Packings flood

Flooding, packed towers, 433,441 liquid-liquid, 485 Flow control fluids, 58,59 solids, 43,44... 

Nominal vessel diameter Height of vessel Sump height/height to air inlet Flooded packing weight Material Liquid flow rate Air flow rate Air velocity Pressure drop Vessel Packing Manufacturer Volume (Required)... 

Packing for towers consists of rings, berl saddles, Fiberglas pads, and helices (see Perry s Chemical Engineers Handbook, 3d ed., p. 685). Because of uncertainties of scale-up and ease of flooding, packed towers are seldom used for large-scale operations, being limited to diameters less than 2 ft. 

The packing parameter ( ) (m) reflects the influence of the Hquid flow rate as shown in Figure 20. reflects the influence of the gas flow rate, staying at unity below 50% of the flooding rate but beginning to decrease above this point. At 75% of the flooding velocity, = 0.6. Sc is the Schmidt number of the Hquid. 

Fig. 23. Pressure drop and flooding correlation for various random packings (95). ip = p- o IP-l (standard acceleration of free fall) = 9.81 m/s, p, = liquid viscosity ia mPa-s numbers on lines represent pressure drop, mm H2O /m of packed height to convert to ia. H2O /ft multiply by 0.012. Packing...

Venturi scmbbers can be operated at 2.5 kPa (19 mm Hg) to coUect many particles coarser than 1 p.m efficiently. Smaller particles often require a pressure drop of 7.5—10 kPa (56—75 mm Hg). When most of the particulates are smaller than 0.5 p.m and are hydrophobic, venturis have been operated at pressure drops from 25 to 32.5 kPa (187—244 mm Hg). Water injection rate is typicaUy 0.67—1.4 m of Hquid per 1000 m of gas, although rates as high as 2.7 are used. Increasing water rates improves coUection efficiency. Many venturis contain louvers to vary throat cross section and pressure drop with changes in system gas flow. Venturi scmbbers can be made in various shapes with reasonably similar characteristics. Any device that causes contact of Hquid and gas at high velocity and pressure drop across an accelerating orifice wiU act much like a venturi scmbber. A flooded-disk scmbber in which the annular orifice created by the disc is equivalent to a venturi throat has been described (296). An irrigated packed fiber bed with performance similar to a... 

Fig. 24. Generalized method using log scales for estimating packed column flooding and pressure drop, AP, in kPa/m g = gravitational constant, 9.81 m/s t = kinematic viscosity in mm /s (= cSt) E, G have units of kg/(m s) are in kg/m and the packing factor, F, in can be found in...

If the packing surface is discontinuous in nature, a phase inversion occurs, and gas oubbles through the liquid. The column is not unstable and can be brought back to gas-phase continuous operation by merely reducing the gas rate. Analogously to the flooding condition, the pressure drop rises rapidly as phase inversion occurs. 

A stable operating condition beyond flooding (region CD or C D ) for nonextended surface packing with the liquid as the continuous phase and the gas as the dispersed phase has been reported by Lerner and Grove [Ind. Eng. Chem., 43, 216 (1951)] and Teller [Chem. Eng., 61(9), 168 (1954)]. 

For total-reflux distillations carried out in packed columns, regions of loading and flooding are identified by their effects on mass-transfer efficiency, as shown in Fig. 14-47. Gas and liquid rate increase... 

Flooding and Loading Since flooding or phase inversion normally represents the maximum capacity condition for a packed column, it is desirable to predict its value for new designs. The first generalized correlation of packed-column flood points was developed by Sherwood, Shipley, and Holloway [Ind. Eng. Chem., 30, 768 (1938)] on the basis of laboratory measurements primarily on the air-water system. 

For ordered, or structured, packings, pressure-drop estimation methods have been reviewed by Fair and Bravo [Chem. Eng. Progr, 86(1), 19 (1990)]. It is not common practice to use the packing factor approach for predicling pressure drop or flooding. For operation below the loading point, the model of Bravo et [Hydrocarbon... 

Sepn. Purif., 3, 19 (1989)] takes holdup into account and applies to random as well as structured packings. It is somewhat cumbersome to use and requires three constants for each packing type and size. Such constants have been evaluated, however, For a number of commonly used packings. A more recent pressure drop and holdup model, suitable for extension to the flood point, has been pubhshed by Rocha et al. [Jnd. Eng. Chem. Research, 35, 1660 (1996)]. This model takes into account variations in surface texturing of the different brands of packing. 

---