College of Engineering

Chemical Engineering Department

CME320: Chemical Engineering Laboratory I
FALL 2017 - 2018

Experiment 5 – Packed Bed

Name ID
Amal Radwan Jamal Eddin 1050893
Sara Alhallaq 1051713
Zaina AlDhaheri 1046702
Saniha Aysha Ajith 1051470

Group#1
Section: 51
Instructors: Eng. Elron Gomes
Experiment Date: Sunday, October 22, 2017
Submission Date: Sunday, October 29, 2017
Abstract
Packed bed absorption column process is an important process in various industries. From the
experiment, the purpose is to operate and understand the mechanism of the packed bed column in
addition to identifying the loading and flooding points of the column. With varying water and gas
flows, the pressure drop was calculated, and the loading and flooding points were highlighted and
investigated. The results of the experiment included the increase of the pressure drop with the
increase in the gas flow rate; in addition, as the water flow rate increases the flooding and loading
points appear at a lower gas flow rate. Furthermore, the pressure drop factor was calculated and
compared to the theoretical value of 679.18 (ft -1). Kiester correlation gave an average pressure
drop packing factor as 50.59 (ft -1) with a percentage error of 92.55%. while, using Eckert plot, the
average value was 123.73 (ft -1) which gave a percentage error of 81.78%. In addition, using the
capacity factor versus property factor graph, the pressure drop factor was found from the slope
exactly the same as the one from Eckert plot (123.73 (ft -1)). Moreover, an Eckert plot was
constructed from the found data found which gave an average factor value of 37.66 (ft -1) with a
percentage error of 94.46%.

1
Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Theory ............................................................................................................................................. 6
Experimental setup.......................................................................................................................... 9
Procedure ...................................................................................................................................... 13
Data Collected ............................................................................................................................... 14
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 16
Sample Calculations...................................................................................................................... 22
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 28
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 30
References ..................................................................................................................................... 31

2
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Packed bed column ........................................................................................................ 5
Figure 2 - Random vs. stacked packing .......................................................................................... 6
Figure 3 - Common tower packings: (a) Rasching rings; (b) metal pall ring; (c) plastic pall ring;
(d) berl saddle; (e) ceramic intalox saddle; (f) plastic super intalox saddle; (g) metal intalox
saddle. ............................................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 4 - Specific pressure drop versus gas mass velocity............................................................ 7
Figure 5 - Eckert Plot ...................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 6 - Experimental setup ....................................................................................................... 10
Figure 7 - Raschig rings packing .................................................................................................. 10
Figure 8 - Digital display on electronic console ........................................................................... 11
Figure 9 - Electric display ............................................................................................................. 11
Figure 10 - Electrical connections to console box ........................................................................ 11
Figure 11 - Water storage tank...................................................................................................... 12
Figure 12 - 'U' bend pipes ............................................................................................................. 12
Figure 13 - Valves to control air and water flow rate ................................................................... 13
Figure 14 - log pressure losses gradient vs. log gas flow rate. ..................................................... 18
Figure 15 - Capacity factor versus transport property factor plot. ................................................ 19
Figure 16 - Experimental Eckert plot............................................................................................ 21

3
List of Tables
Table 1: Column specifications .................................................................................................... 10
Table 2: Data collected at water flow of 2 (L/min) ...................................................................... 14
Table 3: Data collected at water flow of 5 (L/min) ...................................................................... 15
Table 4: Data collected at water flow of 6 (L/min) ...................................................................... 15
Table 5: Data collected at water flow of 7 (L/min) ...................................................................... 15
Table 6: Data collected at water flow of 8 (L/min) ...................................................................... 16
Table 7: log pressure losses gradient and log gas flow rate calculations at L = 2 [L/min]........... 16
Table 8: log pressure losses gradient and log gas flow rate calculations at L = 5 [L/min]........... 16
Table 9: log pressure losses gradient and log gas flow rate calculations at L= 6 [L/min]............ 17
Table 10: log pressure losses gradient and log gas flow rate calculations at L = 7 [L/min]......... 17
Table 11: log pressure losses gradient and log gas flow rate calculations at L = 8 [L/min]......... 17
Table 12: Fp calculations using Kisters correlation. ..................................................................... 18
Table 13: Fp calculations from Eckert plot. .................................................................................. 19
Table 14: capacity factor and transport property factor calculations. ........................................... 19
Table 15: Calculations of the values needed for the Eckert plot. ................................................. 20
Table 16: Continuation of calculations of the values needed for the Eckert plot. ........................ 21
Table 17: Calculations of pressure drop packing factor from the experimental Eckert plot. ....... 22
Table 18: Table of calculations using Zena correlation. ............................................................... 22

4
Introduction
Absorption is an important process of the many separation processes used in chemical engineering.
In absorption, one or more selected components are removed from a mixture of gases depending
on their relative solubility in a specific liquid. Absorption is based on the inter-phase mass transfer
determined by the diffusion rates [1]. Absorption processes are classified into two categories:
physical absorption, absorption with chemical reaction [2]. In a physical absorption, a chemical
reaction does not occur during the process; common examples include removal of ammonia, sulfur
dioxide, carbon dioxide [2], or acetone [1] from a mixture with air using water. Moreover, in the
other type, the occurrence of a chemical reaction enhances the absorption by reacting the gas
absorbed with a component in the liquid, which results in very low concentration in liquid phase
improving the absorption [2]. Examples on absorption with a chemical reaction include absorption
of carbon dioxide using sodium carbonate solution, and scrubbing ammonia from gas stream using
acid solution [2].

The most commonly used device to operate an absorption process is the packed bed column [2].
Packed bed columns are hollow columns filled with small packing pieces which leave voids in
between and increase the surface area; thus, a liquid stream is introduced at the top and a gas
stream into the column near the bottom [2]. The absorbed component leaves with the solvent from
the bottom while he unabsorbed components leave from the top as gas [1]. The packings inside
the column are available in different shapes and types of construction material [3]; they increase
the surface area to provide better transfer. Figure 1 clearly shows the packed bed column with
Raschig Rings packing while Figure 2 shows different shapes of packing. In addition, packings
can be placed in random or structured packings as shown in Figure 3 [3].

Figure 1 - Packed bed column

5
 Figure 3 - Common tower packings: (a) Rasching rings; (b) metal pall ring;
(c) plastic pall ring; (d) berl saddle; (e) ceramic intalox saddle; (f) plastic
super intalox saddle; (g) metal intalox saddle.
Figure 2 - Random vs. stacked packing

The objective from the experiment is to operate the packed bed column and identify the flooding
and loading points during the process in addition to familiarizing the flooding characteristics of
the 10 millimeters glass Raschig Rings packed column. Furthermore, the experimental results are
to be compared to the values found by empirical correlations. The importance of the experiment
arises from the many applications of packed bed columns, which are the following:

 Recovery of solvents in petrochemical industry [4];

 Distillation of hydrocarbon mixture; for example, splitting off spec low flash petroleum
products into gasoil and gasoline components [4];
 Biochemical oxidation of sewage and industrial wastewater by trickle filters. Packed beds
are employed and referred to as packed fill or packed media [5].
The various applications of the packed bed display the importance of understanding its operation
for chemical engineers. The industries of petrochemical and biochemical processes always require
the participation of a chemical engineer where the packed bed columns are also present.

Theory
The experiment depends on operating the packed bed by controlling the flow rated of the gas and
liquid into the column. Increasing the gas flow rate at a constant liquid flow rate will show the
loading and flooding points occurring in the column. Loading occurs when the gas resists the down
flowing of the liquid with the lowest flow rate while the packings are completely wetted [1].
Moreover, when the liquid flows up from the top of the column, the flooding point occurs due to

6
the increase in the gas flow rate [1]. As the liquid flow rate increases high compared to the gas
flow rate, the gas flow up will be highly resisted, and the liquid will eventually flood the column.
Balancing the flow rates to achieve an efficient absorption can be done by having a thin film of
top flowing liquid covering the packings [1].

For a constant liquid flow and a varying gas flow, the specific pressure drop across the column
helps determine the loading and flooding points while the gas flow values between these two points
comprises the operating interval of the packing [1]. Figure 4 shows the relationship between log
pressure losses per height and log gas mass velocity. The increase in the gas flow shows an increase
in the pressure drop of the gas. As the gas velocity reaches the loading velocity, the gas impedes
the liquid flow and creates accumulations or pools of liquid in the packing. A higher gas flow will
increase the accumulation and eventually cause the liquid to stop down flowing and start flowing
out the top with the gas, reaching the flooding point.

Figure 4 - Specific pressure drop versus gas mass velocity

Pressure Drop Factor (FP)

By calculating the pressure drop factor from experimental data, a comparison is done between the
experimental and theoretical value. The pressure drop factor can be determined by two methods.
First, Kisters correlation can be used with the experimental pressure drop found at the flooding
point as shown in Equation 1. As the specific flooding pressure drop is independent of gas and
liquid flows, the pressure drop factor will be the same for each experimental trial. The mean can
be determined and compared to the theoretical.

7
 ∆𝑃𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 0.115 𝐹𝑃0.7 (Equation 1)

where,

∆𝑃𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 is the specific flooding pressure (inch H2O/ft of packing).

The second method is done using Eckert plot as the pressure drop factor is commonly used relating
with the generalized pressure drop diagram. Refer to Figure 5 to see Eckert plot. From the
experimentally found specific pressure drop (∆𝑃) and the flow factor (F), the capacity factor (ψ)
is determined from the Eckert plot. Equation 2 defines the capacity factor, while Equation 3 shows
the flow factor definition.

Figure 5 - Eckert Plot

𝐺𝑦2 𝐹𝑝 𝜇 0.1
ψ= (Equation 2)
(𝜌𝑥 − 𝜌𝑦 )𝜌𝑦

where,

𝐹𝑝 is the pressure drop-packing factor;

Gx, Gy are the liquid and gas mass velocity respectively [kg/m2.s];

μ is the liquid viscosity [Pa.s];

8
 ρx and ρyare liquid and gas density, respectively [kg/m3].

𝐺𝑥 𝜌𝑦
F= √ (Equation 3)
𝐺𝑦 𝜌𝑥 − 𝜌𝑦

A plot of the capacity factor ( ) against the transport property factor (φ), defined in Equation 4,
will show a straight line through the origin and the slope will be the pressure drop packing factor

𝐺𝑦2 𝜇 0.1
φ= (Equation 4)
(𝜌𝑥 − 𝜌𝑦 )𝜌𝑦

where,

Gy is gas mass velocity [kg/m2.s];

μ is the liquid viscosity [Pa.s];

ρx and ρyare liquid and gas density, respectively [kg/m3].

Finally, based on experimental data and pressure drop packing factor, an Eckert plot showing the
isobars between the loading line and the flooding line.

Zena correlation for flooding is defined as:

1 1 (Equation 5)
𝑉 3 + 𝑄 2 = 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡

where,

V is flooding gas rate in cfm per ft2 cross- section;

Q is flooding liquid rate in GPM per ft2 cross- section area.

Experimental setup
An overview of the whole experimental setup for ‘Packed bed Absorption column’ at ADU
Chemical Engineering Laboratory is shown in Figure 6. It consists of a column packed with
Raschig rings mounted vertically on a steel frame, a water storage tank, a centrifugal pump and
electric console box. The air flow and water flow to the column are controlled using valves and
pumps which will be discussed in detail below.

9
 Figure 6 - Experimental setup

The whole packed bed column is made up of two individual clear acrylic columns, each of 80 mm
inside diameter joined end to end. The total length of the column reaches up to 1.4 meters and is
installed vertically on a mild steel floor standing framework and filled with a random type packing
called ‘Raschig Rings’ as show in Figure 7. Table 1 gives the specifications of the column.
Table 1: Column specifications

Column diameter 80 mm
Column length 1.4 m
Raschig rings specific area 440 m2/m3
(10mm x 10mm)
Packing volume 7 liters

Figure 7 - Raschig rings packing

10
There is an electric console attached to the column as shown in Figure 8. The readings of pressure
drop across the column are displayed on the electrical console along with the flow rates and
temperatures of the air and water flow as show in Figure 9. The connections to measure these are
made to the electric console box is made as shown in Figure 10.

Figure 8 - Digital display on electronic console

Figure 9 - Electric display

Figure 10 - Electrical connections to console box

The liquid used in this experiment is cold tap water which is stored in a 60 liter rectangular tank at
ground level as show in Figure 11. There is a valve present underneath the tank used for draining and
cleaning while a valve on the side is used for maintaining the level inside the tank.

11
 Figure 11 - Water storage tank

A centrifugal pump submerged inside the tank is used to deliver the water to the top of the column
where it falls by gravity through the packing before returning to the tank through a 'U' bend as
shown in Figure 12. This bend forms a liquid seal and prevents gas from escaping. A control valve
V7 downstream of the 'U' bend allows the head of water upstream to be varied if necessary. This
valve is usually opened completely when the column is in use but can be partially closed to change
the flow of water.

Figure 12 - 'U' bend pipes

An electronic flow meter measures the flow rate of water entering the top of the column and this
value is displayed on the electrical console. The flow of liquid can be varied using the flow control
valve V10 attached to the column. A centrifugal air blower C1 is located at the bottom of the frame
and is able to give an air flow rate of up to 200L/min. An electronic air flow sensor F2 is installed
in the air line and its flow rate reading is shown on the electrical console’s screen. The flow of air
can be varied using the control valve V2 above the air flow meter. Figure 13 shows the controlling
valves clearly.

12
 Figure 13 - Valves to control air and water flow rate

Tapings with isolating valves are provided at the top, center and bottom of the column to allow the
pressure drop in the two sections of column to be measured using electronic pressure sensors which
are located inside the control console. The values of differential pressure are displayed on the front
of the electrical console.

Procedure
1. The first step is to switch on the water pump and set it to a flow rate of 2 L/min. Let the
water completely wet the column and stabilize before proceeding to continue the
experiment.
2. Open the valve to let the air flow start and set it to 30 L/min. Note down P1 and P2 from
the digital display to calculate pressure differential.
3. Change the air flow rate to 40 L/min and take down the pressure differential readings
again.
4. Continue increasing the air flow rates in equal intervals of 10 L/min until the column
floods.
5. Turn off the air line.
6. Set the water flow to 5 L/min and wait until the water stabilizes.
7. Set the air flow to 20 L/min and take the measurements of pressure differential.
8. Change the air flow to 30 L/min and note down the pressure differentials again. Repeat
step 4.
9. Continue the same above procedure with increasing flow rates (6, 7 and 8 L/min) until
the column floods with minimum air flow.
 Note: For water flow rate of 7 L/min and 8 L/min, the air flows were increased in
intervals on 5 L/min to facilitate more accurate readings of pressure differential at
loading and flooding points.

13
 10. Turn off the air line, decrease the water flow rate to 0 L/min, switch off the water pump
and finally close turn off the power supply.

Safety Considerations

During any practical work in the laboratory proper supervision by the lab engineer/ specialist is
required. People performing this experiment should wear appropriate PPEs including: lab coats,
safety goggles, hard covered shoes, durable clothing and high-impact gloves. Some physical,
electrical, and mechanical hazards that may potentially arise while performing this experiment are
mentioned below:

 Mechanical hazards: During the experiment, if flooding is allowed to continue for a long
time, there is a possibility of explosion through the top of the packed bed column. Hence,
once flooding is observed at the top of the column, switch off the air supply into the
column.
 Physical hazards: The equipment itself is very bulky and heavy and should be handled with
care. There is also a lot of noise produced during the experiment and this can be avoided
by wearing ear protection gear if necessary.
 Electrical hazards: Using the electrical console and wiring with wet hands is extremely
dangerous as it can lead to electric shocks and short circuits. Hence, always make sure that
hands are dry before using these.

Data Collected

Table 2: Data collected at water flow of 2 (L/min)

Water flow rate of 2 (L/min)

Gas T1 T2 P1 P2 Pressure Remarks
Flow rate (oC) (oC) (mbar) (mbar) Differential
(L/min) P1+ P2
(mbar)

20.0 19.6 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

30.0 19.6 20.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 No loading or flooding
points
40.0 19.6 20.0 0.4 0.3 0.7
50.0 19.5 20.0 0.6 0.5 1.1
60.0 19.6 20.1 0.8 0.7 1.5
70.0 19.6 20.1 1.3 1.0 2.3

14
Table 3: Data collected at water flow of 5 (L/min)

Water flow rate of 5 (L/min)

Gas Flow rate T1 T2 P1 P2 Pressure Remarks
(L/min) (oC) (oC) (mbar) (mbar) Differential
P1+ P2
(mbar)
20.0 19.8 20.8 0.2 0.2 0.4
30.0 19.8 20.6 0.7 0.6 1.3
40.0 19.8 20.5 1.1 1.5 2.6
50.0 19.8 20.4 1.8 2.7 4.5
60.0 19.9 20.5 3.0 4.3 7.3* Loading point
70.0 19.9 20.5 5.4 6.3 #
11.7 Flooding point

Table 4: Data collected at water flow of 6 (L/min)

Water flow rate of 6 (L/min)

Gas Flow rate T1 T2 P1 P2 Pressure
(L/min) (oC) (oC) (mbar) (mbar) Differential
P1+ P2
(mbar)
20.0 20.0 20.5 0.3 0.4 0.7
30.0 20.0 20.4 1.0 1.5 2.5
40.0 20.0 20.4 2.2 3.8 6.0* Loading point

50.0 20.0 20.5 4.1 5.9 10.0

Flooding point
60.0 20.1 20.7 12.1 9.6 21.7 #

Table 5: Data collected at water flow of 7 (L/min)

Water flow rate of 7 (L/min)

Gas Flow rate T1 T2 P1 P2 Pressure
(L/min) (oC) (oC) (mbar) (mbar) Differential
P1+ P2
(mbar)
20.0 20.2 20.4 0.3 1.1 1.4
25.0 20.5 20.3 1.7 3.3 5.0
30.0 20.5 20.3 4.0 4.9 8.9* Loading point

35.0 20.5 20.4 5.7 5.7 12.0

40.0 20.5 20.4 7.8 7.8 16.0
45.0 20.5 20.5 16.4 16.4 27.3 # Flooding point

15
Table 6: Data collected at water flow of 8 (L/min)

Water flow rate of 8 (L/min)

Gas Flow rate T1 T2 P1 P2 Pressure
(L/min) (oC) (oC) (mbar) (mbar) Differential
P1+ P2
(mbar)
20.0 20.3 20.4 1.1 3.6 4.7* Loading point

25.0 20.4 20.4 5.8 7.3 13.5

30.0 20.4 20.4 6.7 10.5 17.2
35.0 20.4 20.4 8.6 11.3 19.9 # Flooding point

Results
𝑷𝟏+𝑷𝟐 𝒎𝒃𝒂𝒓 𝒌𝒈
Plot of log pressure losses gradient ( )[ ] versus log gas flow rate (Gy) [ ]
𝑳 𝒎𝒊𝒏 𝒎𝟐 .𝒔

Table 7: log pressure losses gradient and log gas flow rate calculations at L = 2 [L/min].

Water Gy 𝑷𝟏 + 𝑷𝟐 log Gy 𝑷𝟏 + 𝑷𝟐
( ) 𝐥𝐨𝐠 ( )
flow 𝒌𝒈 𝑳 𝑳
[ 𝟐 ] 𝒎𝒃𝒂𝒓
rate 𝒎 .𝒔 [ ]
[L/min] 𝒎𝒊𝒏
2 0.08 0.00 -1.09
0.12 0.21 -0.91 -0.67
0.16 0.50 -0.79 -0.30
0.20 0.79 -0.69 -0.10
0.24 1.07 -0.61 0.03
0.28 1.64 -0.55 0.22

Table 8: log pressure losses gradient and log gas flow rate calculations at L = 5 [L/min].

Water Gy 𝑷𝟏 + 𝑷𝟐 log Gy 𝑷𝟏 + 𝑷𝟐
𝒌𝒈
( ) 𝐥𝐨 𝐠 ( )
flow [𝒎𝟐.𝒔] 𝑳 𝑳
rate 𝒎𝒃𝒂𝒓
[ ]
[L/min] 𝒎𝒊𝒏
5 0.08 0.29 -1.09 -0.54
0.12 0.93 -0.91 -0.03
0.16 1.86 -0.79 0.27
0.20 3.21 -0.69 0.51
0.24 5.21 -0.61 0.72
0.28 8.36 -0.55 0.92

16
Table 9: log pressure losses gradient and log gas flow rate calculations at L= 6 [L/min].

Water Gy 𝑷𝟏 + 𝑷𝟐 log Gy 𝑷𝟏 + 𝑷𝟐
𝒌𝒈 ( ) 𝒍𝒐𝒈 ( )
flow rate
[ 𝟐 ] 𝑳 𝑳
[L/min] 𝒎 .𝒔 𝒎𝒃𝒂𝒓
[ ]
𝒎𝒊𝒏
6 0.08 0.50 -1.09 -0.30
0.12 1.79 -0.91 0.25
0.16 4.29 -0.79 0.63
0.20 7.14 -0.69 0.85
0.24 15.50 -0.61 1.19

Table 10: log pressure losses gradient and log gas flow rate calculations at L = 7 [L/min].

Water flow Gy 𝑷𝟏 + 𝑷𝟐 log Gy 𝑷𝟏 + 𝑷𝟐

( ) 𝒍𝒐𝒈 ( )
rate 𝑳 𝑳
[L/min] 𝒌𝒈 𝒎𝒃𝒂𝒓
[𝒎𝟐.𝒔] [ ]
𝒎𝒊𝒏
7 0.08 1.00 -1.09 0.00
0.10 3.57 -0.99 0.55
0.12 6.36 -0.91 0.80
0.14 8.57 -0.85 0.93
0.16 11.43 -0.79 1.06
0.18 19.50 -0.74 1.29

Table 11: log pressure losses gradient and log gas flow rate calculations at L = 8 [L/min].

Water flow Gy 𝑷𝟏 + 𝑷𝟐 log Gy 𝑷𝟏 + 𝑷𝟐

( ) 𝒍𝒐𝒈 ( )
rate 𝑳 𝑳
[L/min] 𝒌𝒈
[ ]
𝒎𝟐 .𝒔
8 0.08 3.36 -1.09 0.53

0.10 9.64 -0.99 0.98

0.12 12.29 -0.91 1.09

0.14 14.21 -0.85 1.15

17
 Log pressure losses gradient vs. log gas flow rate
2.00

1.50
Log (P1+P2)/L (mbar/m)

1.00

0.50

0.00
-2.00 -1.80 -1.60 -1.40 -1.20 -1.00 -0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00

-0.50

-1.00
Log Gy (kg/m2.s)

Water Flow Rate 2(L/min) Water Flow Rate 5(L/min) Water Flow Rate 6(L/min)
Water Flow Rate 7(L/min) Water Flow Rate 8(L/min)

Figure 14 - log pressure losses gradient vs. log gas flow rate.

Pressure drop packing factor, Fp, using experimental pressure drop at flooding

Table 12: Fp calculations using Kisters correlation.

Water flow rate 𝚫𝑷𝒇𝒍𝒐𝒐𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝚫𝑷𝒇𝒍𝒐𝒐𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒊𝒏 𝒘𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓 Error

Fp [𝒇𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈]
[L/min] 𝒎𝒃𝒂𝒓
[𝒎 𝒐𝒇 𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈]
𝒊𝒏 𝒘𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓
[𝒇𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈] [%]

5 8.36 1.02 22.72 96.66

6 15.50 1.90 54.91 91.92

7 19.50 2.39 76.22 88.78

8 14.21 1.74 48.52 92.86
Average 50.59 92.55

18
 Fp from Eckert plot

Table 13: Fp calculations from Eckert plot.

Water Flow Gx Gy Fp Capacity Fp Fp Error

[L/min] 𝒌𝒈 𝒌𝒈 factor [m-1] [ft-1] [%]
[𝒎𝟐.𝒔] [𝒎𝟐.𝒔]
[Ψ]
5 16.58 0.28 2.04 0.02 483.72 147.44 78.29
6 19.89 0.24 2.86 0.01 403.67 123.04 81.88
7 23.21 0.18 4.45 0.01 369.71 112.69 83.41
8 26.52 0.14 6.53 0.00 366.69 111.77 83.54
Average 123.73 81.78

Plot of capacity factor, Ψ, versus transport factor property, 𝝋

Table 14: capacity factor and transport property factor calculations.

Water Flow 𝝋 Ψ
[L/min]
5 0.000033 0.004049
6 0.000024 0.002975
7 0.000014 0.001673
8 0.000008 0.001012

Capacity Factor Vs. Transport Property

Factor
0.00450
0.00400 y = 123.73x + 2E-18
0.00350
Capacity Factor (Ψ)

0.00300
0.00250
0.00200
0.00150
0.00100
0.00050
0.00000
0.00000 0.00001 0.00001 0.00002 0.00002 0.00003 0.00003 0.00004
Transport property factor (𝝋)

Figure 15 - Capacity factor versus transport property factor plot.

19
Slope of the plot = 123.73, which is equal to the pressure drop packing factor, Fp.

The error is equal to 81.78%.

Experimental Eckert plot based on the experimental data:

Table 15: Calculations of the values needed for the Eckert plot.

Gx Gy Capacity
factor
Water Flow 𝒌𝒈 Air flow 𝒌𝒈 Flow factor
[ 𝟐 ] [𝒎𝟐.𝒔]
[L/min] 𝒎 .𝒔 [L/min] [F] [Ψ]

20 0.08 2.86 0.0003

30 0.12 1.91 0.0007

40 0.16 1.43 0.0013

50 0.20 1.14 0.0021

60 0.24 0.95 0.0030

2 6.63 70 0.28 0.82 0.0040

20 0.08 7.15 0.0003

30 0.12 4.76 0.0007

40
0.16 3.57 0.0013

50 0.20 2.86 0.0021

60 0.24 2.38 0.0030

5 16.58 70 0.28 2.04 0.0040

20 0.08 8.58 0.0003

30 0.12 5.72 0.0007

40 0.16 4.29 0.0013

50 0.20 3.43 0.0021

6 19.89 60 0.24 2.86 0.0030

20
Table 16: Continuation of calculations of the values needed for the Eckert plot.

Gx Gy Capacity
factor
Water Flow 𝒌𝒈 Air flow 𝒌𝒈 Flow factor
[ 𝟐 ] [ ]
[L/min] 𝒎 .𝒔 [L/min] 𝒎𝟐 .𝒔 [F] [Ψ]

20 0.08 10.01 0.0003

25 0.10 8.00 0.0005

30 0.12 6.67 0.0007

35 0.14 5.72 0.0010

40 0.16 5.00 0.0013

7 23.21 45 0.18 4.45 0.0017

20 0.08 11.44 0.0003

25 0.10 9.15 0.0005

30 0.12 7.62 0.0007

8 26.52 35 0.14 6.53 0.0010

Experimental Eckert Plot

0.0045
0.004
0.0035
Capacity Factor (Ψ)

0.003
0.0025
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Flow Factor (F)

Water Flow Rate 2(L/min) Water Flow Rate 5(L/min) Water Flow Rate 6(L/min)
Water Flow Rate 7(L/min) Water Flow Rate 8(L/min)

Figure 16 - Experimental Eckert plot.

21
Table 17: Calculations of pressure drop packing factor from the experimental Eckert plot.

Water Flow Gx Flow factor Experimental Fp Fp Error

[L/min] 𝒌𝒈 [F] capacity [m-1] [ft-1] [%]
[𝒎𝟐.𝒔]
factor
[Ψexp]
5 0.28 2.04 0.0041 123.76 37.72 94.45
6 0.24 2.86 0.0030 123.53 37.65 94.46
7 0.18 4.45 0.0017 123.48 37.64 94.46
8 0.14 6.53 0.0010 123.45 37.63 94.46
Average 37.66 94.46

Zena Correlation:

Table 18: Table of calculations using Zena correlation.

Gx Gy V Q V1/3 + Q1/2
𝒌𝒈 𝒌𝒈 [ft /ft2.min]
3
[Gal/ft2.min]
[ 𝟐 ] [ 𝟐 ]
𝒎 .𝒔 𝒎 .𝒔
16.58 0.28 45.69 24.41 8.52
19.89 0.24 39.16 29.29 8.81

23.21 0.18 29.37 34.18 8.93

26.52 0.14 22.84 39.06 9.09
Average 8.84

Sample Calculations
Taking water flow rate at 6 [L/min].

To plot log pressure losses gradient against log gas flow rate:

For water flow rate = 6 [L/min] and gas flow rate = 20 [L/min].

The gas flow rate needs to be converted to [kg/m2.s], knowing the density of air = 1.225 kg/m3, and the
column diameter = 80mm.

The cross-sectional area of the column = 𝜋r2 = 𝜋(0.080m/2)2 = 0.0050207 m2,

22
Therefore, the gas flow rate is:

20 𝐿 1 𝑚𝑖𝑛 1 𝑚3 1.225 𝑘𝑔 1 𝒌𝒈
∗ ∗ ∗ 3
∗ 2
= 𝟎. 𝟎𝟖 [ 𝟐 ]
𝑚𝑖𝑛 60 𝑠 1000 𝐿 𝑚 0.0050207 𝑚 𝒎 .𝒔
Where,

𝒌𝒈
log 0.08 = −𝟏. 𝟎𝟗 [ 𝟐 ]
𝒎 .𝒔

At L = 6 [L/min] and G = 20 [L/min], P1 = 0.3 [mbar] and P2 = 0.4 [mbar].

The length of the column is known to be 1.4 m.

Therefore, the pressure loss gradient is:

0.3 + 0.4 𝒎𝒃𝒂𝒓

= 𝟎. 𝟓 [ ]
1.4 𝒎
Where,

𝒎𝒃𝒂𝒓
log 0.5 = −𝟎. 𝟑𝟎 [ ]
𝒎

Δ𝑃𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 and Δ𝑃𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 are specified in tables (state numbers) for every water flow rate.

To calculate the pressure drop factor using Equation 1:

Taking the Δ𝑃𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 21.70 [𝑚𝑏𝑎𝑟] at L = 6 [L/min]

Δ𝑃𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 is in [inch H2O/ft of packing], therefore, conversion of units must first be done before
calculating Fp.

23
To convert Δ𝑃𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 :

0.401865 𝑖𝑛 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 1 1𝑚 𝒊𝒏 𝑯𝟐𝑶

21.70 𝑚𝑏𝑎𝑟 ∗ ∗ ∗ = 𝟏. 𝟗𝟎 [ ]
1𝑚𝑏𝑎𝑟 1.4𝑚 3.2808𝑓𝑡 𝒇𝒕 𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈

Using Equation 1

Δ𝑃𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 0.115𝐹𝑝0.7

And rearranging to get Fp:

1
1.90 0.7 𝒊𝒏 𝑯𝟐𝑶
𝐹𝑝 = ( ) = 𝟓𝟒. 𝟗𝟏 [ ]
0.115 𝒇𝒕 𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈

The actual Fp is equal to 2228.25 m-1 (after using interpolation).

2228.25/3.2808 = 679.18 ft-1.

The percent error is calculated:

𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 − 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 679.18 − 54.91

∗ 100% = ∗ 100% = 𝟗𝟏. 𝟗𝟐%
𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 679.18

To calculate Fp from Eckert plot:

Taking density of water = 1000 kg/m3, L = 6 [L/min] is converted to Gx [kg/m2.s]:

6 𝐿 1 𝑚𝑖𝑛 1 𝑚3 1000 𝑘𝑔 1 𝒌𝒈
∗ ∗ ∗ 3
∗ 2
= 𝟏𝟗. 𝟖𝟗 [ 𝟐 ]
𝑚𝑖𝑛 60 𝑠 1000 𝐿 𝑚 0.0050207 𝑚 𝒎 .𝒔

24
G is also converted to Gy [kg/m2.s]:

60 𝐿 1 𝑚𝑖𝑛 1 𝑚3 1.225 𝑘𝑔 1 𝒌𝒈
∗ ∗ ∗ 3
∗ 2
= 𝟎. 𝟐𝟒 [ 𝟐 ]
𝑚𝑖𝑛 60 𝑠 1000 𝐿 𝑚 0.0050207 𝑚 𝒎 .𝒔

Using equation 3:

𝐺𝑥 𝜌𝑦
𝐹= √
𝐺𝑦 𝜌𝑥 − 𝜌𝑦

The flow factor, F, is:

19.89 1.225
𝐹= √ = 2.86
0.24 1000 − 1.225

Using Eckert plot in Figure 5, the corresponding value, to F, in the y-axis is the capacity factor Ψ =
0.00971. So, to calculate the Fp from Equation 2:

𝐺𝑦2 𝐹𝑝 𝜇0.1
Ψ=
(𝜌𝑥 − 𝜌𝑦 )𝜌𝑦

Rearranging and taking viscosity of water = 8.9x10-4 Pa.s, Fp is:

Ψ ∗ (𝜌𝑥 − 𝜌𝑦 )𝜌𝑦 0.00971 ∗ (1000 − 1.225) ∗ 1.225 403.67 1𝑚

𝐹𝑝 = = = ∗ = 𝟏𝟐𝟑. 𝟎𝟒 [𝒇𝒕−𝟏 ]
𝐺𝑦2 𝜇 0.1 0.242 ∗ (0.00089)0.1 𝑚 3.2808𝑓𝑡

The error is:

679.18 − 123.04
∗ 100% = 𝟖𝟏. 𝟖𝟖%
679.18

25
To plot the capacity factor against the transport property factor:

Taking Fp = 123.73 ft-1, and using Equation 2, Ψ:

0.242 ∗ 123.73 ∗ 0.000890.1

Ψ= = 𝟐. 𝟗𝟖 ∗ 𝟏𝟎−𝟑
(1000 − 1.225) ∗ 1.225

And using Equations 4, the transport property factor, 𝝋, is:

𝐺𝑦2 𝜇0.1 0.242 ∗ 0.000890.1

φ= = = 𝟐. 𝟒 ∗ 𝟏𝟎−𝟓
(𝜌𝑥 − 𝜌𝑦 )𝜌𝑦 (1000 − 1.225) ∗ 1.225

From the graph plotted in figure (number), the slope, which is the Fp, is equal to 123.73 ft-1, and the
error is:

679.18 − 123.73
∗ 100% = 𝟖𝟏. 𝟕𝟖%
679.18

To construct an Eckert plot:

The flow factor, F, is calculated from Equation 3 for every gas low rate of each water flow rate. Also, the
capacity factor, Ψ, is calculated from Equation 2 using the average Fp = 123.73 ft-1 for every gas flow rate
of each water flow rate. For each water flow rate, the Ψ vs. F are plotted.

From the experimental Eckert plot:

At L = 6 [L/min] and Gy = 0.24 [kg/m2.s], F is calculated from Equation 3:

26
 19.89 1.225
𝐹= √ = 2.86
0.24 1000 − 1.225

The corresponding Ψ𝑒𝑥𝑝 from the experimental Eckert plot is 0.0030, therefore, the Fp calculated as:

Ψ ∗ (𝜌𝑥 − 𝜌𝑦 )𝜌𝑦 0.0030 ∗ (1000 − 1.225) ∗ 1.225 123.53 1𝑚

𝐹𝑝 = 2 0.1
= 2 0.1
= ∗ = 𝟑𝟕. 𝟔𝟓 [𝒇𝒕−𝟏 ]
𝐺𝑦 𝜇 0.24 ∗ (0.00089) 𝑚 3.2808𝑓𝑡

The error is:

679.18 − 37.65
∗ 100% = 𝟗𝟒. 𝟒𝟔%
679.18

To find a constant using the Zena correlation:

Gx at 6 [L/min] = 19.89 [kg/m2.s] is converted to [gal/min.ft2], Q:

𝑘𝑔 𝑚3 264.17 𝑔𝑎𝑙 1𝑚2 60𝑠 𝒈𝒂𝒍

19.89 ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ = 𝟐𝟗. 𝟐𝟗 [ ]
𝑚2 . 𝑠 1000 𝑘𝑔 1 𝑚3 10.76364864𝑓𝑡 2 𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝒎𝒊𝒏. 𝒇𝒕𝟐

and Gy = 60 [L/min] = 0.24 [kg/m2.s] is converted to [ft3/min.ft2], V:

𝑘𝑔 𝑚3 35.3145 𝑓𝑡 3 1𝑚2 60𝑠 𝒇𝒕𝟑

0.24 ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ = 𝟑𝟗. 𝟏𝟔 [ ]
𝑚2 . 𝑠 1.225 𝑘𝑔 1 𝑚3 10.76364864𝑓𝑡 2 𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝒎𝒊𝒏. 𝒇𝒕𝟐

So,
1 1 1
𝑉 3 + 𝑄 2 = 39.163 + 29.290.5 = 𝟖. 𝟖𝟏

27
Discussion
As packed columns are essential units found in multiple chemical industries for absorption
applications, an experiment was performed on a packed bed column filled with 10 mm x 10mm
glass Rasching rings in which the liquid phase material involved, water, is brought in to contact
with a gas phase material, air. This column was operated for the aim of studying and testing the
meaning of loading and floating points as well as the effects of the manipulation of water and air
flow rate towards the flooding point. A part from that, the pressure drop over the column was
found as function of air flow at different water flows and a relationship between the pressure drop
and gas flow rates was established. Since the packing material used in the column, glass Rasching
rings, has particular characteristics, its packing factor (pressure drop factor) was determined
experimentally using two different methods and compared with the exact theoretical value.

Initially, the packed bed was operated at a constant water flow rate of 2.0 L/min and the air flow
rate was increased by 20 L/min intervals; starting from 30 L/min. All readings of pressure drop
were then recorded. The water flow rate was then adjusted to 5.0 L/min and pressure drop values
were recorded at increasing air flow rates. The same procedure was repeated for liquid flow rates
of 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0 L /min. The loading and flooding points were detected at all different runs. As
shown in Tables 2,3,4,5 and 6, each different sets of flow rates generates various pressure drops.
Generally, at a certain liquid flow rate, as the gas flow increases, in other words as the gas velocity
increases, its tendency to flow up to the top of the column asserting the liquid to accumulate in the
packed column increases generating a higher pressure drop value. A point at which gas with a
minimum flow rate restricts the flow of liquid towards the bottom of the column is a loading point.
At a maximum increase in the gas flow the gas will push the liquid away to the top of the column
causing flooding to occur and high pressure drop is detected. Flooding can occur when the water
flow rate is too high so that it increases the resistance to gas flow up through the column. At a
water flow of 2.0 L/min no sign of loading or flooding was detected, that is because the liquid flow
rate is two low for an accumulation to occur in the packed area. Gas and liquid will flow in opposite
directions with no restrictions. The data recorded, confirmed all the concepts being discussed. At
a water flow of 5.0 L/min, the loading point occurred at 60 L/min air flow while the flooding point
occurred at 70 L/min air flow rate. The pressure drop at which the loading and flooding points
occurred were 7.3 mbar and 11.7 mbar respectively. The loading and flooding points were detected
at lower gas flow rates as the water flow rate increases. At a water flow of 6.0 L/min, the loading
point was detected at an air flow rate of 40 L/min and a pressure drop of 6.0 mbar while the
flooding occurred at 60 L/min and pressure drop of 21.7mbar. The loading point and flooding
points occurred at least gas flow rates of 20 L/min and 35 L/min respectively at a liquid flow rate
of 8 L/min. Figure 14 shows the relation between Log Pressure Losses Gradient (log ∆P/L) and
Log Gas Flow Rate (log Gy) for different liquid flow rates (L). This graph ensures that pressure
drop over the column increases as the gas flow rates for a specific liquid flow rate of (2, 5, 6, 7, or
8 L /min) increase. Also, as the water flow rate increases, the gradient of the graph increases
meaning that the time taken for the column to reach flooding point becomes dumpier.

28
The pressure drop packing factor that characterize the packing material, which is Raschig ring
packing material, was found to be empirically 679.18 ft-1 as shown in Table A. Based on Kister’s
correlation, the specific flooding pressures found experimentally at different water flow rates
starting with a water flow rate of 5.0 L/min were substituted into Equation 1. Pressure drop packing
factor Fp was found as an average of the Fp values determined from the experimental data. From
Table # the values at different runs are 22.72 ft-1, 54.91 ft-1, 76.22 ft-1, and 48.52 ft-1respectively
with percentage errors of 96.66%, 91.92 %, 88.78%, and 92.86% The latter figures indicate that
the pressure drop packing factor Fp values are not close to each other and to the theoretical value.
However, the specific flooding pressure drop should be constant as it is independent of the gas and
liquid flow. Comparing the experimental average presser drop packing factor Fp value calculated
using Kister’s correlation which comes to be 50.59 ft-1 with the theoretical value, the experimental
value was far from the standard value, resulting in a percentage error of 92.55%. Using the Eckert
plot, the pressure drop factors were calculated based on the flow factor and the specific flooding
pressure drop. The values of Fp were found to be 147.44 ft-1, 123.04 ft-1, 112.69 ft-1, and 111.77
ft-1 with a percentage error rage of [78.29 % - 83.54 %]. The average value was found to be 123.73
ft-1 with a percentage error of 81.78 % compared to the standard value. Moreover, a plot of the
capacity factor against the transport property factor was constructed using the experimentally
determined specific flooding pressure drop Δ P in order to find pressure drop factor Fp. The graph
shown in Figure 15 indicates a linear relationship between the capacity factor 𝜓 and the transport
property factor 𝜑. The slope of the linear curve represents the value of pressure drop factor. The
value was found to be 123.73 ft-1 with a percentage error of 81.78% compared to the standard
value. The percentage error of 81.78 % value is the least which indicates that the Eckert plot and
the capacity factor versus transport property factor method were the most effective. An Eckert plot
was constructed in order to show the isobars between the loading line and the flooding line on the
basis of the experimental data as well as to determine the pressure drop packing factors Fp at all
gas flow rates of a different water flow rates. The packing factors calculated using the constructed
Eckert plot as shown in Table 17 were 37.72 ft-1, 37.65 ft-1, 37.64 ft-1, and 37.63 ft-1 of an average
37.66 ft-1. The average pressure drop packing factor differs from the standard value with a
percentage error of 94.46 %. To certify that the flooding in the column changes uniformly at
different water flow rates, Zena correlation for flooding was used. From Table # shows Zena
Constants for water flow rates of 5 L/min, 6 L/min, 7 L/min, and 8 L/min; the values obtained
were 8.52, 8.8, 8.93, and 9.09 respectively with an average of 8.84. The Constants were close to
each other; this indicates that the flooding points detected were correct.

In fact, since experiments cannot be done with perfect certainty, the reason for the inaccurate
results could be due to the following sources of error encountered while performing the
experiment:

 Opening the air and water valve to a higher flow rate than the desired values
 Forgetting to adjust the flow rate of gas and water when they deviate from the required
value

29
  Recording the data before the system stabilizes
 Not reading the results at the exact time
 Not increasing the flow rates gradually to reach the specific flow rate required
 A failure in the sensors and flow meters
 A fracture in the pipes will end up in wrong flow rate values

Conclusion
In conclusion, packed bed absorption column experiment is one of the important chemical
engineering laboratory experiments performed. It is done to realize the mechanism of a packed
column and learn how to identify the loading and flooding points. At this experiment, the pressure
drop values were recorded at different water and gas flow rates until flooding points are reached.
At different water flow rates, the air flow rates varied until loading and flooding points were
reached and investigated. It was found that the pressure drop increases as the gas flow rate
increases. Also, at higher water flow rates, the loading and flooding points will occur at slighter
gas flow rates. Different possible methods /correlations were used to calculate the pressure drop
factor. This value was compared with the standard value of 679.18 ft-1. Based on Kister’s
correlation the average pressure drop packing factor was found to be 50.59 ft-1 with a percentage
error of 92.55%. Using Eckert plot, the average pressure drop packing factor was found to be -
123.73 ft-1 with a percentage error of 81.78 %. A plot of the capacity factor versus the property
factor was constructed to find the pressure drop packing factor as the slope of the graph, which
was found to be 123.73 ft-1 with a percentage error of 81.78%. Moreover, An Eckert plot was
constructed based on experimental data to find the pressure drop packing factors Fp at all gas flow
rates of a different water flow rates. The average value was found to be 37.66 ft-1with a percentage
error of 94.46 %. The best approaches that yields to the closest result to the theoretical value were
Eckert plot and the capacity factor versus transport property factor method. This experiment can
be improved by repeating the experiment more than once for more effective results. Taking the
gas flow rates at smaller intervals like 2 or 5 intervals will result in more accurate loading and
flooding points detection. Also, it will be more operative if water and gas flow rates are assigned
automatically by including an automatic valve controller as well as using a computer software to
record the values.

30
References
[1] E. Gomes and I. Zuburtikudis, Heat Exchanger Experiment. Abu Dhabi: Abu Dhabi
University, 2017.

[2] "Experiment (5) Absorption with Chemical Reaction", 2017. [Online]. Available:
https://classes.engineering.wustl.edu/2009/fall/che473/handouts/PackedBed.pdf.
[Accessed: 28- Oct- 2017].

[3] "Plant Operations: Packings", Separationprocesses.com, 2017. [Online]. Available:

http://www.separationprocesses.com/Operations/POT_Chp02f.htm. [Accessed: 28- Oct-
2017].

[4] "Application of Packed Bed Column Distillation in Industry | Distillation | Chemical

Process Engineering", Scribd, 2014. [Online]. Available:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/219202796/Application-of-Packed-Bed-Column-
Distillation-in-Industry. [Accessed: 29- Oct- 2017].

[5] "Packed bed - encyclopedia article - Citizendium", En.citizendium.org, 2013. [Online].

Available: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Packed_bed. [Accessed: 29- Oct- 2017].

[6] Packed Bed Column. 2017.

[7] Random vs. Stacked Packings. 2017.

31