1.

Introduction

Absorption or gas absorption is a unit operation used in chemical industry and

increasingly in environmental applications. It a mass-transfer process in which a vapor
solute A in a gas mixture is absorbed by means of a liquid in which the solute is more or
less soluble. An example is the absorption of the solute ammonia from air.

Figure 1. Packed tower

A common apparatus used in gas absorption is the packed tower (Figure 1). The
device consists of a cylindrical column, or tower, equipped with a gas inlet and
distributing space at the bottom, a liquid inlet and distributing device at the top, gas and
liquid outlet at the top and bottom respectively, and supported mass of inert solid shapes,
called packing. Packed columns are relatively simple devices compared to plate columns.
They can be categorized according to the type of flow used in the operation: counter
current, co-current, and crosscurrent modes. The column used in this experiment is
operated in countercurrent flow, which is the most frequently used type operation.
 In a given packed tower with a given type and size of packing and with definite
flow of liquid, the upper limit to the rate of gas flow is called the flooding velocity. The
tower cannot operate above this gas velocity. In a countercurrent packed gas-liquid tower,
the gas phase will pass upward through the column. In order to let the gas phase flow,
there must be a sufficient pressure drop to overcome the friction and form drag caused by
the packing and the falling liquid. The liquid must fall down against this pressure drop by
means of gravitational force. Once the liquid is distributed over the top of the packing,
the liquid ideally flows in thin films over the entire packing surface, but what really
happens is the films tend to grow thicker in some places and thinner in others, so that the
liquid collects into small rivulets and flows along localized paths through the packing,
especially at low liquid rates. This is known as channeling. Loading point is the point
where the liquid will start to accumulate in the column and when the gas flow increases
further, flooding point is reached. It is the point when the liquid in the column will
overflow.

2. Objectives of the experiment

 Determine experimentally the pressured drop across a wet packed column as a

function of the air flow rate and compare the results with theoretically calculated
values
 Determine through visual observation and by graphical methods the loading and
flooding points of the packed column at preset values of water flow rates
 Construct form experimental data the loading and flooding curves of the packed
column based on the generalized correlations proposed by Sherwood, Shipley and
Holloway

3. Methodology

3.1 Materials
 Water
3.2 Equipment and Apparatus

 Packed Absorption Column (with Raschig ring random packing)

 Stopwatch
 Thermometer

Figure 1. Packed Absorption Column

Parts of a Packed Absorption Column

(1) Sump tank

(2) Valve in the discharge pipe to the sump tank
(3) Water(left) and mercury(right) manometers
(4) Air Flow meter
(5) Gas analyzing equipment
(6) Air flow valve
(7) Upper stopcock (S2)
(8) Water flow valve
(9) Air flow meter
(10) CO2flow meter
(11) Lower Stop cock (S3)
(12) Air pump
(13) Water pump
(14) Down-coming tube

3.3 Procedures

3.3-1. Preliminary Preparations

The valve in the water discharge tube was opened while the drains under the tank
and down-coming tube were closed. The tank was filled with distilled water up to three
fourth its volume. The three 3-way cocks between the column and manometer were
positioned in such a way that only the water manometer is used to measure the pressure
drop.

3.3-2. Pressure Drop in a Wetted Column

In this part of the experiment, the pressure drop in a wetted column was
determined using conditions number two (2) from Table 422-5.1 of the manual. The gas
and water flow meters and the stopcocks were closed, while C4 was fully opened. The
water pump was switched on and the flow rate was set to 3-4 liters/minutes. The pump
ran for two to three minutes before the pump was turned off. The column was drained for
five minutes. With S2 and S3 open, manometer readings of pressure differences across
the column were taken for airflow rates ranging from 20 to 170 liters/minute starting with
low rates. Another trial was done but this time starting with the highest flow rate which is
from 170 down to 20 liters/minute. At least ten flow rates were tested for each trial. The
operational temperatures of the liquid and the gas were recorded at the start and end of
the experiment. The pressure drop across the wet column were calculated from using the
manometer readings obtained. These experimental values were plotted against air flow
rates and were compared with theoretical values.

3.3-3. Identifying the Loading and Flooding Points

In this part of the experiment the loading and flooding points of the packed
column were identified using conditions number two (2) for Part C from Table 422-5.1 of
the manual. The operational temperatures of the liquid and the gas were recorded at the
start and end of this experiment. For each assigned value of water flow rate, ten air flow
rates were applied ranging from 20 to 170 liters/minute. Visual observations of the
column at each setting were noted and through this the loading and flooding points of the
column were identified. The loading point is the point when water started to accumulate
the column while the flooding point is the point when the water level has reached the top
of the packing in the column. Manometer readings of pressure difference across the
column were recorded per air flow rate. Pressure drop was calculated and plotted against
gas mass velocity to determine the loading and flooding points graphically. Using
experimental data the loading and flooding curves of the packed column were constructed
based on the generalized correlations proposed by Sherwood, Shipley and Holloway.

3.3-4. Shut Down Operations

After the experiment, the water tank and the water from the down-coming tube
were drained and then their valves were closed.
4. Results and Discussions

4.1 Pressure Drop in a Wetted Column

Table 1. Pressure Drop in a Wetted Column with Increasing Air Flow Rate
∆P (Pa)
Air Flow Rate (L/min) ∆H (m) velocity (m/s) ∆P/H
Actual Theoretical
20 0.001 9.7710543 25.09789 0.075451232 13.38501
35 0.003 29.3131629 43.10072 0.132039656 40.15502
50 0.005 48.8552715 65.84833 0.188628081 66.92503
65 0.007 68.3973801 93.34113 0.245216505 93.69504
80 0.01 97.710543 125.5781 0.301804929 133.8501
95 0.014 136.7947602 162.5597 0.358393353 187.3901
110 0.018 175.8789774 204.2851 0.414981778 240.9301
125 0.022 214.9631946 250.7554 0.471570202 294.4701
140 0.034 332.2158462 301.9668 0.528158626 455.0902
155 0.039 371.3000634 357.9249 0.58474705 522.0152
170 0.044 390.842172 418.6293 0.641335474 588.9403
* Twater = 29°C, Tair = 26°C

Table 2. Pressure Drop in a Wetted Column with Decreasing Air Flow Rate
Air Flow Rate ∆P (Pa)
∆H (m) velocity (m/s) ∆P/H
(L/min) Actual Theoretical
170 0.048 469.0765296 93.62101 0.641335474 642.5706
155 0.041 400.6695357 79.26914 0.58474705 548.8624
140 0.035 342.0349695 66.24251 0.528158626 468.5411
125 0.028 273.6279756 54.5416 0.471570202 374.8328
110 0.021 205.2209817 44.16075 0.414981778 281.1246
95 0.016 156.3588432 35.10377 0.358393353 214.1902
80 0.012 117.2691324 27.36952 0.301804929 160.6426
65 0.008 78.1794216 20.95889 0.245216505 107.0951
50 0.006 58.6345662 15.8714 0.188628081 80.32132
35 0.003 29.3172831 12.10808 0.132039656 40.16066
20 0.003 29.3172831 9.668494 0.075451232 40.16066
* Twater = 29°C, Tair = 26°C

The experimental and theoretical pressure drops in a wetted column at increasing

and decreasing air flow rates are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. As evident in the
tables presented above, the pressure loss increases with increasing gas flow rate. A
greater manometer reading is obtained when the air flow rate is increased thus a greater
pressure drop. The pressure drop will increase because of the drag force against the
packing and the falling water.

Air Flow Rates

700

600

500

400 Theoretical Pressure Drop

∆P/H

300 Decreasing Air Flow Rate

Increasing Air Flow Rate
200
Dry Column
100

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
v (m/s)

Figure 2. Comparison between the experimental and theoretical pressure drop in a

wetted column
 As shown in Figure 2, the experimental pressure drop increases as the air flow
rate is increased and the reverse can be observed for the decreasing air flow rate. It can
also be observed that the theoretical pressure drop is lesser than the actual. This is
because of the assumptions made in the calculation of the theoretical value. A smooth
pipe was assumed

2.2 Visual and Graphical Determination of the Loading and Flooding Points of the
Packed Bed at Pre-set Water Flow Rates

Flooding and loading points were determined both graphically and through visual
observation. Loading point was observed when the water started to accumulate at the
base of the column whereas the flooding point was observed when the water level
reached the topmost part of the packing in the column.

The loading and flooding point was determined graphically by plotting log
(∆P/∆L) against log vo which is shown in figure 3. The points where there is a drastic
change in the slope of the curve are the loading and flooding points.

Table 3. Loading and Flooding Points obtained graphically and visually

Water flow Air flow rate (L/min)
rate (L/min) Loading point Flooding point
visual graphical Visual graphical
1.5 140 135.187 - -
2.0 125 115.041 155 -
2.5 110 94.101 135 130.150
3.0 95 80.052 110 95.161
3.5 70 73.160 110 91.980
4.5 65 58.581 80 72.365
5.0 50 53.014 75 64.678
 Based on the table above, it is observed that as the liquid water flow rate is
increased, the air flow rates at which loading and flooding are observed decrease. This
occurs because the higher the water flow rate, the easier it is for the liquid to accumulate
due to the significant decrease in the area of path of the gas to flow. The area is decreased
by the resisting liquid flow countercurrent to the flow of gas.

For the graphical method, the flooding point was not reached for water flow rates
1.5 L/min and 2.0 L/min because it was observed that the height of the water almost
reached the topmost part of the column therefore no further readings were made.

2.2 Loading and Flooding Curves of the Packed Column From Experimental Data
Based on the Generalized Correlations Proposed by Sherwood, Shipley and
Holloway

Empirical correlations for various random packing based on experimental data are
used to predict the pressure drop in the gas flow. Sherwood, Shipley and Holloway
proposed the first generalized correlation for flooding of packed columns based on tests
done with air-water systems.
 0.3 3
Loading Based on Visual
Observation
Flooding Based on Visual
Observation
0.01
Loading Based on
Graphical Method
Flooding Based on
Graphical Method
Power (Loading Based on
Visual Observation)
Power (Flooding Based
on Visual Observation)
Power (Loading Based on
Graphical Method)
Power (Flooding Based
on Graphical Method)
0.001

Figure 4. Generalized Pressure Drop Correlation

Figure 4 shows the flooding line and loading line based on both visual observation and
graphical method. The flooding and the loading points obtained through visual
observation are slightly greater than the one obtained graphically, this is because the
increments of the air flow rates experimentally are big which makes it difficult to
determine the exact flooding and loading point, unlike graphically wherein the trend of
the curve can be clearly seen.

The Y-axis represents the capacity parameter and the X-axis is the flow
parameter. The flow parameter corresponds to the liquid-to-gas kinetic energy ratio while
the capacity parameter is a function of the square of the actual gas velocity [Seader,
2006]. The figure above shows that the capacity parameter decreases with increasing
flow parameter. This is because an increase in water flow rate increases the liquid-to-gas
kinetic energy. A decrease in this ratio causes a decrease in the capacity parameter.
5. Conclusion

Absorption is a unit operation that contacts two phases—usually a gas and a

liquid—where the more gas soluble solute is absorbed from the liquid. To increase
contact between the two and increase efficiency as a consequence, packed beds are used.
The presence of the packed beds requires greater pressure for the gas to flow past it and
this result in pressure loss. As the air flow rate is increased, the resulting pressure drops
increase as well. This is in agreement with the results if the pressure losses are to be
calculated theoretically. The use of Erguns equation for the pressure drop in a packed
bed, as well as Hagen-Poisuille equation to account for the parts of the absorption column
free of the packings, gives an increasing pressure loss with increasing air flow rates.

One major problem that has to be given attention when it comes to absorption is
that of flooding. Flooding is the point at which the liquid overflows the column as a result
of a high air flow rate. The prelude to this point is the loading point which can be
observed as the start of accumulation of the liquid in the packings. Aside from these
visual observations, the flooding and loading points can be determined using the
graphical method as well. These help in the designing of the absorption tower as most
equipment run on 50-70% only of the flooding velocity; that is why it is important to
know these two velocities.

Sherwood, Shipley and Holloway were some of the first people that proposed a
generalized correlation for flooding and loading of packed columns. They plotted the
ratio of the kinetic energy of the gas to the potential energy in the liquid versus the flow
parameter—a dimensionless number that measures the relative kinetic energy of the
system. This gives a downward slope curve resulting from tests using a broad range of air
and water velocities. In the experiment, only a part of this curve was achieved.
6. References

Geankoplis, C.J. (2009). Transport Processes and Unit Operations.4th Edition.

Prentice Hall,New Jersey.
Henley, E.J., Seader, J.D. (2006).Separation Process Principles.2nd Edition. John
Wiley & Sons., New Jersey.
McCabe,W.L. et.al. (2001). Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering.6th Edition,
McGraw-Hill., New York.
VII. Appendices

Appendix A. Sample Calculations

Solving for Actual Pressure Drop:

Δ𝑃 = 𝜌𝑔(ℎ2 − ℎ1 )
where ρ = density of water (kg/cb. m) taken at average temperature
Ex: Δ𝑃 = 996.03 × 9.81 × (10.6 − 10.4)
Δ𝑃 = 19.5421 𝑃𝑎
Solving for the Velocity:
v = 𝜙𝐴 × (𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑠) ÷ (𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛)
where 𝜙𝐴 = volumetric flow rate of air (L/min)
1 𝑚𝑖𝑛 1 𝑚3 1
Ex: v = 65 × (60 𝑠𝑒𝑐) (1000 𝐿) (0.00442 𝑚2 )

𝑣 = 0.245 𝑚/𝑠

Solving for Theoretical Pressure Drop:

150𝜇𝑎 𝑎𝑝 𝑣∆𝐿 (1 − 𝜀)2 1.75𝑣 2 𝑎𝑝 ∆𝐿 (1 − 𝜀) (𝐻 − ∆𝐿) 𝑣 2
Δ𝑃 = + + 𝜌𝑔𝐻 + 4𝑓𝜌
𝜌𝑎 𝜀2 𝜌𝑎 𝜀3 𝐷 2
where 𝜇𝑎 = viscosity of air (kg/ms)
𝜀 = porosity
𝜌𝑎 = density of air (kg/cb. m)
𝑎𝑝 = total packing area
𝑣 = velocity of air flow
∆𝐿 = height of packings
𝐻 = height of column
𝐷 = diameter of column
 150 × 1.849 × 10−5 × 420 × 0.2452 × 0.54 (1 − 0.63)2
Δ𝑃 =
1.1833 0.632
1.75 × 0.24522 × 420 × 0.54 (1 − .63)
+ + 1.1833 × 9.81 × 0.73 + 4
1.1833 . 633
(0.73 − 0.54) 0.24522
× 0.0142 × 1.1833
0.075 2
Δ𝑃 = 43.848 𝑃𝑎

Appendix B. Tables

Table 4. Graphical determination of loading and flooding points (φw= 1.5 L/min)
Air
Flow
∆H velocity
Rate h1 h2 ∆P (Pa) ∆P/H log v log dP/H
(m) (m/s)
(L/mi
n)
20 0.0 0.6 0.006 58.630446 0.075451232 40.15784 -1.12233 1.60377
35 -0.2 0.9 0.011 107.48915 0.132039656 73.62271 -0.8793 1.867012
50 -0.5 1.2 0.017 166.1196 0.188628081 113.7805 -0.72439 2.056068
65 -1.0 1.9 0.029 283.38049 0.245216505 194.0962 -0.61045 2.288017
80 -1.8 3.5 0.053 517.90227 0.301804929 354.7276 -0.52027 2.549895
95 -3.1 4.7 0.078 762.1958 0.358393353 522.0519 -0.44564 2.717714
110 -4.2 4.9 0.091 889.22843 0.414981778 609.0606 -0.38197 2.78466
125 -5.4 7.0 0.124 1211.6959 0.471570202 829.9287 -0.32645 2.919041
140 -9.0 9.8 0.188 1837.0873 0.528158626 1258.279 -0.27724 3.099777
155 -12.6 14.4 0.27 2638.3701 0.58474705 1807.103 -0.23303 3.256983
170 -21.0 22.4 0.434 4240.9356 0.641335474 2904.75 -0.19291 3.463109
Table 5. Graphical determination of loading and flooding points (φw= 2 L/min)

∆H
Air Flow Rate (L/min) h1 h2 ∆P (Pa) velocity (m/s) ∆P/H
(m)

20 0.0 0.6 0.006 58.634566 0.075451232 40.16066

35 -0.2 0.8 0.01 97.724277 0.132039656 66.93444
50 -0.6 1.2 0.018 175.9037 0.188628081 120.482
65 -1.1 2.7 0.038 371.35225 0.245216505 254.3509
80 -2.2 3.9 0.061 596.11809 0.301804929 408.3001
95 -3.3 4.0 0.073 713.38722 0.358393353 488.6214
110 -5.1 5.6 0.107 1045.6498 0.414981778 716.1985
125 -7.8 10.0 0.178 1739.4921 0.471570202 1191.433
140 -15.0 16.4 0.314 3068.5423 0.528158626 2101.741
155 -24.6 26.8 0.514 5023.0278 0.58474705 3440.43

Table 6. Graphical determination of loading and flooding points (φw= 2.5 L/min)

∆H
Air Flow Rate (L/min) h1 h2 ∆P (Pa) velocity (m/s) ∆P/H
(m)

20 10.4 10.8 0.004 39.092458 0.075451232 26.77566

35 10.1 11.1 0.01 97.731144 0.132039656 66.93914
50 9.6 11.6 0.02 195.46229 0.188628081 133.8783
65 8.6 12.5 0.039 381.15146 0.245216505 261.0626
80 7.4 13.8 0.064 625.47932 0.301804929 428.4105
95 6.2 15.1 0.089 869.80718 0.358393353 595.7583
110 0.0 20.4 0.204 1993.7153 0.414981778 1365.558
130 -6.0 27.0 0.33 3225.1278 0.49043301 2208.992
135 -24.0 46.0 0.7 6841.1801 0.509295818 4685.74
Table 7. Graphical determination of loading and flooding points (φw= 3 L/min)

Air Flow Rate (L/min) h1 h2 ∆H (m) ∆P (Pa) velocity (m/s) ∆P/H

20 10.4 10.9 0.005 48.865572 0.075451232 33.46957

35 10.2 11.2 0.01 97.731144 0.132039656 66.93914
50 9.4 11.8 0.024 234.55475 0.188628081 160.6539
65 8.2 13.2 0.05 488.65572 0.245216505 334.6957
80 6.8 14.6 0.078 762.30292 0.301804929 522.1253
95 2.0 19.8 0.178 1739.6144 0.358393353 1191.517
100 -3.4 26.8 0.302 2951.4805 0.377256161 2021.562
105 -17.0 40.0 0.57 5570.6752 0.396118969 3815.531
110 -22.0 44.0 0.66 6450.2555 0.414981778 4417.983

Table 8. Graphical determination of loading and flooding points (φw= 3.5 L/min)

Air Flow Rate (L/min) h1 h2 ∆H (m) ∆P (Pa) velocity (m/s) ∆P/H

20 10.6 10.8 0.002 19.544855 0.075451232 13.38689

35 10.2 11.2 0.01 97.724277 0.132039656 66.93444
50 9.4 12.2 0.028 273.62798 0.188628081 187.4164
60 8.8 12.8 0.04 390.89711 0.226353697 267.7377
70 7.4 14.0 0.066 644.98023 0.264079313 441.7673
80 5.4 17.2 0.118 1153.1465 0.301804929 789.8263
90 1.2 22.4 0.212 2071.7547 0.339530545 1419.01
100 -7.2 31.4 0.386 3772.1571 0.377256161 2583.669
110 -20.2 44.8 0.65 6352.078 0.414981778 4350.738
Table 9. Graphical determination of loading and flooding points (φw= 4.5 L/min)

Air Flow Rate (L/min) h1 h2 ∆H (m) ∆P (Pa) velocity (m/s) ∆P/H

20 0.3 0.6 0.003 29.317283 0.075451232 20.08033

35 -0.1 1.1 0.012 117.26913 0.132039656 80.32132
50 -1.7 2.6 0.043 420.21439 0.188628081 287.8181
65 -4.2 5.6 0.098 957.69791 0.245216505 655.9575
70 -6.0 7.6 0.136 1329.0502 0.264079313 910.3083
75 -11.4 13.8 0.252 2462.6518 0.282942121 1686.748
80 -21.0 23.8 0.448 4378.0476 0.301804929 2998.663
81 -34.0 35.0 0.69 6742.9751 0.305577491 4618.476

Table 10. Graphical determination of loading and flooding points (φw= 5 L/min)

Air Flow Rate (L/min) h1 h2 ∆H (m) ∆P (Pa) velocity (m/s) ∆P/H

20 0.0 0.6 0.006 58.630446 0.075451232 40.15784

30 -0.3 0.9 0.012 117.26089 0.113176848 80.31568
40 -0.9 1.5 0.024 234.52178 0.150902465 160.6314
50 -1.2 2.8 0.04 390.86964 0.188628081 267.7189
53 -2.6 3.2 0.058 566.76098 0.199945766 388.1925
60 -4.0 4.4 0.084 820.82624 0.226353697 562.2098
65 -6.0 6.0 0.12 1172.6089 0.245216505 803.1568
70 -14.0 15.8 0.298 2911.9788 0.264079313 1994.506
75 -22.0 32.0 0.54 5276.7401 0.282942121 3614.206