1
partial molar enthalpy of component i, J kmol1
height equivalent to a theoretical plate, m
height of transfer units for liquid phase, m
height of transfer units for vapor phase, m
overall height of transfer units for vapor phase, m
thermal conductivity (of uid), J h1 m1 K1
equilibrium ratio (K-value) of component i
average low-rate mass transfer coefcient, kmol s1
average nite-rate mass transfer coefcient, kmol s1
liquid phase
molar supercial liquid phase velocity, kmol s1
mass supercial liquid phase velocity, kmol s1
ow rate of liquid phase leaving the j-th stage or
section, kmol h1
Logarithmic Mean Temperature Difference, K
slope of equilibrium line
MethanoleAcetonitrileeWater
MethanoleIsopropanoleWater
number of equilibrium stages
(h=HTUOV  l  1=lnl
number of equilibrium stages
total molar mass transfer rate across the interface
P
(
Ni ), kmol h1
molar mass transfer rate of component i across the
interface, kmol h1
molar mass transfer rate of component i at the
interface, kmol h1
number of transfer units in liquid phase
number of transfer units in vapor phase
convection heat transfer rate, J h1

Dav
Dlk hk

E
E0
h
h
h
HVin
HVout
HLin
HLout
Hi
HETP
HTUL
HTUV
HTUOV
k
Ki
kav
kav
L
L
L0
Lj
LMTD
m
MAW
MIW
N
n
N
Ni
Ni0
NTUL
NTUV
q0

1

other hand, the applicability extension of such models to industrial

conditions is very difcult. Hence, the need to develop a general
and reliable efciency estimation method, which is to be free of
empirical mass transfer and hydraulic correlations, is felt that in
this paper, we aim to satisfy this need.

QV
loss
QLloss
S
s

T
TV
TL
TN
T0
V
V
V0
Vj
x
y
y
VT

heat loss from the vapor phase to surrounding, J h1

heat loss from the liquid phase to surrounding, J h1
surface area of conduction heat transfer, m2
number of stage at which maximum temperature
driving force occurs between the liquid leaving and the
vapor entering it
temperature, K
vapor phase bulk temperature, K
liquid phase bulk temperature, K
bulk temperature, K
temperature of interface, K
vapor phase
molar supercial vapor phase velocity, kmol s1
mass supercial vapor phase velocity, kmol s1
ow rate of vapor phase leaving the j-th stage or
section, kmol h1
mole fraction
y coordinate
distance from the interface surface, m
temperature gradient, K m1

Greek letter
a
thermal diffusivity, m2 s1
alk
relative volatility of light key component
U
correction factor for the effect of nite mass transfer
rates
l
m/(L/V), stripping factor
r
mass density, kg m3
F
mass transfer rate factor
s
surface tension, N m1
m
viscosity, kg m1 s1
Subscript
N
0
av
exp
hk
i
IHFL
IHFV
in
j
L
lk
out
V

bulk of phase
at the interface
average
experimental
heavy key component
component i
Interface Heat Flow for Liquid phase
Interface Heat Flow for Vapor phase
inlet stream into the column or bed
stage or section j
liquid phase
light key component
outlet stream from the column or bed
vapor (gas) phase

Superscript

nite or high transfer rate
bot
column or bed bottom
L
liquid phase
mid
in the column
top
column or bed top
V
vapor (gas) phase

Basically, there are two situations that might require a process

engineer to estimate efciency. The rst situation arises when he/
she is involved in design of a column and the second one occurs
when an operating (existing) column does not meet the desired
purity, and subsequently energy saving, requirements [2e4,19e21].

H. Sadeghifar, A.A. Safe Kordi / Energy 36 (2011) 1415e1423

The efciency estimation in the second situation requires a much

higher level of understanding of the factors affecting packing efciency than that in the rst situation [4].
In this work, the focus is on the second situation where packed
column is operating (the operating data are available). First,
a general and accurate method is developed for efciency calculation of the distillation columns packed with structured packings.
Then this method along with three other (conventional) methods is
applied to an industrial packed bed in order to make a thorough
comparison and analysis of these methods at industrial conditions.

1417

relations, c of which are equilibrium relations at the interface and

the remaining one is that the sum of interface mole fractions equals
unity.
2.2. Principles and relations
For a mass transfer system, the nal form of the energy relation
is as [4,22]:

E kSVT

c
X

Ni H i

(1)

i1

2. Proposed method
The method presented in this paper, which is an innovative
application of simultaneous heat and mass transfer relations, can
calculate efciency of existing columns in a backward way from
their operating data. This method is, in origin, a changed and
modied form of the well-known nonequilibrium model. Therefore, it can best be called Backward Nonequilibrium (BN) method.
Here, it is described in detail.
2.1. Denition
For efciency calculation of a mass transfer column, we should
rst consider one mass transfer stage and model it. The model that
can be very useful here is a simple non-equilibrium model (Fig. 1).
The vertical wavy line in the middle of the diagram represents the
interface between the two vapor and liquid phases.
For any operating (existing) column and, in general, for any
(section of a) column with known inlet and outlet streams, the
molar mass transfer rates Ni in either phase can be obtained from
the component material balances around that phase. Note that
these rates are equal for each component in the vapor and liquid
phases (steady state).
Also the temperature of either phase is known, and the interface
temperature (along with c interface mole fractions in the related
phase) can be calculated using simultaneous solution of (c 1)

Consider that heat transfer as well as mass transfer occur in

a direction normal to the interface (direction y). Therefore, the nal
form of the energy relation written in one-dimensional component
at any optional surface will be as:

E

c
X

!
Ni H i

i1



vT
 kS
vy

(2)

and at the interface (y 0), will be as:

E0 

c
X

!
Ni0 Hi0

i1



vT 
 kS
vy y0

(3)

P
Note that either side of Eq. (3) (the term E0  ci 1 Ni0 H i0 or
vT
kSvyjy0 ) is the convection heat transfer rate, hDT, commonly
shown as q0. h is called the nite-rate heat transfer coefcient,
which is different from the low rate (or zero rate) heat transfer
coefcient, h, which corresponds to conditions of vanishing small
mass transfer rates. In the real situations, under the conditions of
nite transfer rates, h is the actual heat transfer coefcient [4,22].
T is equal to (T0  TN), assuming that the heat is transferred from
the interface (subscript 0) to the bulk of the phase (subscript N). In
general, E0 and Ni0 (the heat and mass transfer) are dened to be
positive from the vapor to the liquid.
Integration of Eq. (2) from the interface (y 0) to the bulk of the
phase (y N) and utilizing the basic principles of mass transfer
yield the equation:

Pc

i1

!
Ni0 Hi0

Pc

i1

!
Ni0 HiN

q0
!
!1
0 P
Pc
c
i 1 Ni0 H i0 
i 1 Ni0 H iN C
B
C
B
expB
C
A
@
hT0  TN

(4)

The quantities q0 for each of the vapor and liquid phases are
given by

qV
0

E0V

c
X
i1

qL0

E0L

c
X

V V
Ni0
Hi0

(5)

!
L L
Ni0
Hi0

(6)

i1

where the quantities EL0 and EV

0 for any column or any section of
a column are calculated using



V
E0V HVin  HVout Qloss

Fig. 1. Diagram of a simple nonequilibrium packed section.

E0L


L
 HLin
HLout Qloss

(7)
(8)

1418

H. Sadeghifar, A.A. Safe Kordi / Energy 36 (2011) 1415e1423

L
Certainly EV
0 E0 because it is the energy balance around the
column or any section of the column.
Now if specications of inlet and outlet streams of (one section
of) the column are known (existing columns), then the quantities hL
and hV will be calculable:

1,
iA TV  T0

IHFV

hV @ h
ln 1 IHFV
qV

(9)

0
IHFL
hL @ h
ln 1 IHFL
qL

1,
iA T0  TL

It should be noted that in distillation processes, since the net

mass transfer rate is usually low, such corrections are generally
negligible and therefore not important (see Ref. [4]).
In any case, after calculation of the average nite-rate mass
transfer coefcient of either phase, the number of transfer units
and, subsequently, the packing efciency can be calculated.
It is necessary to mention that in practice, the temperature
diving forces in Eqs. 9 and 10 should be as LMTD (Logarithmic Mean
Temperature Difference), which are given as:

LMTDV
(10)

P
P
where we represented the term ( ci 1 Ni0 H i0  ci 1 Ni0 H iN )
for the vapor phase as IHFV and for the liquid phase as IHFL. We
replaced TN, the temperature of bulk of the phase, by T V for the
vapor phase and by TL for the liquid phase. T0 can be calculated
according to the way mentioned earlier in the denition of the
method. Note that in distillation processes, the liquid phase heat
transfer coefcient is so large that the effect of nite mass transfer
rate on it is very negligible and therefore hL yhL [23]. Hence, for
calculation of the heat transfer coefcient in the liquid phase, there
is no necessity to employ Eq. (10); instead, the simple equation
qL hLDT (hL yhL ) can be applied.
After calculation of the heat transfer coefcient in either phase,
the mass transfer coefcient in that phase can be determined using
the analogy between heat and mass transfer (the low-rate transfer
coefcients should be used in the analogies [4,22]). The ChiltonColburn analogy [7,12,22,24e27] is used for the vapor phase.

kav

h
~p
C

!

2
3

Dav

(11)

LMTDL

h
 
i. 
.
top
top
TVj  T0
 TVj1  T0bot
ln TVj  T0


16
TVj1  T0bot

 
i. 
.
h
ln TLj  T0bot
TLj  T0bot  TLj1  T0top


top
17
TLj1  T0

Note that an equilibrium simulation is always done to correct

the LMTD for possible cases in which a maximum temperature
driving force exists in the column (the relevant liquid and vapor
phase temperatures are named as middle temperatures). In such
cases, the LMTD can be calculated as:

LMTD

s  LMTDtopmid n  s  LMTDmidbot
n

(18)

where LMTDtopemid and LMTDmidebot are those calculated, respectively, from the topemiddle and middleebottom temperatures. n is
the number of theoretical stages and s is the stage number at which
the maximum temperature driving force occurs, both without
considering (counting) the stages between which the temperature
difference is practically zero.
2.3. Calculation of packing efciency

and the penetration model is applied to the liquid phase

kav

h
~p
C

!

1
2

Dav

(12)

where kav is the average mass transfer coefcient and Dav is the
average diffusion coefcient [7,24,25]. The average diffusion coefcient is considered as DAB for a binary mixture with components A
and B, and in general as Dlk hk for a multicomponent mixture with
specied light and heavy key components (indices lk and hk denote
the light and heavy key components, respectively).
Note that since in the BN method, all the mass and heat ows are
as rate (not as ux), the heat transfer coefcient will be obtained as
rate of energy per unit temperature and subsequently, from the
analogy, the mass transfer coefcient will be achieved as molar
rate.
The nite-rate mass transfer coefcient, kav, which corresponds
to the actual conditions of mass transfer, is usually related to the
low-rate coefcient by a general equation of the form:

kav

kav U

(13)

where U is a correction factor to account for the effect of nite rates

on kav, dened as [4]:


1
expF 1
U F
2
expF  1


N
kav

NTUV

kV
av
V

(19)

NTUL

kL
av
L

(20)

and then the height of transfer units are obtained for the phases
using the relations

HTUV

h
NTUV

(21)

HTUL

h
NTUL

(22)

The overall height of transfer unit of the column can be calculated by

HTUOV HTUV l HTUL

HETP HTUOV

(15)

(23)

and the HETP (height equivalent to a theoretical plate) using

[1,10,11,27]

(14)

where V is mass transfer rate factor, given by

For calculation of packing efciency, the number of transfer

units for the vapor and liquid phases are rst calculated [24]:

lnl
l  1

(24)

with l m(V/L). l is the well-known stripping factor in which m is

the slope of the equilibrium line, which may be readily obtained
from the slope of the equilibrium curve using [10,11,27]

H. Sadeghifar, A.A. Safe Kordi / Energy 36 (2011) 1415e1423

1419

Table 1
Mixtures, packings and column dimensions used in the experiments [30].
Mixture

Methanol/
Isopropanol/
Water

Methanol/
Acetonitrile/
Water

Acetone/
Methanol/
Isopropanol/Water

Packing

Sulzer BX,
Platte K
100

Montzpak
A3-500
100

Rombopak 6M
100

1.79

Column
diameter (mm)
Packing
height (m)

3. Method validation
3.1. Experimental data
To check the accuracy of the BN method, we apply it to calculate
HETP for several multicomponent distillation columns available in
the paper presented by Pelkonen et al. [30]. In that paper, an
extensive set of experimental data on multicomponent distillation
with non-ideal systems, MIW (MethanoleIsopropanoleWater),
MAW (MethanoleAcetonitrileeWater), and AMIW (AcetoneeMethanoleIsopropanoleWater), in structured packed columns
was reported and the distillation columns and the sampling technique were discussed in detail. Here only a brief explanation of the
experiments is given. In short, all the experiments were conducted
under total reux condition by varying the reboiler heat duty. The
effects of maldistribution were investigated and found to be
negligible. The parameters that were constant in the experiments
are listed in Table 1.

3.2. Experimental HETP

For packed columns, the mass-transfer efciency (HETP) is not
measured directly; it follows from the equation:

HETPexp

h
N

(26)

where h is the height of the packed bed and N is the number of

equivalent theoretical plates (equilibrium stages), which is given

Fig. 2. Algorithm of the proposed method (BN method).

alk
1 alk  1xlk 2

(25)

where alk is the average value of relative volatility of light key

relative to heavy key, and xlk is the mole fraction of light component
in the liquid phase (assuming pseudo-binary mixture lk-hk), see
Refs. [27e29]. Fig. 2 shows the algorithm of the BN method.

Fig. 3. Comparison of experimental and calculated HETPs for test systems MIW (Sulzer
BX, Platte K).

1420

H. Sadeghifar, A.A. Safe Kordi / Energy 36 (2011) 1415e1423

Fig. 4. Comparison of experimental and calculated HETPs for test systems MAW
(Montzpak A3-500).

using the well-known Fenske equation for the total reux conditions as [1,10,31]:



ln xlk =xhk D xhk =xlk B
lnalk

(27)

where indices D and B denote the distillate and bottoms, respectively. For the relative volatility (a), the geometric average of the
column top and bottom values is usually considered to be representative (for non-ideal systems with variable relative volatility
(e.g., systems MIW in this study), a geometric mean value of relative
volatility averaged over the several points of the packed bed should
be applied). The light and heavy key components of test systems
MIW, MAW, and AMIW are, respectively, methanol and isopropanol,
acetonitrile and water, and isopropanol and water. The liquid phase
non-ideality of all test mixtures was considered by using UNIQUAC

Fig. 6. A schematic representation of the top bed of crude oil vacuum distillation
tower.

(UNIversal QUAsiChemical) or NRTL (Non-Random Two Liquid)

thermodynamic models.
3.3. The BN methods HETPs vs. experimental HETPs
Now we compare the HETPs calculated by the BN method
(calculated HETPs) with their corresponding experimental values
for these test columns. Figs. 3e5 provide this comparison respectively for test systems MIW, MAW and AMIW, which show a very
good agreement between the experimental and calculated HETPs.
The largest percent of deviation observed is 26.6 (system MAW4),
which, however, is on the safe (conservative) side. Note that test
system AIMW1 was not considered in this study since some of its
composition data were not reported correctly in the reference
paper (paper of Pelkonen et al. [30]) (the sum of mole fractions
reported in each of the rst three sections is more than unity). The
mean of deviations seen in calculating HETP for the test systems is
about 14.2%, which is very good for a general efciency estimation
method. A more thorough analysis of the BN method is given later
in conjunction with its application to an industrial distillation
packed bed.
4. Application: the top packed bed of a crude oil vacuum
distillation tower
Here the rst bed (from top, named bed 1), packed with
Mellapak structured packing, of one of the crude oil vacuum
distillation towers of Tehran Renery is considered. A schematic
representation of this bed is shown in Fig. 6 and its main specications are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. Note that for representing
the oil mixtures (see Refs. [7,24,29,32]), we generated 30 pseudo
Table 2
Specications of the industrial packed bed (the top bed of the crude oil vacuum
distillation tower).

Fig. 5. Comparison of experimental and calculated HETPs for test systems AMIW
(Rombopak 6M).

Packing

Diameter (m)

Height (m)

Pressure (mm Hg)

(topebottom)

Mellapak 125Y

5.486

1.334

40e41

H. Sadeghifar, A.A. Safe Kordi / Energy 36 (2011) 1415e1423

1421

Table 3
Specications of streams for the industrial packed bed.
Streams

L0

L1

V1

V2

Rate (kg h1)

Rate (kmol h1)

T ( C)
P (mm Hg)

91,000
355
45
4875.4

170,000
662
169
41

4000
175
70
40

83,000
482
240
41

components in the bed. In fact, the components of the system and

their compositions are hypothetical that have been created by
means of HYSYS. In general, all the physical properties and the other
thermodynamic parameters of this system have been obtained
from HYSYS or ASPEN Plus calculations. The thermodynamic
properties of the system were based on the Chao Seader model [24].
Now we want to calculate HETP for the industrial bed using the
BN method. Also we carry out this work using three conventional
models in order to make a better analysis of the BN method and
compare it with them at industrial conditions. The three conventional models considered in this study are the well-known Bravo,
Rocha and Fair (BRF) model (see Refs. [4,5]), Delft model (see Refs.
[13,33]), and the model developed recently by Del Carlo, Olujic, and
Paglianti (briey, DOP model) [11]. Note that the BRF model has two
versions: BRF 1985 and BRF 1992. The latter includes a t parameter
for surface enhancement, which is dependent on packing type
and the operating condition. Unfortunately, this parameter has not
yet been exactly determined for many types of packings including
Mellapak and its application in ranges outside the tested region can
lead to sizable errors [34]. Therefore, in this study, only the 1985
version of the BRF model (BRF 1985) is considered. The explanation
of these conventional models is beyond the scope of this paper and
can be found in many textbooks and papers, including the ones
mentioned above.
Using the BN method and the conventional models, the average
mass transfer coefcients of the phases and efciency were calculated. The quantities and variables (except the nal results) of the
BN method are presented in Table 4. The nal results of the BN
method and the conventional models are shown in separate gures
so that they can be compared with each other properly. The vapor
and liquid phase mass transfer coefcients are shown respectively
in Figs. 7 and 8, the HTUs (HTUV, HTUL, and HTUOV) in Fig. 9, and the
HETP in Fig. 10. Note that the light and heavy key components for
the studied system were pseudo components with normal boiling
points of 325 and 361  C and average K values of 0.0284 and 0.0060,
respectively. The mole fraction of the light key in the liquid phase of
the pseudo-binary mixture lk-hk (xlk) was 0.94, and the value of m
for the system was 0.23.

Fig. 7. Comparison of the vapor phase mass transfer coefcients calculated by the
different models for the industrial packed bed.

to the one considered in this study. As seen from the relevant gures
(Figs. 7e10), overall, the differences in the results of the BN method
and the conventional models are very much. Even the conventional
models themselves yielded to completely different results, most of
which do not seem to be accurate. There are some reasons and
evidences showing that the results of the BN method for the
industrial packed bed and likely for any other industrial column can
be much more accurate than those of the conventional models. In
order to explain these reasons, we must discuss items that mostly
affect efciency, of which the most important one is effective
interfacial area of packing.
Several correlations have so far been developed for estimating
the effective interfacial area using different models; however, recent
ndings [1,11,13,35] show that none of these correlations is

5. Discussion
5.1. Analysis of the BN method, comparison with conventional
models
Now a general analysis is presented for the application of the BN
method and conventional models to industrial conditions, especially
Table 4
Average physical properties of the system for the industrial packed bed.
Quantity

Unit

Vapor

Liquid

kg m3
kmol m3
J kmol1 K1
m2 s1
kg m1 s1
W m1 K1
N m1

0.127
1.34  103
2.4565  105
1.8964  105
6.693  106
0.0187
e

779
3.0218
6.78114  105
1.8503  1010
5.629  103
0.1409
0.0215

C
~
C
P
Dav

m
k

Fig. 8. Comparison of the liquid phase mass transfer coefcients calculated by the
different models for the industrial packed bed.

1422

H. Sadeghifar, A.A. Safe Kordi / Energy 36 (2011) 1415e1423

Table 5
Quantities and variables of the BN method for the industrial packed bed.
Quantity

Unit

Value

Total (net) mass transfer rate

NL/V
N0 NV/L
0
0
Total heat transfer rate (E0)
qV
0
IHFV
qL0
LMTDV
LMTDL
LMTD correction
hV
hL

kmol h1

306.4 345.2 (38.8)

1

kJ h
kJ h1
kJ h1
kJ h1

C

C
W K1
W K1

1.1652  108
3.1695  107
8.741  106
5.4860  107
44
0.3
Not required
2.2657  105
5.0796  107

5.2. Analysis of the results obtained for the top packed bed of the
vacuum tower
Fig. 9. Comparison of the HTU values calculated by the different models for the
industrial packed bed.

sufciently accurate, especially when applied to industrial conditions. For instance, in recent years, some workers have reported
ae > ap, which has not been considered in mass transfer models.
Henriques de Brito et al. [36] measured the effective interfacial area
for some of the structured packings including Mellapak 125 and
found that it can be much higher than the packing surface area due
to instabilities in liquid ow (see Refs. [1,13]).
Since the BN method deals directly with rate quantities (not ux
quantities), it does not require any interfacial area estimation and in
this aspect, its accuracy and generality is much more than those of
the conventional models.
Other important items affecting efciency are maldistribution,
L/V ratio, and column diameter. Clearly, application of empirical
mass transfer models, which are usually formulated under total
reux laboratory conditions, to industrial-scale columns would
result in considerable errors. However, accuracy and generality of
the BN method is independent of the effects of such items due to
using general, non-empirical relations.

Fig. 10. Comparison of the HETP values calculated by the different models for the
industrial packed bed.

Now a brief analysis is made for the results obtained by the BN

method and the conventional models for the industrial packed bed.
As can be seen from the related gures, the results are very
different. The BRF and DOP models estimations are close to each
other and less than those of Delft model; all of which are very
different from the estimations of the BN method. In general, the
conventional models estimated very low values for the vapor phase
mass transfer coefcients and efciencies whereas the BN method
calculated relatively moderate values for these quantities.
Mass balances around each of the phases in the industrial bed
indicate that the rate of mass transfer from the vapor to the liquid
and also the net rate is not low (see Table 5). Due to a subcool reux
entering the bed, as well as existing low pressure phases (see Table 3)
and employing a high efciency packing (Mellapak), the mass
transfer is carried out very well. Therefore, a relatively high or
moderate mass transfer coefcient and efciency (moderate HETP)
is logical for the bed. Hence, it seems that the very low vapor phase
mass transfer coefcients and very high HETPs (low efciencies)
estimated by the conventional models for the bed to be in error.
Meanwhile, the equilibrium simulations done by Radfrac can
largely conrm the accuracy of the obtained results in another way.
Some equilibrium simulations with different number of stages
were carried out by trial and error until the calculated and actual
bottom and top ow rates and the key component compositions
were equal. Although, in practice, any equilibrium simulation that
can be well matched with all the actual data could not be obtained,
the simulation with 2 ideal stages might be still considered as
a relatively acceptable equilibrium simulation. In fact, the simulation with two ideal stages could obtain more results close to the
actual data than those with other numbers of ideal stages. Since the
height of the bed is 1.334 m, we might consider 0.67 (1.334/2) m
as an approximate value for the realistic HETP of this bed. It should
be noted that for distillation columns with a large number of
components (except for total reux conditions), it is too difcult to
obtain the realistic value of the experimental efciency. Even,
sometimes, an approximate estimation of the experimental efciency is also impossible.
Note also that the specications of the industrial packed bed
considered in this study are very far from the (laboratory) conditions to which mass transfer and hydraulic relations are usually
correlated. Some of these specications are the same ones
mentioned in the previous section (e.g., the industrial bed is large in
diameter with the L0 /V0 , L/V ratios far from unity, etc.). The others
are that the pressure is extremely low and the number of components and, therefore, the interaction between them is too high. It
seems that these reasons to be sufcient for questioning the validity of the conventional models for the industrial packed bed.

H. Sadeghifar, A.A. Safe Kordi / Energy 36 (2011) 1415e1423

5.3. A summary of advantages and capabilities of the BN method

(1) The BN method can be used for efciency estimation of any
structured packing including new ones. (2) Any empirical mass
transfer and hydraulic relations are not required for the efciency
calculation by the method. Therefore, it will be free of errors and
restrictions of such empirical relations. (3) The method is free of
mole fraction driving force. This is a great benet of it, especially in
multicomponent systems. (4) It is usable for any column with any
amount of ow rates, diameter, and height, as well as with any
number of components. In addition, accuracy and generality of the
method is not decreased with increasing (or decreasing) these
quantities. (5) For efciency calculation, it does not need to estimate any empirical hydraulic and operational parameters such as
entrainment and loading of the phases, percentage of ooding, and
mixing degree of the phases. Notice that these items are often
unknown, and their estimation or consideration is usually
complicated. (6) It gives efciency in actual operating conditions of
the column and not in other conditions such as total reux. (7) For
the efciency estimation by the method, no interfacial area estimation is required. This is the most important advantage of it over
all the available methods.
It is necessary to mention that the BN method was also validated
with Arwikars data [37] for one distillation column packed with
Raschig ring random packing, the result of which was very
acceptable. However, since further validation of this method for
random packings is necessary, in this paper the authors limited the
application of the BN method to structured packings, although they
strongly believe that the BN method can be accurate for all the
types of packings due to using general and reliable relations. Also
a work similar to the current study was carried out for tray distillation columns, the result of which was excellent.
6. Conclusion
In this paper, a new and accurate method was presented for
efciency calculation of packed distillation columns. This method
was derived in detail, validated with experimental data, and
applied to an industrial column, the results of which were reliable.
In general, the presented method has some special capabilities
which are not seen in other available methods. Also, it was fully
discussed that the conventional models may have limitations in
application, and may yield inaccurate results when applied to
industrial conditions. Therefore, the method presented in this
paper can be properly used for efciency estimation of industrialscale distillation columns containing structured packings.
Acknowledgement
Technical discussions with some experts of Tehran Renery,
especially with S. Mattaji (the managing director of Tehran
Renery), B. Shaneh saz, M. Jahangiri, and Afshin Jafari, have been
helpful to the authors in increasing accuracy of the calculations.
References
[1] Sun ZM, Yu KT, Yuan XG, Liu CJ. A modied model of computational mass
transfer for distillation column. Chem Eng Sci 2007;62:1839e50.
[2] Mix TW. Advanced separation techniques for petrochemicals. Energy
1987;12:1121e33.

1423

[3] Budiman A, Ishida M. A new method for disclosing internal phenomena in

a distillation column by use of material-utilization diagram. Energy 2004;29:
2213e23.
[4] Taylor R, Krishna R. Multicomponent mass transfer. New York: John Wiley &
Sons Inc.; 1993.
[5] Kister HZ. Distillation design. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.; 1992.
[6] Ludwig EE. Applied process design for chemical and petrochemical plants.
Texas: Gulf; 1997.
[7] Taylor R, Kooijman HA. ChemSep Book. Available on website: www.chemsep.
org; 2006.
[8] Klemola KT. Efciencies in distillation and reactive distillation, Ph.D. thesis,
Helsinki University of Technology, Finland, 1998.
[9] Branan CR. Rules of thumb for chemical engineers. Texas: Gulf; 2002.
[10] Oluji
c Z, Behrens M, Spiegel L. Experimental characterization and modeling of
the performance of a large-specic-area high-capacity structured packing. Ind
Eng Chem Res 2007;46:883e93.
[11] Del Carlo L, Oluji
c Z, Paglianti A. Comprehensive mass transfer model for
distillation columns equipped with structured packings. Ind Eng Chem Res
2006;45:7967e76.
[12] Linek V, Moucha T, Rokopova E, Rejl JF. Simultaneous determination of
vapour- and liquid-side volumetric mass transfer coefcients in distillation
column. Chem Eng Res Des 2005;83:979e86.
[13] Fair JR, Seibert AF, Behrens M, Saraber PP, Olujic Z. Structured packing
Performance Experimental evaluation of two predictive models. Ind Eng
Chem Res 2000;39:1788e96.
[14] Cussler EL. Diffusion mass transfer in uid systems. 2nd ed. New York:
CambridgeUniversity Press; 1997.
[15] Budzianowski W, Koziol A. Stripping of ammonia from aqueous solutions in
the presence of carbon dioxide: effect of negative enhancement of mass
transfer. Chem Eng Res Des 2005;83:196e204.
[16] Khoury FM. Predicting the performance of multistage separation processes.
Texas: Gulf; 1995.
[17] Bennett DL, Ludwig KA, Witmer GS, Woods CM. Separating argon/oxygen
mixtures using a structured packing, U S Pat RE3403, 1992.
[18] Green CW. Hydraulic characterization of structured packing via X-ray
computed tomography, Ph. D. thesis, University of Texas, USA, 2006.
[19] Rivero R, Rend C, Gallegos S. Exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of a crude
oil combined distillation unit. Energy 2004;29:1909e27.
[20] Szklo A, Schaeffer R. Fuel specication, energy consumption and CO2 emission
in oil reneries. Energy 2007;32:1075e92.
[21] Kaeser M, Pritchard CL. The impact of heat transfer on Murphree tray efciency. Energy 2006;31:3108e16.
[22] Bird RB, Stewart WE, Lightfoot EN. Transport phenomena. 2nd ed. New York:
John Wily & Sons Inc.; 2002.
[23] Treybal RE. Mass transfer operations. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.; 1968.
[24] Aspen plus manual. Aspen Technology Inc.; 2006.
[25] Kooijman HA. Dynamic nonequilibrium column simulation, Ph. D. thesis,
Clarkson University, USA, 1995.
[26] Rejl JF, Linek V, Moucha T, Prokopov E, Valenz L, Hovorka F. Vapour- and
liquid-side volumetric mass transfer coefcients measured in distillation
column. Comparison with data calculated from absorption correlations. Chem
Eng Sci 2006;61:6096e108.
c Z, Kamerbeek AB, de Graauw J. A corrugation geometry based model for
[27] Oluji
efciency of structured distillation packing. Chem Eng Processing 1999;38:
683e95.
[28] McCabe WL, Smith JC, Harriot P. Unit operation of chemical engineering. 7th
ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.; 2005.
[29] Kooijman HA, Taylor R. HYSYS manual; 2006.
[30] Pelkonen S, Gorak A, Ohligschlager A, Kaesemann R. Experimental study on
multicomponent distillation in packed columns. Chem Eng Processing 2001;
40:235e43.
[31] Mori H, Ibuki R, Taguchi K, Futamura K, Oluji
c Z. Three-component distillation
using structured packings: performance evaluation and model validation.
Chem Eng Sci 2006;61:1760e6.
[32] Ahmed T. Hydrocarbon phase behavior. Texas: Gulf; 1989.
[33] Olujic Z, Behrens M, Colli L, Paglianti A. Predicting the efciency of corrugated
sheet structured packings with large specic area. Chem Biochem Eng Q
2004;18:89e96.
[34] Iliuta I, Petre CF, Larachi F. Hydrodynamic continuum model for two-phase
ow structured-packing-containing columns. Chem Eng Sci 2004;59:879e88.
[35] Wang GQ, Yuan XG, Yu KT. Review of mass transfer correlations for packed
columns. Ind Eng Chem Res 2005;44:8715e29.
[36] Henriques de Brito M, von Stockar U, Menendez Bangerter A, Bomio P,
Laso M. Effective mass-transfer area in a pilot plant column equipped with
structured packings and with ceramic rings. Ind Eng Chem Res 1994;33:
647e56.
[37] Arwikar KJ. Mass transfer in packed column absorption and multicomponent
distillation, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, USA, 1981.