Full Paper

Full Papers
A Shortcut Method for the Estimation of Structured Packings
HEPT in Distillation
By Francisco Carrillo, Ana Martn and Antonio Rosell*
A shortcut method to calculate HETP for metal structured packings is proposed. The method is a simplification and extension of
Lockett's equation for sheet packings, based on the Bravo, Rocha and Fair model. It is applicable at vacuum or pressure
distillation of organic or aqueous mixtures in columns of sheet and gauze packings. The necessary variables are specific surface of
packing, density of vapor and liquid and flow (when gauze packings are being considered). No estimation of hydrodynamic
conditions is necessary.

1 Introduction
There are several models in the literature to describe the
performance of columns with structured packings. Equations
or diagrams for pressure drop and capacity have been
proposed, with acceptable results. In contrast, the prediction
of efficiency is a question without an adequate solution so far.
The models to estimate HETP or HTU are based on the twofilm theory. Therefore, their application involves calculations
of the effective interfacial area and resistances in both phases.
This implies dealing with several equations and a lot of
properties [1].
In the first model for structured packings [2] the gauze
packing is visualized as a series of completely wetted channels,
where the vapor flows in the same way as in a wetted-wall
column, the interfacial area being equated to the specific
surface area of packing and the mass transfer coefficient being
expressed by a relationship similar to the correlation for
wetted-wall columns. The liquid-side mass transfer coefficient
was based on the penetration theory, being the exposure time
the ratio between the effective liquid velocity through the
channel and the length of corrugation. This model was
adapted to sheet-metal surfaces using a discount factor (in
fact, the effective fraction of interphase) [3]. Bravo, Rocha
and Fair have recently developed a quite complex solution [4]
for the mass transfer in beds of structured packings, starting
from their hydraulic model for these devices. The interfacial
area is related to liquid holdup, a variable to be included in
mass transfer coefficients [5].
This Bravo-Rocha-Fair rigorous treatment would be a
sound estimation of the basic HETP, an efficiency at total
reflux, without maldistribution in beds, but it is not able to
correlate all the data in the literature. Moreover, a reliable
result is not possible without a good prediction of the
properties of mixtures, a huge problem with diffusivities or

[*]

Dr.-Chem. F. Carrillo, Dr.-Chem. A Martn, Prof. Dr.-Chem. A. Rosell,

Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Seville, C/Prof.
Garca Gonzalez s/n (Faculty of Chemistry), 41012 Seville, Spain.

Chem. Eng. Technol. 23 (2000) 5,

aqueous systems. For these difficulties it is worth using less

cumbersome solutions to obtain a confident result. A typical
simplification of the rigorous treatment is to suppose
negligible liquid resistance. Nevertheless, problems related
to effective interface remain and it is necessary to introduce
some empirical parameters.
Furthermore, shortcut methods are recommended for
several purposes, even when more accurate solutions are
available [5]: designs for ideal or close-to-ideal systems, or for
systems for which equilibrium data are unavailable, scoping
studies for preliminary costs, etc. Harrison and France [6]
proposed for structured packings a very simple rule of thumb,
stating three HETP for three crimp heights. The equation is,
after Kister1):
HETP = 100 / a + 0.102

(1)

Lately, Lockett [7] has developed a shortcut method based

on the Bravo-Rocha-Fair model which is applied to a specific
sheet packing (Flexipac). The correlation starts with a size of
packing and a flow (F at 80 % flood). This first equation is
extended to correlate data with other sizes of Flexipac. Using a
flooding correlation [7], an expression for HETP at total
reflux and stripping factor equal to 1 is obtained, HETP being
a function of the nominal specific surface of packing, density
of vapor, density and viscosity of liquid. Lockett claims that his
method has a similar accuracy to that of the model it is based
on. Also, its possible limitations: so, Lockett advises to be
cautious with aqueous systems, given the poor wetting which is
assigned to these mixtures.

2 Analysis of Data
Information about HETP in the literature is not related to
commercial columns but to pilot plants (diameter up to 1.05
m) where binary mixtures were distilled at pressures between

1)

List of symbols at the end of the paper.

WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH, D-69469 Weinheim, 2000 0930-7516/00/0505-0425

0930-7516/00/0505-00425
$ 17.50+.50/0
$ 17.50+.50/0

425

Full Paper
5 atm and 5 mmHg. The typical function of efficiency is HETP
= f (load), without reference to the composition or the
temperature which would be necessary to calculate physical
properties.
There are different shapes for the function, but a general
enough rule would be that HETP increases when F or C
increases, the variation being very sharp above the loading
point. But even this simple statement has exceptions, some of
which involve difficult explanations.
The influence of packing and pressure will now be
considered using data for a given mixture. The most studied
systems have been chlorobenzene-ethylbenzene and cyclohexane-heptane.
From these data some conclusions can be reached:
The two types of structured packings (gauze and sheet)
show a different behavior: for sheet packings, the change of
HETP with flow is often small. HETP may even be
supposed to be constant over a wide range of flow. For the
gauze type, the decrease of efficiency when flow increases is
always significant.
HETP shows a strong dependence on the specific surface of
packing, decreasing when the surface increases; but there is
not a sole function for all packings.
The relationship between efficiency and pressure is
complicated. Often, HETP is greater at higher pressures,
but it is frequent to find similar HETP with very different
pressures. It is also possible to find a greater HETP at
vacuum.
Estimations using Lockett's equation give conservative
results, with calculated HETP 50 % higher than experimental ones, as is shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1. Experimental HEPT and calculated HEPT by Lockett's equation.

3 Developing a New Method for Sheet Structured

Packings
Figure 2. Differences between Lockett's equation and its modification.

Lockett's equation is a suitable start for a rapid estimation

HETP
of HETP, because it is simple enough, using only four variables
p exp
'
(2)
l
with good possibilities of being accurately calculated and its

2
 0:25
v
4
deviation from empirical results does not bend in a particular
105:8 10 a
a 10:78
l
tendency related to packing or pressure. Moreover, it is easy to
simplify the equation without loss of accuracy using rl0.5
is calculated for chlorobenzene-ethylbenzene and cycloinstead of (rlrv)0.5 and taking (ml/mv)0.06 as a constant. A value
hexane-heptane systems, with different packings and presof 0.63 in I.S is suggested.
sures. Results for average ' are given in Tab. 2.
Differences between Lockett's solution and the new
equation are less than 5 %, as can be seen
in Fig. 2.
Table 1. Systems used in Fig. 2.
Although the solution would strictly be
P (mmHg)
n
System
P (mmHg)
n System
valid only for operations at 80 % flood, its
1 Cyclohexane-Heptane
3146
9
O-Xylene-P-Xylene
300
application is extendible to a wide range
2 Argon-Oxygen
1572
10
Toluene-Octane
200
of flow, where a constant efficiency versus
3 Chlorobenzene-Ethylbenzene 1013
11
Ethylbenzene-Styrene
100
4 Methanol-Ethanol
1013
12
Argon-Oxygen
52
flow rate can be assumed for sheet
5 Ethanol-Water
1013
13
Chlorobenzene-Ethylbenzene 25
packings.
6 Argon-Oxygen
786
14
Decane-trans-Decaline
20
In order to obtain a new factor in this
7 Methanol-Water
760
15
O-Xylene-P-Xylene
16
8 Acetone-Water
760
16
trans-Decaline-cis-Decaline
10
simplified Lockett's equation, the relation
0

426

WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH, D-69469 Weinheim, 2000

0930-7516/00/0505-00426 $ 17.50+.50/0

Chem. Eng. Technol. 23 (2000) 5

Full Paper
Table 2. Factor for the simplified Lockett's equation (in brackets, number of
experimental points).
Pressure (bar)

4.14

1.63

ChlorobenzeneEthylbenzene
Cyclohexane-Heptane

0.96

0.33

5.69 (11)
5.37 (35) 5.40 (28)

0.10
5.17 (9)

5.41 (20)

Differences are small enough and a unique average ' for all
pressures may be proposed: ' = 5.40 (+/20 %).
Fig. 3 is a parity plot where experimental and calculated
HETP are compared, including data of organic and aqueous
mixtures.Themajorityof datahasa deviationsmallerthan25%

packings, because of their higher operational cost. The bulk of

the data in the literature has been obtained in columns with
Sulzer BX.
As HETP of gauze packings changes sharply with flow rates,
it is necessary to know how this variation behaves in order to
estimate efficiency for any flow. A simple dependence may be
proposed up to the loading point:
HETP = A F

(3)

There is a dependence of ' on pressure, increasing when

vacuum increases. Nevertheless, it appears preferable to
maintain a unique power
and to introduce the influence of
pressure, if necessary, through
. A value of 0.42 for
is
suggested, and the following relationship between P and ':
'

7:12 P
33:08 P

(4)

Sulzer CY and Goodloe packings show the same tendency

with reference to variations of
with flow, but the power of F
is higher (between 0.50 and 0.77). These changes in
are,
probably, attributable to the growing influence of the liquid
flow rate when significant differences in the vapor-liquid
surface are possible: at vacuum and when involving packings
with high specific surfaces to be wetted.
Also a datum of HETP at a flow F* must be known to
estimate HETP for other flows. F* has to be between the
loading point and a flow rate high enough to avoid the
nonfulfilment of the previous relation. Considering the range
of flows in the data of the literature, F* = 1.5 m/s (Kg/m3)0.5 is
used. The following equation matches experimental efficiences of BX packing acceptably, as can be seen in Fig. 4.

Figure 3. Parity plot of experimental and calculated HEPT.

The chosen value for ' would not be suitable for

nonmetallic surfaces. It is known that the packing material
influences efficiency: HETP with a metal packing can be half
that of a polypropylene packing [1]. Hence, ' > 5.40 for plastic
packing. But at the moment it should be set aside for further
consideration because there are few data in the literature of
ceramic or plastic structured packings.

4 Gauze Packings
In spite of their wide specific surfaces, structured packings
made from metal gauze are used nowadays less than sheet
Chem. Eng. Technol. 23 (2000) 5,

Figure 4. Parity plot for BX gauze packing.

WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH, D-69469 Weinheim, 2000

0930-7516/00/0505-00427 $ 17.50+.50/0

427

Full Paper
P

HEPTBX

p
l

 0:25 !2

271282:0 P 11:505

Greek symbols

F 0:42

v
l

(5)

P; in mmHg
Received: June 15, 1999 [CET 1123]

Symbols used
a
A
C
D
F
g
HETP

[m /m ]
[m/(m/s.(kg/m3)0.5)
]
[m/s]
[m]
[m/s (kg/m3)0.5]
[m/s2]
[m]

HTU [m]
P
[mmHg]
Z
[m]

ml
mw
v
l
'

[Pa.s]
[Pa.s]
[kg/m3]
[kg/m3]
[]

[]

liquid viscosity
water viscosity
vapor density
liquid density
factor in the simplified
Lockett's equation
power of F factor

References
specific surface area of packing
constant
flow parameter
diameter of column
vapor load factor
gravitational acceleration
height equivalent to a
theoretical plate
height of a transfer unit
pressure
height of column

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]

Gualito, J. J.; Cerino, F. J.; Crdenas, J. C.; Rocha, J. A., Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 36 (1997) pp. 17471757.
Bravo, J. R.; Rocha, J. A.; Fair, J. R., Hydrocar. Proc. 64 (1985) Jan., pp. 91
95.
Fair, J. R.; Bravo, J. L., Chem. Eng. Prog. 86 (1990) Jan., pp. 1929.
Bravo, J. R.; Rocha, J. A.; Fair, J. R., Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 35 (1996) pp.
16601667.
Billet, R.; Schultes, M., Chem. Eng. Technol. 16 (1993) pp. 19.
Frank, O., Chem. Eng. 84 (1977) March, No. 6, pp. 110128.
Harrison, M. E.; France, J. J., Chem. Eng. (1989) Apr., pp. 121128.

_______________________

428

WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH, D-69469 Weinheim, 2000

0930-7516/00/0505-00428 $ 17.50+.50/0

Chem. Eng. Technol. 23 (2000) 5