Fractionation Tray Design Handbook PDF

FRACTIONATION TRAY
DESIGN HANDBOOK
SECTION 8 – RANDOM PACKING
CONTENTS
8.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 2

F.R.I. RESEARCH .............................................................................................................. 3
PACKING CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................................................... 4
8.1 RANDOM PACKING TOWER DESIGN ............................................................................... 7
DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 7
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................. 8
DESIGN BASED ON CAPACITY LIMIT FOR PRESSURE FRACTIONATORS .................14
DESIGN BASED ON PRESSURE DROP LIMIT FOR VACUUM FRACTIONATORS ........18
8.2 RANDOM PACKING TOWER CAPACITY ..........................................................................20
FLOOD CAPACITY PREDICTION FOR METAL RANDOM PACKINGS ...............................20
METAL RANDOM PACKING FLOOD CAPACITY .............................................................20
FLOODING BY SYSTEM LIMIT .........................................................................................22
FLOOD SAFETY FACTOR FOR METAL RANDOM PACKINGS...........................................22
FLOOD CAPACITY PREDICTION FOR NON-METAL RANDOM PACKINGS ......................23
GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR CAPACITY ...................................................25
8.3 RANDOM PACKING TOWER LIQUID HOLDUP AND PRESSURE DROP.........................27
LIQUID HOLDUP FOR METAL RANDOM PACKING ............................................................27
PRESSURE DROP FOR METAL RANDOM PACKING .........................................................29
PRESSURE DROP FOR NON-METAL RANDOM PACKING ................................................30
8.4 RANDOM PACKING TOWER EFFICIENCY .......................................................................33
RANDOM PACKING EFFICIENCY (HETP) PREDICTION ....................................................33
EFFECT OF BED LENGTH ON HETP...............................................................................36
EFFECT OF LIQUID BACK MIXING ON HETP .................................................................37
EFFECT OF VAPOR BACK MIXING ON HETP .................................................................37
HETP SAFETY FACTOR ...................................................................................................38
GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR HETP........................................................40
CONFIDENTIAL - FOR USE BY FRI MEMBERS ONLY

RANDOM PACKING FRACTIONATION TRAY DESIGN HANDBOOK
Issued:
Section 8
Page 2 Revised:
8.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

During the course of the F.R.I. research program several types of random packing have
been studied in the F.R.I. experimental distillation unit. The packings tested are a result of the
history of F.R.I. These tests were conducted in the F.R.I. 4-foot (1.2 m) diameter low pressure
and high-pressure columns and in the 8-foot (2.4 m) diameter section of the low-pressure column.
Various devices for distributing the reflux to the top of the packed bed have been studied at bed
heights from 7 to 35 feet (2.1- 10.7 m). These studies have been conducted at pressures ranging
from 10 mmHg absolute to 500 psia (0.013 –34.5 bar). Details of these studies can be obtained
in Volume 4, Section 8.8, and are referenced in the Report Index, Section 11.0 of Volume 2 of the
F.R.I. Design Handbooks.
Correlations are presented which in general separately cover metal and ceramic packings.
This separation is caused by limitations inherent in the F.R.I. data. Very few proprietary packings
of commercial interest have been tested. Until 1987, F.R.I. did not test proprietary packings at its
own expense. Unless a proprietor chose to have his packing tested and paid for the costs of the
tests, that packing was not tested at F.R.I. Finally, in 1987 F.R.I. decided to test, at its own
expense, a structured packing. In recent years F.R.I. has been voting to test one proprietary
packing a year, but often a structured packing has been chosen over a random packing.
In order to increase the number of random packings tested, F.R.I. did some contract tests
with a smaller column. That work, however, did not prove to be cost effective. The net result is
that the range of packings that F.R.I. has tested doesn't cover well the range in commercial use.
(Note: the metal perforated ring is also an F.R.I. design and is not commercially available.)
Liquid distribution has always been considered important to obtaining good packing
performance. Tests in 1982 indicated that F.R.I.'s earlier packing tests may have yielded
unpredicted low efficiency of the packing because of inadequate liquid distribution. Early tests
often used a notched trough distributor. The packing tested in 1982 was 5/8" Pall rings which is
more sensitive to liquid maldistribution than larger packings. For one system, a high-quality tubed
pan liquid distributor resulted in an average HETP of 15" (with some values as low as 12 inches!),
while the notched trough only managed to have an average HETP of 30" (See September-
October 1982 Progress Report). These further segregates the data into two separate sets, data
with a poor liquid distributor and data with a good liquid distributor.
Random packing columns characteristically have a lower liquid holdup and pressure drop
than tray columns. The pressure drop per theoretical stage of certain packings is lower than
conventional tray type fractionating devices. The performance characteristics of random packings
make them particularly attractive and second only to structured packing in vacuum service. For
high pressure and/or high liquid rate services, random packing is often chosen over structured
packing. Structured packing failures have been reported for these high-pressure services. A
photograph of packing types and sizes which have been tested by F.R.I. is shown in Figure 8.0.1.

Issued:
Section 8
Page 3 Revised:
Figure 8.0.1. RANDOM PACKINGS TESTED BY F.R.I.
F.R.I. RESEARCH
Packing Parameters - The following summarizes the variations in random packing

design parameters studied in the F.R.I. columns:
Type Feximax® 300

Nutter Rings® Pall Ring
Raschig Super Rings® No. 2
Saddle (Ceramic)
Intalox Saddle® (Ceramic)*
Berl Saddle (Ceramic)*
Perforated Ring*
Raschig Ring (Ceramic)*
(*With notched trough distributor)
Size 0.625-3.5 in. (16-89 mm)
Material Ceramic
Carbon Steel
Stainless Steel
Polypropylene
Wall thickness 0.02 to 0.31 in. (0.5-8 mm)
Specific area 14-104 ft2/ft3 (46-341 m2/m3)
Number per unit volume 33-5865/ft3 (1165-207000/m3)
Void fraction 0.71-0.98
Systems Studied - Physical properties of systems used in F.R.I. research on random

packings vary over a wide range.
Property Range

Issued:
Section 8
Page 4 Revised:
Liquid density 20-60 lb/ft3 (320-960 kg/m3)

Vapor density 0.0025-8 lb/ft3 (0.04-128 kg/m3)
Surface tension 0.2-70 dynes/cm ((0.2-70) x 10-3 N/m)

Liquid viscosity 0.035-1.6 centipoise ((0.035-1.6) x 10-3 pa.s)
Vapor viscosity
0.0063-0.017 centipoise ((0.0063-0.017) x 10-3 pa.s)
The systems studied and the ranges of pressures investigated with random packings
are as follows:
System Pressure
Carbon dioxide/absorption oil 200-400 psia (13.8-27.6 bar)
Cyclohexane/n-heptane 4-24 psia (0.28-1.65 bar)
Isobutane/n-butane 100-500 psia (6.9-34.5 bar)
Iso-octane/toluene 20 psia (1.38 bar)
Isopropanol/water 100-760 mm Hg (0.133-1 bar)
Methanol/water 14.7 psia (1 bar)
Methanol/water/acetone 14.7 psia (1 bar)
Octanol/decanol 10 mm Hg (0.013 bar)
P-xylene/o-xylene 16-100 mm Hg (0.021-0.13 bar)
Propylene glycol/ethylene glycol 10-50 mm Hg (0.013-0.067 bar)
Propylene/propane 300-500 psia (20.7-34.5 bar)
Propylene/propane/isobutane/n-butane 300 psia (20.7 bar)
Water/steam 14.7 psia (1 bar)
PACKING CHARACTERISTICS
Figure 8.0.2 is a typical performance diagram for the 2-inch (50 mm) metal Pall ring tested
in the F.R.I. distillation unit with a liquid distributor having good turndown characteristics. This
diagram illustrates the various performance characteristics of packings. All packings have similar
performance characteristics. The flood capacity and system limit plot are a plot of the vapor
capacity factor versus the liquid rate per unit tower area. Other performance parameters are
plotted as functions of the vapor capacity factor under total reflux. All these performance lines are
predicted from F.R.I. models that are discussed in much more detail in subsequent sections.

Issued:
Section 8
Page 5 Revised:
Figure 8.0.2. PERFORMANCE DIAGRAM FOR 2 inch (50 mm) PALL RINGS
Capacity or Flood Point - of random packing is defined by F.R.I. as the point beyond
which the column operation cannot be controlled or the column is inoperable. When approaching
flood, a small increase in liquid or vapor rate will often lead to a step increase in pressure drop
and liquid holdup and cause excessive retention of liquid inside the column, resulting in column
inoperability. The mass transfer efficiency decreases when approaching the flood point. The point
where the mass transfer efficiency starts to decrease can be considered as the packing useful
capacity. There can be a significant capacity difference between the maximum useful capacity
and the hydraulic flood point for modern random packings.
Mass Transfer Efficiency or HETP - of random packing is relatively insensitive to loading

as indicated by F.R.I. tests at total reflux. It also remains quite constant for different systems under
various pressures studied by F.R.I. However, the mass transfer efficiency is very sensitive to the
quality of the liquid distributor.

Issued:
Section 8
Page 6 Revised:
Total (or Wet) Pressure Drop - of random packing is the total pressure drop resulting
from the vapor flow through the packing. It does not include the static head contributed by the
vapor phase. It increases with vapor and liquid rates. Random packing has a much lower pressure
drop per theoretical stage than trays, but higher than structured packings as shown in Figure
8.0.3.
Figure 8.0.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED PRESSURE DROP/STAGE FOR DIFFERENT

INTERNALS FOR THE C6/C7 SYSTEM AT 5 PSIA
Liquid Holdup - is the amount of liquid held on the surface of the packing and in the voids
of the packed bed, normally expressed as a volume fraction. It increases with an increase in liquid
rate but the effect of vapor rate on the liquid holdup appears minimal up to near the flood point.
System Limit or Ultimate Capacity - is an upper boundary to the capacity of a

fractionating device irrespective of hardware design and column internals. It is defined as a
capacity above which all liquid droplets will be entrained.
Channeling - is the tendency for vapor and/or liquid to follow preferential paths in a
packed bed. Channeling is affected by the initial distribution of vapor and liquid to the packed bed.
It is also influenced by packing type and size. Given sufficient packing depth, a packed bed will
tend toward a natural number of channels in the bed that is a function of packing type and size.

Issued:
Section 8
Page 7 Revised:
8.1 RANDOM PACKING TOWER DESIGN

The following design procedure is based on the studies of the F.R.I. experimental research
programs. It has been supplemented wherever possible by information in the public domain, but
relies primarily on the F.R.I. experimental data and reports. The following section presents
definitions of terms used in this procedure, followed by a discussion of design considerations and
variables which can be used as a guide for choosing the best design.
DEFINITIONS
The following terms and parameters are referred to in the design procedures and
correlations below.
HETP - is the height of packing equivalent to a theoretical plate or equilibrium stage. It is

the reciprocal of the number of theoretical stages per foot or meter (NTSM).
HTUOV - is the overall height of a transfer unit for the vapor phase.
Zone - A zone of a random packing bed is defined as a section of the tower that has a
relatively constant vapor and liquid load. In a simple distillation tower, there are only two zones
having different loading conditions: above and below the feed point (the rectification and stripping
sections). Towers with side streams or multiple feed points have more than two zones. Vacuum
towers can have several zones of different loads due to changes in vapor density. Flow rates and
physical properties of both phases should be tabulated for the maximum and minimum design
load in each zone. The liquid feed rate to each zone also needs to be tabulated for liquid distributor
selection and design purposes.
Pinch - F.R.I. efficiency data is based on data obtained only at total reflux. In many cases
the relative volatility of the system is fairly high. The data may not fully reflect the performance
loss for systems operating at finite reflux ratio or at low relative volatility. Systems are defined
here as pinched if the systems are operating at finite reflux where the operating line approaches
the equilibrium line, or if the systems are operating with a very low relative volatility. Pinched
systems may experience a more serious loss of performance when operated near limits of liquid
distribution, bed length, etc.
Turndown Ratio, Operating Range and Flexibility - Turndown ratio is the maximum
design load divided by the minimum design load. Operating range expresses the range of
operational loads as a percentage of flood. Flexibility is a term used to define the capability of a
device to handle a range of operating conditions. A random packing tower with a high turndown
ratio has a greater flexibility than one with a low turndown ratio. All of these terms imply operating
limits where a suitable efficiency is maintained.
Vapor Load or V Load - is defined as the product of the volumetric vapor rate and the
square root of the ratio of vapor density to the difference of liquid and vapor densities.
𝜌𝜌𝑉𝑉
𝑉𝑉𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 = 𝑄𝑄𝑉𝑉 �� (8.1.1)
𝜌𝜌𝐿𝐿 − Ρ𝑉𝑉
Where
US Eng. SI
𝑉𝑉𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 = volumetric vapor load ft3/s m3/s

Issued:
Section 8
Page 8 Revised:
𝑄𝑄𝑉𝑉 = volumetric vapor rate ft3/s m3/s

ρ𝐿𝐿 = liquid density lb/ft3 kg3/s
ρ𝑉𝑉 = vapor density lb/ft3 kg3/s
Capacity Factor - is defined as the vapor load or V load divided by the tower cross
sectional area.
𝑉𝑉𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝜌𝜌𝑉𝑉
𝐶𝐶𝑠𝑠 = = 𝑢𝑢𝑣𝑣 �� (8.1.2)
𝐴𝐴𝑆𝑆 𝜌𝜌𝐿𝐿 − Ρ𝑉𝑉
Where
US Eng. SI
𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠 = tower area ft2
m2
𝐶𝐶𝑠𝑠 = capacity factor based on tower area ft/s m/s
𝑢𝑢𝑣𝑣 = vapor velocity based on tower area ft/s m/s
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The auxiliaries in a random packing column are an important part of the column design.
For a given packing style and size, the liquid distributor can influence the column performance
to a greater extent than if using a different packing size. Careful review of the following factors
is required to obtain a good column design.
1. Packing type
2. Packing size
3. Packed bed height
4. Liquid distribution
5. Turndown
6. Liquid redistribution
7. Vapor distribution
8. Liquid collector trays (also known as chimney trays)
9. Packing support
10. Hold-down plate
11. Special devices
12. Packing method
13. Solids and fouling potential
14. Safety factors
15. Random packing vs. structured packing
16. Random packing vs. trays
17. Cost
Packing Type - There are many types of random packing available in a wide range of
materials of construction to a designer and most types have some preferred area of application.
Some of the factors to be considered in choosing a packing and packing material are:
1. Chemical resistance
2. Structural strength
3. Capacity

Issued:
Section 8
Page 9 Revised:
4. Pressure drop
5. Efficiency
6. Operating range
7. Cost
Historically, the most common chemically resistant packing materials have been ceramic,
porcelain, and carbon. Packings made of modern engineered plastic resins as well as high alloy
and exotic metal materials are also available in many random packing types. When considering
packings made of plastic, the operating temperature must not exceed the softening point for these
materials. The best structural strength is obtained with metal packing, but the lower strength of
ceramic and porcelain materials is often no problem. Both plastic and ceramic packings may be
limited in the physical depth of a single bed due to overall weight (ceramic) or deformation of the
packing (plastic). Limitation of bed depth for process reasons is discussed in later sections.
The more common types of packing show increasing capacity for a given nominal size in
this order: ceramic Raschig rings, saddles, Pall rings, perforated rings, and the new generation of
random packings. The higher capacity packings generally have a lower pressure drop, but
generalization is difficult. The operating range depends on the packing size, packing type and
liquid distribution. These factors will determine the selection and ultimate cost of the packing.
Packing Size - Larger packing sizes yield greater capacity and lower pressure drop but
give lower efficiency. Smaller packings yield higher efficiencies with some sacrifice in capacity
and a higher pressure drop. Care must be exercised in the design of the liquid distributor to obtain
optimum packing efficiencies, especially for small packings because the small packings are likely
to be affected to a greater degree by maldistribution. Packings as small as 5/8 inch (16 mm) and
as large as 3-1/2 inches (89 mm) in size have been tested in the F.R.I. column.
Dimensional differences in the individual packing elements which result from the
manufacturing process can affect the pressure drop characteristics of a packed bed. This is
especially the case when small packing sizes are used and with ceramic and porcelain packings
where the dimensions of the packing elements change during the firing operation.
Packed Bed Height - During long bed random packing tests in the 4-foot (1.22 m) section
of the F.R.I. distillation unit, a slight bed length effect on capacity was observed. The details of
the test can be found in the Progress Report for November-December, 1998. The tests were
conducted using 1-inch (25 mm) Pall rings with the cyclohexane/n-heptane system. The liquid
was uniformly introduced to the top of the bed using the F.R.I. Tubed Drip Pan liquid distributor
with a tube diameter of 5 mm. During both the 24 psia (1.65 bar) and 5 psia (0.34 bar) tests, it
was observed that the flood capacity factor decreases with an increase in the bed height.
Regarding the bed length effect on efficiency, the tests showed that there was a 1-inch
(0.025 m) increase in HETP when the bed length was increased from 12 to 18.6 ft (3.66 m to 5.67
m) for both the 5 and 24 psia (0.34 and 1.65 bar) pressures. It is thought that liquid becomes
somewhat mal-distributed with an increase in the bed depth. Applications involving high product
purities or ones operating close to a pinch point (a low multiplier of the minimum reflux ratio) will
be more sensitive to maldistribution and bed height effects. For common distillation systems, it is
recommended to limit the bed height to 20 times, although this limit may be exceeded in special
circumstances. However, for applications that are particularly sensitive to mal-distribution, it may
be suggested to use bed heights of less than 10 times the HETP. (See F.R.I. Design Handbook,
Vol. 5, Section 2.02).

Issued:
Section 8
Page 10 Revised:
Where liquid was not uniformly distributed at the top of the bed, however, an increase in
the packing depth appeared to improve efficiency. This was the result of a loss in the separating
performance at the top portion of the bed due to less than ideal initial liquid distribution. With less
than an optimum uniform distribution pattern at the top of the packed bed, additional packing bed
height would be necessary as a safety margin.
Liquid Distribution - Good liquid distribution is key to obtaining the expected HETP for a
packed bed. A liquid distributor must distribute the liquid uniformly for all anticipated flow rates
with a sufficient number of pour points and have sufficient open area so as not to restrict the tower
capacity and performance. FRI has used various distributor types in its history. In 1982/1983, the
tubed drip pan distributor (TDP) was found to provide a substantial improvement in packing
efficiency over older styles. When operated in its hydraulic design range, both the point-to-point
flow uniformity and the uniformity of the layout of drip points of the TDP distributor are much
improved over older distributor types.
The attributes of both flow uniformity and drip point layout are important in good distributor
design. For example, the notched trough distributor used by F.R.I. in early tests failed to achieve
adequate liquid distribution and did not provide the same packing separation efficiency as the
TDP distributor. While the literature discusses liquid flowing along the wall of the column as
detrimental to packing performance, it is believed that the notched trough design failed to provide
adequate distribution of liquid in the zone near the wall. When the tubes near the wall in the TDP
distributor were plugged, the performance of the TDP distributor deteriorated to the point of nearly
matching the poor performance of the notched trough distributor.
In other test work, where the TDP distributor is known to be operating outside of its
intended range, usually at rates below its turndown ratio to provide uniform point-to-point flow,
the packing performance is also seen to deteriorate as the flow uniformity diminishes. The
notched trough distributor also provides very poor point-to-point flow uniformity, contributing to its
poor performance compared to the TDP distributor. In addition to the notched trough distributor,
FRI has not obtained performance from spray nozzle type distributors equal to that of the TDP
distributor.
Weir flow, Notched Trough, and Spray Nozzle distributors should only be considered for
special applications, but are definitely NOT recommended for most industrial applications.
high performance liquid distributors for industrial applications are commercially available from
several manufacturers who have expertise in distributor design. Many aspects of high-
performance distributor design are considered proprietary to the manufacturers and, as such,
details are not released as to allow rigorous review. For this reason, F.R.I. recommends that the
actual column distributors be tested with water in a distributor test facility before installation.
There are four key distributor design criteria: uniformity of flow, pour point density,
irrigation at column wall, and open area for vapor flow. The uniformity of flow is measured by the
standard deviation of liquid flow through the pour points. The standard deviation of liquid flow
rates measured from sample pour points should be limited to between 5% (for mass transfer or
heat transfer with a close temperature approach) and 10% (for general heat transfer) of the mean
flow rate for all anticipated flow rates.
A pour point density of 10 points per square ft (110 points per square meter) is generally
adequate to achieve the optimum HETP for any random packing with an expected HETP of 10
inches (0.25 m) or higher. However, a pour point density as low as 3 points per square ft (32

Issued:
Section 8
Page 11 Revised:
points per square meter) may also yield satisfactory results for packings with an expected HETP
of 30 inches (0.76 m) or higher. A greater (>10 points per square ft or 110 points per square
meter) pour point density may be required for packings with an expected HETP of less than 10
inches (0.25 m). For metal Pall rings the following guideline is suggested for pour point density:
Packing Size Surface Area Pour Point Density

in. (mm) ft2/ft3 (m2/m3) Points/ft2 (Points/m2)
5/8 (16) 104 341 10 (100)
1 (25) 63 207 6 (60)
1-1/2 (38) 39 128 4 (40)
2 (51) 31 102 4 (35)
3-1/2 (89) 17 56 3 (30)
Liquid irrigation along the column wall for random packings is important. It has been found
that with too large a distance between the column wall and the outer distributor pour points (e.g.
setting a distributor on top of a tray ring), the efficiency of the packing deteriorates. Some evidence
exists to indicate that pour points too close to the column wall can cause over irrigation along the
column wall, possibly lowering performance at the bottom of the column, especially for larger
packing sizes. The following guideline is suggested for optimal performance (TR92):
Distance Between
Packing Size Surface Area Column Wall and Peripheral Pour
in. (mm) ft2/ft3 (m2/m3) in. (mm)
5/8 (16) 104 341 1 (25)
1 (25) 63 207 1 (25)
1-1/2 (38) 39 128 1 (25)
2 (51) 31 102 2 (50)
3-1/2 (89) 17 56 3 (75)
The guidelines given above for pour point density and the location of peripheral pour points
from the tower wall assume the liquid is distributed in discrete streams.
The distance between the bottom of the liquid distributor and the top of the packing as
well as the distributor open area must be designed to avoid excessive liquid entrainment. The
liquid entrainment will often add to the liquid load of the distributor. This extra load if unanticipated
may cause the distributor to perform poorly. Additional information is available on liquid distributor
design including advice on distributor testing. Volume 5 of the F.R.I. Design Handbooks presents
details of common industry design practices.
Large scale or zonal maldistribution must be avoided to obtain optimum performance.

F.R.I. has determined the efficiency loss from various patterns of liquid maldistribution and
conducted extensive studies to determine the impact of large-scale maldistribution on relatively
high efficiency 1-inch (25 mm) Pall rings (Annual Report, 1985). By using an Adjustable Liquid
Distributor of F.R.I. design, which allows flow rates through each pour point to be varied down to
complete shut off, various patterns of non-uniform flow distribution to a packed bed were
examined to determine the effect of maldistribution. The results indicate that any large-scale
maldistribution pattern will more severely lower efficiency, or increase HETP, than a uniform

Issued:
Section 8
Page 12 Revised:
maldistribution. The height of packing required to even out concentration differences can vary
substantially depending on the severity of maldistribution and size of the packing.
F.R.I. data suggest that large packing sizes (> 2.5 inches, 63 mm) would be affected less
by maldistribution. Slight random variations in flow through pour points which are uniformly
distributed over the cross section of the tower with the recommended number of pour points
should have minimal effect on the performance. However, the performance could be affected if
the flow variations are localized or zonal in nature.
Turndown - The liquid distributor will often be the limiting factor in turndown unless it is
specifically designed for a high turndown. Unless a special design is employed, the design of the
distributor is often governed by the equation for flow through an orifice where the flow is
proportional to the square root of liquid head. As an example, a turndown of four to one would
require an increase a 1600% in liquid elevation above a hole. It is clear that the turndown required
needs careful consideration to avoid tall and expensive liquid distribution devices.
Liquid Redistribution - F.R.I. tests show that separation efficiency deteriorates with the
increase of packed bed depth. The generally recommended criteria are to redistribute liquid
approximately every 30 to 35 ft (9 -11 m), or to have no more than 20 theoretical stages per bed,
whichever is lower. Redistributors may also be necessary to satisfy structural strength
requirements or to introduce feed or withdraw side streams. Redistributors must be designed and
installed as carefully as distributors at the top of the bed.
Vapor Distribution - Vapor distribution is not as critical as liquid distribution based on

results from the F.R.I. 4-foot (1.22 meter) column. Tests show that vapor maldistribution hardly
affects the packing performance for separations far away from pinch. However, it is expected that
vapor maldistribution will reduce the mass transfer efficiency for separations close to pinch. A
vapor distributor may be required if the feed vapor velocity is very high, particularly in large
columns. Mixed phase feeds also need to be handled carefully and the design specifics should
be discussed with the equipment manufacturer or engineering contractor.
Liquid Collector - A liquid collector is necessary for partial drawoff of liquid, for feeding a
liquid redistributor, or for a transition from a packed bed to a trayed section in the column. The
desirable features for liquid collectors are a high open area for vapor flow, a low vapor phase
pressure drop, a low resistance for liquid flow to the drawoff nozzle, and good liquid mixing for
redistribution zones. In order to provide adequate liquid head above a draw nozzle, sumps are
often integrated in the collector design.
Packing Support - A packing support device for a packed column must not mal-distribute
or otherwise hinder the vapor uniformity to the packing. It should have low resistance to liquid
down flow, possess adequate structural strength to support the packed bed, and have sufficient
open area to avoid restricting the tower performance. Additional support devices may be
necessary at various intervals to satisfy structural strength requirements in tall columns. Two
types of support plates that are most often used in the F.R.I. test program are the multi-riser and
multi-beam. Both types are commercial designs based on the "gas injection" principle.
Hold-Down Device - The purpose of the hold-down device is to confine the packing and
prevent movement of the packed bed. The device must have sufficient open area to avoid
restricting the packing capacity and must apply suitable means to restrain bed movement. The

Issued:
Section 8
Page 13 Revised:
hold-down device should not disturb the natural flow of liquid from the distributor to the top of the
packed bed.
Samplers - During the course of the F.R.I. test program, various samplers were installed.
Test results show that 6 samplers can reduce mass transfer efficiency and increase HETP by 1
to 2 inches (0.025 to 0.05 m) for a 12-foot (3.7 m) bed with 1-inch (25 mm) Pall rings. Unnecessary
samplers should be avoided in industrial applications.
Special Devices - If it is necessary to introduce feed or withdraw side streams at

intermediate points in the packed bed, it may be necessary to employ a special device which
combines several of the functions of the devices mentioned above. In this case, all of the individual
design considerations must apply to the special device. Devices of this type were not employed
during any of the F.R.I. tests. Therefore, the characteristics of these devices must be obtained
from the manufacturers.
Packing Method - Two packing methods were used to dump random packings for the
F.R.I. tests. In one method, the packing was dumped from the shipping containers into the column
filled with water. This method is known as “wet packing” and is the required method for dumped
ceramic packings in order to avoid breakage of the packing elements. The other method of
packing was by a dry packing method wherein a quantity of packing was dumped and smoothed
over the tower cross section and the process repeated periodically to the desired packed bed
height. The dry packing method is the method of choice for metal packings. Because of the low
density of the material, plastic packings are always dry packed.
The particular packing method chosen will result in different packing densities and affect
the number of packing elements to obtain a desired packed bed height. Packing density
differences will affect bed pressure drop and efficiency. An extensive discussion of methods of
packing a column and other installation procedures are discussed in Section 2.00 of the F.R.I.
Design Handbook, Volume 5.
Solids and Fouling Potential - Fouling and plugging in liquid distributors has been
proven to be troublesome. While cleaning liquid distributors is still feasible, cleaning packing is
difficult. Specially designed trays handle solids and fouling situations much better than packings.
The use of parallel external strainers is recommended for external feed and reflux streams since
it is far easier to clean and maintain an external strainer than to clean a liquid distributor.
Safety Factors - Safety factors serve three principal purposes in these design methods:
(1) to allow for experimental error in the design correlations, (2) to allow for uncertainty in the
parameters involved in the design, and (3) as a contingency factor to allow for operating conditions
other than those for which the tower was designed. To be most effective, safety factors should be
applied to the design where they are most appropriate based on the degree of confidence
required. Arbitrary safety factors should be avoided. A detailed discussion on safety factors can
be found in Section 5.2 of the F.R.I. Design Handbook, Volume 1.
Random Packing vs. Structured Packing - Structured packings have significant

advantages over random packings in terms of capacity, pressure drop per theoretical stage, and
in their separation power for low pressure systems (<165 psia, 11.4 bar) operated at low liquid
rates (<20 gpm/ft2, 49 m3/h- m2). However, these advantages erode quickly as liquid rate
increases. F.R.I. experimental results with high pressure distillation systems show that structured
packing has an unexpectedly high HETP at 70- 90% of flood loadings, resulting in an HETP hump

Issued:
Section 8
Page 14 Revised:
in the efficiency curve. Numerous cases of structured packing failure at high pressures have also
been reported in the literature. The causes of poor structured packing performance for high
pressure and high liquid rate applications are not well understood. However, the performance of
random packing in high pressure and high liquid rate services is well studied by F.R.I. It is strongly
recommended that for high pressure distillation and high liquid rate applications, random packings
should be considered first over structured packings. Random packings also handle foaming
systems better than structured packings.
Random Packing vs. Trays - Due to their lower pressure drop compared to trays, random
packings are favored in vacuum systems and in services where the pressure drop needs to be
minimized. Random packings available in different sizes offer better trade-off between capacity
and separation than trays. Random packings are also favored over trays in small diameter
columns that are difficult to access. The range of random packing materials is wider than that
available for trays. Thus, random packings are often a better choice than trays for corrosive
systems and are possibly more cost effective as well. The foaming tendency with random packing
is smaller than that on trays, particularly when the tray downcomer is poorly designed.
Consequently, random packings are better alternatives than trays for foaming systems. Random
packings have advantages for reducing polymerization and degradation due to their lower liquid
holdup over trays. However, trays are a better choice to deal with solids and tend to dampen
process surges better than random packings. Liquid residence time on trays is easier to be
controlled than in random packed columns, when needed for absorption and chemical reaction
applications, by adjusting weir height.
Cost –Metal random packings are produced on automated machines and require little
labor. Structured packings require more labor than random packing but are produced with thinner
gauge metal. The choice of a packing based solely on cost depends on tower size, packing size,
and metal type.
For corrosion resistance, ceramic random packing is inexpensive but has much lower
performance characteristics than metal or plastic packing. Packings made of engineered plastic
resins can offer extremely good performance, however, in some cases the high cost of the plastic
materials can exceed the cost of a packing produced in a high alloy or exotic metal. Careful
evaluation on cost and benefit is required to arrive at the final column internal selection.
DESIGN BASED ON CAPACITY LIMIT FOR PRESSURE FRACTIONATORS

Loads and Physical Properties - In a pressure fractionator with no pressure drop
limitations, there are usually two zones of packing having different loading conditions – that above
and that below the feed point. Towers with side streams or feed at two or more locations would
have three or more zones. Flow rates and physical properties of the two phases should be
determined for the maximum design load at the most loaded point in each zone, and for the
minimum design load at the least loaded point in each zone. The preliminary design should be
based on these flow rates; however, in the final design it may be desirable to vary the column
diameter or packing size in different zones of the column.
F.R.I. has developed computer programs to perform rating and sizing of random packing
columns. By using these programs in a trial and error fashion, users can reach a column design
and configuration that meets the design criteria.

Issued:
Section 8
Page 15 Revised:
Preliminary Design – The F.R.I. program should be used to obtain a trial tower diameter
and bed height even at the preliminary design stage, particularly for non-metal random packings.
However, for metal random packings, the tower diameter and bed height can also be estimated
from the given loads and system properties with a selection of metal random packing size without
using the F.R.I. programs. The following calculation procedures for a trial tower diameter and bed
height are only for metal random packings and cannot be applied to non-metal random packings.
1. Trial Tower Diameter for Metal Random Packing- If the tower is designed at 80%
of flood, a tower diameter can be estimated from the following equation by a trial and
error method:
4𝑉𝑉𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑉𝑉𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
𝐷𝐷𝑡𝑡 = � = 1.26 � (8.1.3)
0.8𝜋𝜋𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
0.35
𝜀𝜀 3
𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 𝐾𝐾𝑔𝑔0.5 𝜎𝜎 0.14 � � 𝑒𝑒 −130𝐹𝐹𝑟𝑟𝐿𝐿 (8.1.4)
𝑎𝑎
Where
𝑢𝑢𝐿𝐿2 𝑎𝑎
𝐹𝐹𝑟𝑟𝐿𝐿 = (8.1.5)
𝑔𝑔 4𝜖𝜖
Where
US Eng. SI
𝑎𝑎 = packing specific surface area 2
ft /ft 3
m2/m3
𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = flooding capacity factor at constant liquid rate ft/s m/s
𝐷𝐷𝑡𝑡 = tower diameter ft m
𝐹𝐹𝑟𝑟𝐿𝐿 = Froude number defined by Equation (8.1.5)
𝑔𝑔 = gravitational constant ft/s2 m/s2
𝑢𝑢𝐿𝐿 = liquid velocity based on tower area ft/s m/s
𝑉𝑉𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 = volumetric vapor load given by Equation (8.1.1) ft3/s m3/s
𝜌𝜌𝐿𝐿 = liquid density lb/ft3 kg/m3
𝜌𝜌𝑣𝑣 = vapor density lb/ft3 kg/m3
𝜀𝜀 = packing void fraction
𝜎𝜎 = surface tension dyne/cm N/m
𝐾𝐾 = constant 0.136 0.300
Tower diameters should be calculated from Equation (8.1.3) for the maximum design
rates in each zone. Tower diameters obtained from this equation are generally rounded up to
the nearest nominal tower size, but may be higher or lower than the final values. Towers
designed in this manner will have efficiencies at or near the optimum when operated at the
maximum design.
2. Bed Height - The bed height is calculated from the theoretical stages required to
obtain the desired separation and the estimated HETP. Where the slope of the
equilibrium curve and the slope of the operating line are essentially linear, the

Issued:
Section 8
Page 16 Revised:
HETP for a distillation system is estimated from the following equation:
ln 𝜆𝜆 1 + 0.3𝜆𝜆
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 (8.1.6)
𝜆𝜆 − 1 1.3
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 if 𝜆𝜆 = 1 (8.17)

where
US Eng. SI
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = height equivalent to a theoretical plate ft m
= overall height of a transfer unit for
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 ft m
the vapor phase read from Figure 8.1.1
𝐿𝐿 = liquid molar flow rate lb-mol/s kg-mol/s
𝑉𝑉 = vapor molar flow rate lb-mol/s kg-mol/s
𝑚𝑚 = slope of equilibrium curve
𝜆𝜆 = (mV/L)
Within the range of the F.R.I. experimental data, the height of an overall vapor phase
transfer unit and HETP are relatively insensitive to the system pressure and the physical
properties under total reflux conditions. Figure 8.1.1 gives typical HTUOV values under total reflux
for different packing sizes. For most binary systems which have a small liquid phase resistance,

Issued:
Section 8
Page 17 Revised:
the HETP can then be determined from Equation (8.1.6) under non-total reflux conditions.
Figure 8.1.1. HTUOV AS A FUNCTION OF LOADING WITH 𝝀𝝀 = 𝟏𝟏
FOR DIFFERENT PACKING SIZES
Final Design Checks
Capacity - Following the preliminary design, it is necessary to check the capacity limits in
Section 8.2 for several tower diameters in the vicinity of the trial diameter for several packings
and determine the most economical design consistent with the process requirements. Mechanical
considerations may influence the final design. It may be economical to vary the diameter, packing
size and design for zones of the tower having different loads.
Efficiency - The efficiency of the final design will be affected by the packing type and size,
liquid distribution as well as the design of certain other auxiliary equipment. The efficiency of the
final design should be checked by procedures given in Section 8.4.
Pressure Drop and Liquid Holdup - The pressure drop and liquid holdup is normally not
an issue for fractionators operating at or above atmospheric pressure. However, it is
recommended that the pressure drop be determined by procedures given in Section 8.3.

Issued:
Section 8
Page 18 Revised:
DESIGN BASED ON PRESSURE DROP LIMIT FOR VACUUM

FRACTIONATORS
Packed columns in vacuum service are usually designed to have relatively equal loadings
for each packing zone for a constant column diameter. In the initial design, this may require that
the size of the packing be increased toward the top of the column to compensate for the higher
vapor velocity characteristically obtained there. The final design may have a varying pressure
drop. Some separations may require such a large number of theoretical stages that two or more
columns in series with complete condensation and re-vaporization between are required to satisfy
pressure drop limitations.
Design Pressure Drop - The tower is designed so as not to exceed the permissible
pressure drop at the maximum design load while having a suitable efficiency at the minimum load.
The maximum allowable pressure drop per height of packing for design purposes can be
calculated as follows:
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 ∆𝑃𝑃, 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
∆𝑃𝑃𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = (8.18)
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒ℎ𝑡𝑡, 𝑓𝑓𝑡𝑡 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑚𝑚
where the total packed bed height is the number of theoretical stages plus extra stages for error
in feed location, etc., multiplied by a suitable HETP at minimum load conditions.
Preliminary Design - The F.R.I. program should be used to obtain a trial tower
diameter and bed height even at the preliminary design stage, particularly for non-metal random
packings. However, for metal random packings, the tower diameter and bed height can also be
estimated from the given loads and system properties with a selection of metal random packing
size without using the F.R.I. program. The following procedure is similar to the one given for
Design Based on Capacity Limit for Pressure Fractionators in Section 8.1.
1. Trial Tower Diameter - The tower diameter is calculated for maximum design
rates from Equation (8.1.3), Section 8.1. Several packing sizes and types should be examined.
2. Bed Height - The height of each type of packing under consideration is calculated
from the theoretical stages required to obtain the desired separation and the HETP. The HETP
is estimated from Equation (8.1.6), Section 8.1.
3. Design Pressure Drop - The design pressure drop for each packing is calculated
from Equation (8.1.8), Section 8.1 for the packed bed heights obtained in step 2 and the
permissible pressure drop. Design considerations should consider the error in the pressure
drop equation. It is necessary to adjust the packing size and type and the tower diameter to
satisfy pressure drop design requirements:
∆𝑃𝑃𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ≤ ∆𝑃𝑃𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 (8.1.9)

Where
US Eng. SI
∆𝑃𝑃𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = pressure drop at maximum design load from in. H2O/ft Pa/m
Equation (8.3.9), Section 8.3
∆𝑃𝑃𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = allowable design pressure-drop from in. H2O/ft Pa/m
Equation (8.1.8), Section 8.1

Issued:
Section 8
Page 19 Revised:
4. Design Pressure Drop - The design pressure drop for each packing is calculated
from Equation (8.1.8), Section 8.1 for the packed bed heights obtained in step 2 and the
permissible pressure drop. Design considerations should consider the error in the pressure
drop equation. It is necessary to adjust the packing size and type and the tower diameter to
satisfy pressure drop design requirements
Final Design Checks - The procedure following the above steps is to check the efficiency,
pressure drop, liquid holdup, and capacity for several tower diameters in the vicinity of the trial
value to finalize the most economical design. These procedures are given in Sections 8.2 to 8.4.

Issued:
Section 8
Page 20 Revised:
8.2 RANDOM PACKING TOWER CAPACITY

The flooding capacity is not well defined either in practice or in theory. In the literature,
subjective symptoms are used to define the flood point or capacity. These symptoms include
splashing or the appearance of liquid on the top of the bed, a step increase in liquid holdup, a
sudden rise in pressure drop, a sharp drop in mass transfer efficiency, and excessive entrainment
or spray. In addition, ambiguous terms are employed to describe these symptoms such as
appreciable, very high, considerable, substantial, slight, small, and insignificant, leaving room for
argument and causing difficulty in defining and modeling the flood point.
F.R.I. customarily determines the experimental flood capacity as a point beyond which the
column operation cannot be controlled or the column is inoperable. When approaching flood, a
small increase in liquid or vapor rate will often lead to a step increase in pressure drop and liquid
holdup and cause excessive retention of liquid inside the column, resulting in column inoperability.
This point is mathematically defined as the point where the derivative of liquid holdup or pressure
drop with respect to the liquid rate or vapor rate goes to infinity. Based on this flood point or
capacity definition, F.R.I. has developed models to predict the flood point for both metal and non-
metal random packings.
The flood point measured and modeled by F.R.I. is the hydraulic flood point. The packing
mass transfer efficiency decreases when approaching the hydraulic flood point and is normally
completely lost at the hydraulic flood point. Another important way of defining packing capacity is
the maximum operational or maximum useful capacity, the point just before the mass transfer
efficiency begins to fall off rapidly. This is generally about 95% of the hydraulic flood capacity for
high pressure systems and about 90% for low pressure systems, depending on packing size,
liquid rate, and the amount of entrainment. The maximum useful capacity is discussed with
packing HETP in Section 8.4. Some examples of efficiency data are available in Section 8.5.
FLOOD CAPACITY PREDICTION FOR METAL RANDOM PACKINGS

The capacity of metal random packings is mainly a function of packing size and liquid rate
(TR147). Most metal random packings have a similar void fraction between 0.93-0.99. The effect
of system physical properties on capacity is not strong. From a given design point (design vapor
and liquid rates), the flood capacity or point can be determined either for a constant liquid rate or
for a constant L/V ratio. The two methods may yield similar or different flood points depending on
how far the design point is away from the flood point. It is suggested that in addition to the design
liquid rate, the flood points at different constant liquid rates be determined to construct a
performance diagram.
METAL RANDOM PACKING FLOOD CAPACITY

For a given constant liquid rate, the flood capacity can be calculated using the following
equation:
0.35
𝜀𝜀 3
𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 𝐾𝐾𝑔𝑔0.5 𝜎𝜎 0.14 � � 𝑒𝑒 130𝐹𝐹𝑟𝑟𝐿𝐿 (8.2.1)
𝑎𝑎
Where
𝑢𝑢𝐿𝐿2 𝑎𝑎
𝐹𝐹𝑟𝑟𝐿𝐿 = (8.2.2)
𝑔𝑔 4𝜖𝜖

Issued:
Section 8
Page 21 Revised:
Where
US Eng. SI
𝑎𝑎 = packing specific surface area 2
ft /ft 3
m2/m3
= flooding capacity factor at constant liquid rate,
𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 ft/s m/s
based on tower area
𝐹𝐹𝑟𝑟𝐿𝐿 = Froude number defined by Equation (8.2.2)
𝑉𝑉𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 = volumetric vapor load given by Equation (8.1.1) ft3/s m3/s
𝐾𝐾 = constant 0.136 0.300
The flooding capacity at a constant liquid rate is often relevant to absorption or stripping
columns. For columns in distillation-type services where the vapor and liquid flows are coupled
through the reflux ratio, it is preferable to predict the flood capacity factor based on a constant L/V
ratio. An iterative procedure is required to determine the flood capacity under a constant L/V ratio
from Equation (8.2.1). Alternatively, the flood capacity both at a constant liquid rate and at a
constant L/V ratio can be read from a performance diagram. Figure 8.2.1 gives an example of a
typical performance diagram.
Figure 8.2.1. DETERMINING FLOOD POINTS FROM A PERFORMANCE DIAGRAM

Issued:
Section 8
Page 22 Revised:
The performance diagram shown in Figure 8.2.1 is constructed by calculating flooding

points at different constant liquid rates using Equation (8.2.1).
FLOODING BY SYSTEM LIMIT

The flood capacity cannot increase without limit as the packing surface area decreases
as indicated by Equation (8.2.1). A phenomenon known as the system limit places an upper
boundary on capacity (TR136). The system limit is independent of hardware type or design and
is a function of system properties and liquid rates only.
2
𝑢𝑢 −0.01
−2.52� 𝐿𝐿 � (8.2.3)
𝐶𝐶𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = 1.354 𝜖𝜖𝐶𝐶𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑒𝑒 𝐶𝐶𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
for SI Units
2
𝑢𝑢 −0.033
−11.25� 𝐿𝐿 � (8.2.4)
𝐶𝐶𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = 0.641 𝜖𝜖𝐶𝐶𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑒𝑒 𝐶𝐶𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
for U.S Eng. Units
where
𝜎𝜎 1.4 (8.2.5)
𝐶𝐶𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = ( )0.20 0.5
𝜌𝜌𝐿𝐿 − 𝜌𝜌𝑣𝑣 𝜌𝜌
1.4 + �𝜌𝜌 −𝑣𝑣 𝜌𝜌 �
𝐿𝐿 𝑉𝑉
Where
US Eng. SI
𝐶𝐶𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = system limit capacity factor ft/s m/s
The smaller value of the predicted capacities from Equation (8.2.1) and Equation (8.2.3
or (8.2.4) should be chosen as the flood capacity of metal random packings. The capacity of 4
inch (100 mm) random packings can often approach the system limit.
FLOOD SAFETY FACTOR FOR METAL RANDOM PACKINGS

The ratio of vapor rate at the flood point determined at a constant L/V ratio to the design
vapor rate for each zone of a column should be equal to or greater than the required safety factor,
SF. The required safety factor and the percent flood are given in the following table as functions
of confidence level (TR147):
Confidence Level, % 99.9 99 95 90 85 80 70 50 20

Student’s t 3.09 2.33 1.65 1.28 1.04 0.84 0.53 0.00 -0.84
Required Safety Factor 1.232 1.178 1.102 1.069 1.085 1.070 1.048 1.01 0.95
% Predicted Flood 81.1 84.9 88.5 90.7 92.2 93.4 95.4 99.0 105.3

Issued:
Section 8
Page 23 Revised:
The above table can be used in many different ways in rating and design as discussed
in Section 5.2 of the F.R.I. Design Handbooks. For a new design, a confidence level of 99.9% or
higher is suggested. A confidence level of 99.9% implies a failure rate of 1 per 1000. For a revamp
case, a confidence level of lower than 99% may be acceptable depending on the particular
circumstances. The model statistics are based solely on the F.R.I. test program and experimental
data and therefore apply only to designs within the ranges of the F.R.I. data. All these calculations
assume ideal liquid and vapor distribution to the packed bed. A larger margin of safety would be
required if some uncertainty exists in obtaining uniform liquid distribution at any point in the
column. For systems and packings different from those tested by F.R.I., the reliability of the
models is uncertain. Under these circumstances, the design needs to be verified by F.R.I.
experimental data, experience, and actual operating data from industry.
FLOOD CAPACITY PREDICTION FOR NON-METAL RANDOM PACKINGS

The flood capacity correlations for non-metal random packings are described in F.R.I.
Topical Report No. 94. This correlation relies on specific factors for each type of packing.
Unfortunately, values are only available for ceramic packings. F.R.I. has little or no data for plastic
packings and no advice can be given on how to apply the correlations to plastic packings. The
equation which describes flooding at a constant liquid rate is given as:
𝑄𝑄𝐿𝐿
𝛽𝛽2 𝐴𝐴𝑆𝑆 (8.2.6)
𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝐹𝐹𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄 =𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 𝛽𝛽1 𝑅𝑅2 𝑅𝑅3
Where
US Eng. SI
= flooding capacity factor at constant liquid rate,
𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 ft/s m/s
based on tower area
𝑉𝑉𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = flooding vapor velocity, based on tower area ft/s m/s
𝐴𝐴𝑆𝑆 = tower cross-sectional area ft2 m2
𝑄𝑄𝐿𝐿 = volumetric liquid rate gpm m3/h
𝑅𝑅2 = flooding intercept parameter, from Figure 8.2.2
𝑅𝑅3 = slope parameter, from Figure 8.2.3
𝛽𝛽1 1.0 0.3048
𝛽𝛽2 1.0 2.445
Equation (8.2.6) is based on the observation that all packings are described by a similar
performance diagram. The extrapolated portions of the R2 graph on Figure 8.2.2 are shown as
dashed curves and values of R2 in these regions should be used with caution until additional data
are available.
Flooding at a constant ratio of V/L is determined by a trial-and-error procedure or read

from a performance diagram as discussed in the previous section for metal random packings.

Issued:
Section 8
Page 24 Revised:
The capacity of non-metal random packing is also limited by the system limit. The smaller
value of the predicted capacities from Equation (8.2.6) and Equation (8.2.3) or (8.2.4) should be
chosen as the flood capacity of non-metal random packings.
Figure 8.2.2. FLOODING INTERCEPT PARAMETER, R2
Figure 8.2.3. SLOPE PARAMETER, R3

Issued:
Section 8
Page 25 Revised:
GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR CAPACITY

The random packing capacity is mainly a function of packing specific area, void fraction,
and liquid rate. It is beneficial for a designer to know quantitatively how various factors affect the
packing capacity.Packing Size - Packing size or packing specific area determines the packing
capacity. The capacity increases as the packing specific area decreases until the capacity
reaches the system limit. For high pressure systems, the capacity of large metal random packings
(4 inch, 100 mm) often approaches the system limit. Detailed calculations are required to
determine the packing size that approaches the system limit with the maximum specific area
(maximum mass transfer efficiency) for given liquid rates and operating conditions.
Bed Height - Limited experimental results indicate that the packing useful capacity
decreases slightly as the bed height increases, particularly for high pressure and high liquid rate
systems.
Tower Auxiliaries - Tower auxiliaries such as liquid distributors, support plates, bed
limiters, and collectors should be designed to not limit capacity. Otherwise, the predicted packing
vapor capacity cannot be achieved.
Liquid Rate - The effect of liquid rate on capacity is less significant at low liquid rates (<10
gpm/ft2, 25 m3/h-m2) and much more pronounced at high liquid rates (>10 gpm/ft2, 25 m3/h-m2).
The effect is more sensitive for packings with a large specific area than packings with a small
specific area. These effects are shown in Figure 8.2.4.
Figure 8.2.4. EFFECT OF LIQUID RATE ON CAPACITY FOR THE C6/C7 SYSTEM AT 5 psia
(0.34 bar), PARAMETER IS PACKING SPECIFIC AREA

Issued:
Section 8
Page 26 Revised:
Surface Tension - Although the effect of surface tension is included in Equation (8.2.1),
it is not independently verified by F.R.I. tests because the physical properties of F.R.I. test
systems can be correlated to a single flow parameter. The choice of surface tension in Equation
(8.2.1) is based on F.R.I. studies on the system limit.
Viscosity - The viscosities for the systems studied by F.R.I. vary from 0.05 to 1.0
centipoise (0.00005-0.001 kg/ms). This range of viscosity appears to have little effect on flooding.
Literature often recommends a reduction in capacity proportional to a -0.05 exponent of viscosity
for high viscosity systems. However, until more data are available, the F.R.I. capacity correlation
uses no viscosity correction.
Foaming System - Foaming reduces capacity. Extra safety factors are required based on
experience for foaming systems.

Issued:
Section 8
Page 27 Revised:
8.3 RANDOM PACKING TOWER LIQUID HOLDUP AND PRESSURE DROP
LIQUID HOLDUP FOR METAL RANDOM PACKING

Liquid holdup fraction or liquid holdup is the liquid present inside the packed column in the
form of a liquid film or rivulets on the packing surface and of liquid drops moving upward or
downward. Liquid holdup is determined by various factors including the liquid and vapor rate,
physical properties, packing dimension, and pressure drop. Liquid holdup is used in the
calculation of pressure drop, tructural calculations for packed bed supports, total column weight,
and liquid residence time for reactive distillation systems.
The effect of vapor rate and pressure drop on liquid holdup is often neglected for operating
conditions away from the flood point. Different assumptions of liquid flow on the packing surface
can lead to different models for liquid holdup. For low values of the liquid Reynolds number or at
low liquid rates, the liquid flow can be considered as laminar film flow down inclined surfaces
similar to liquid flow in a wetted wall column. The liquid film thickness is mainly controlled by
viscous drag at the liquid-solid interface. For high values of the liquid Reynolds number (high
liquid rates), the viscous drag at the liquid- solid interface is negligible compared to the inertia
force. Based on these two different liquid flow assumptions, F.R.I. has developed different liquid
holdup models for low liquid rates and high liquid rates, respectively (TR147). In addition, an
empirical model is proposed for operating conditions near the flood point. These models are:
For low liquid rates and away from the flood point:
1⁄3
3𝑢𝑢𝑚𝑚 𝜇𝜇𝐿𝐿 𝑎𝑎2
ℎ𝐿𝐿1 = 𝐾𝐾0 � � (8.3.1)
𝑔𝑔𝜌𝜌𝐿𝐿
For high liquid rates and away from the flood point:
𝑢𝑢𝐿𝐿 𝑎𝑎0.5
ℎ𝐿𝐿2 = 1.5 (8.3.2)
𝑔𝑔0.5
Since the effect of pressure drop on liquid holdup is neglected, both Equations (8.3.1)
and (8.3.2) are not adequate for conditions approaching flood and where the pressure drop is
high. At these conditions, the liquid holdup and pressure drop are coupled. To simplify the
problem, an empirical equation is suggested for the operating conditions approaching the flood
point:
𝑢𝑢𝑣𝑣
ℎ𝐿𝐿3 = 0.17 exp �−7 �1 − �� (8.3.3)
𝑢𝑢𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉
where the empirical constant, 0.17, can be considered as the approximate maximum liquid
holdup for all random packings at flood. The uVF in Equation (8.3.3) is the predicted flood vapor
velocity. The maximum value calculated from the above three equations is chosen as the final
liquid holdup as:
ℎ𝐿𝐿 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(ℎ𝐿𝐿1 , ℎ𝐿𝐿2 , ℎ𝐿𝐿3 ) (8.3.2)

Issued:
Section 8
Page 28 Revised:
Where
US Eng. SI
𝑎𝑎 = packing specific area 2
ft /ft 3
m2/m3
ℎ𝐿𝐿 = liquid holdup or liquid holdup fraction
𝑢𝑢𝐿𝐿 = liquid superficial velocity based on tower area ft/s m/s
𝑢𝑢𝑉𝑉 = vapor velocity based on tower area ft/s m/s
𝑢𝑢𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 = vapor velocity at constant (L/V) flood ft/s m/s
𝜇𝜇𝐿𝐿 = liquid viscosity cp kg/ms
𝐾𝐾0 = constant 0.158 1.8
Equation (8.3.1) indicates that at low liquid rates, the liquid holdup is approximately
proportional to liquid velocity raised to a power of 1/3 and is a function of liquid viscosity and
density. On the other hand, Equation (8.3.2) shows that at high liquid rates, the liquid holdup is
proportional to liquid velocity and independent of viscosity. The effect of the specific area on liquid
holdup also depends on the liquid rate. The effect of the specific area is more significant at the
low liquid rate than at the high liquid rate. Figure 8.3.1 gives typical calculated liquid holdup trends
as a function of capacity factor under total reflux for a high pressure and a vacuum system.
Figure 8.3.1. EFFECT OF LOADINGS ON LIQUID HOLDUP UNDER TOTAL REFLUX FOR A
RANDOM PACKING WITH A SPECIFIC AREA OF 40 ft2/ft3 (130 m2/m3)

Issued:
Section 8
Page 29 Revised:
PRESSURE DROP FOR METAL RANDOM PACKING

The pressure drop of random packing is an important parameter in performance,
particularly for vacuum services. Thus, accurate predictions of pressure drop are essential in
packed column designs. The dry pressure drop is caused by the frictional resistance of vapor flow
through the packed bed without liquid flow. The total pressure drop or wet pressure drop can be
related to the dry pressure drop by introducing the effect of liquid holdup resulting from the liquid
and vapor flows.
Since dry pressure drop data have not been obtained by F.R.I., a dry pressure drop model
has not been developed. F.R.I. studies show that the overall friction factor at wet conditions is
different from that reported at dry conditions. This means that the predicted wet pressure drop
may not converge to the dry pressure drop when the liquid rate approaches zero or the liquid
holdup is set to zero. F.R.I. developed the following empirical equations for the total pressure drop
(TR147). The pressure drop model presented here is for the pressure drop in a packed bed with
metal random packings. The pressure drop due to column auxiliaries: support plate and hold-
down plate, etc., must be added to the packing pressure drop to obtain the total column pressure
drop.
For operating conditions away from the flood point:

230 𝜌𝜌𝑣𝑣 𝑎𝑎 𝜌𝜌𝑣𝑣 𝑢𝑢𝑣𝑣2 ℎ𝐿𝐿 −2
∆𝑝𝑝1 = 𝐾𝐾0 �0.131 − � �8 + � 3 �1.0 − � (8.3.5)
𝑅𝑅𝑒𝑒𝑣𝑣 𝜌𝜌𝐿𝐿 𝜀𝜀 2 0.25
Where 𝑅𝑅𝑒𝑒𝑉𝑉 is the Reynolds number for the vapor phase and is given by:
4 𝑢𝑢 𝜌𝜌
𝑅𝑅𝑒𝑒𝑉𝑉 = 𝐾𝐾1 𝑎𝑎 𝜇𝜇𝑉𝑉 𝑉𝑉 if 𝑅𝑅𝑒𝑒𝑉𝑉 < 5000, use 𝑅𝑅𝑒𝑒𝑉𝑉 = 5000 (8.3.6)
𝑉𝑉
For operating conditions near and at the flood point:
𝑢𝑢𝑉𝑉
∆𝑝𝑝2 = 𝐾𝐾2 exp �− �1 − �� (8.3.7)
𝑢𝑢𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉
The total pressure drop is given by:
∆𝑝𝑝 = 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀(∆𝑝𝑝1 , ∆𝑝𝑝2 ) (8.3.8)
Where
US Eng. SI
𝐾𝐾0 = constant 0.0056 1.0
𝐾𝐾1 = constant 1488 1.0
𝐾𝐾2 = constant 0.920 750
ft /ft 3
m2/m3
ℎ𝐿𝐿 = liquid holdup
∆𝑝𝑝 = pressure drop per unit height of packing in. H2O/ft Pa/m
𝜖𝜖 = packing void fraction
𝜌𝜌𝑉𝑉 = vapor density lb/ft3 kg/m3

Issued:
Section 8
Page 30 Revised:
At a given loading, the pressure drop is mainly a function of packing specific area. Different
random packings from different families often have slightly different pressure drops. When
approaching flood, the pressure drop seems independent of packing dimensions and system
physical properties. F.R.I. experimental data show that the measured pressure drops at the flood
point are almost constant for most packings and systems. The pressure drop calculated from
above equations is the pressure drop caused by the packing and does not include the static
pressure drop due to the static vapor head. The overall pressure drop including the contribution
due to the static vapor head can be given as:
𝜌𝜌𝑣𝑣
∆𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 = ∆𝑝𝑝 + 𝛽𝛽 � � (8.3.9)
𝜌𝜌𝐻𝐻2 𝑂𝑂
Where
US Eng. SI
∆𝑝𝑝 = pressure drop in. H2O/ft Pa/m
∆𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 = pressure drop including vapor static head in. H2O/ft Pa/m
𝜌𝜌𝐻𝐻2 𝑂𝑂 = water density lb/ft3 kg/m3
𝛽𝛽 = constant 12.00 9806
The second term is Equation (8.3.9) is the contribution due to static vapor. To get total
column pressure drop, the pressure drop due to column auxiliaries: hold down plate, support
plate, liquid distributor, vapor distributor, etc. must be added to the pressure drop computed from
this equation.
PRESSURE DROP FOR NON-METAL RANDOM PACKING

These correlations rely on specific factors for each type of packing. Unfortunately, values
are only available for ceramic packings. F.R.I. has little or no data for plastic packings and no
advice can be given on how to apply the correlations to plastic packings. The wet bed pressure
drop for non-metal random packings is described by the equation as follows (TR104):
𝐶𝐶1 𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑆2 𝑎𝑎 𝜌𝜌𝐸𝐸

∆𝑝𝑝 = 3
+ 𝛽𝛽 � � (8.3.10)
(𝜖𝜖 − ℎ𝐿𝐿 ) 𝜌𝜌𝑊𝑊
and
ℎ𝐿𝐿 = 𝐶𝐶2 (𝑎𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑒 )𝐹𝐹𝑟𝑟 0.2 exp(𝐶𝐶3 ∆𝐶𝐶𝑠𝑠 ) (8.3.11)
𝑚𝑚
𝐷𝐷𝑒𝑒 = (8.3.12)
(𝑎𝑎⁄𝜀𝜀 3 )𝑝𝑝
𝑢𝑢𝐿𝐿
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = (8.3.13)
𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑒 𝑔𝑔
1.2
∆𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆
𝜌𝜌𝐸𝐸 = 𝐶𝐶4 � � ℎ𝐿𝐿3.0 𝜌𝜌𝐿𝐿 (8.3.14)
𝐶𝐶𝑄𝑄)
∆𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆 = 𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆 − 0.65𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 (8.3.15)
∆𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆 = 0 if ∆𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆 ≤ 0 or ∆𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆 = ∆𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆 if ∆𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆 > 0 (8.3.16)
𝜌𝜌𝐿𝐿
𝐶𝐶𝑞𝑞 = 𝑉𝑉𝐿𝐿 � (8.3.17)
𝜌𝜌𝐿𝐿 − 𝜌𝜌𝑉𝑉

Issued:
Section 8
Page 31 Revised:
Where
US Eng. SI
𝛽𝛽 = constant 12.00 9806
∆𝑝𝑝 = pressure drop per unit height of packing in. H2O/ft Pa/m
𝑎𝑎 = packing specific area ft2/ft3 m2/m3
𝐶𝐶1 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝐶𝐶4 = are constants given in Table 8.3.1
𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆 = vapor capacity factor ft/s m/s
𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 = liquid capacity factor, ft/s m/s
𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = vapor capacity factor at flood point ft/s m/s
𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑒 = equivalent packing size ft M
∆𝑝𝑝 = pressure drop in. H2O/ft Pa/m
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = Froude number
𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑆 = F-factor, based on tower area
= 𝑢𝑢𝑉𝑉 �𝜌𝜌𝑉𝑉 3 0.5
ft/s(lb/ft3)0.5 m/s(kg/m )
𝑔𝑔 = gravitational constants ft/s2 m/s2
ℎ𝐿𝐿 = liquid holdup term
𝑚𝑚, 𝑝𝑝 = constants given in Table 8.3.2
𝜖𝜖 = void fraction of the packed bed
𝜌𝜌𝑉𝑉 = vapor density lb/ft3 kg/m3
𝜌𝜌𝑊𝑊 = water density at 70 oF (21 oC) lb/ft3 kg/m3
The liquid holdup, hL , is an artifact of the pressure drop correlation and is not necessarily
the actual liquid holdup in the packed bed. For a discussion of the development of the Equations
(8.3.10) and (8.3.17), refer to TR104. The overall pressure drop including the contribution due to
the static vapor head can be calculated from Equation (8.3.9).
Table 8.3.1. EMPIRICAL CONSTANTS FOR EQUATIONS (8.3.10) AND (8.3.17)
Packing Material US Eng. Units SI Units

C1 C2 C3 C4 C1 C2 C3 C4
Raschig ring Cerami 0.0021 0.342 0.092 0.914 0.351 0.342 0.302 0.91
Berl saddle Cerami 0.0019 0.252 0.929 0.468 3.177 0.252 3.048 0.46
Intalox Cerami 0.0019 0.252 0.929 0.468 3.177 0.252 3.048 0.46
Table 8.3.2. EMPIRICAL CONSTANTS FOR EQUATIONS (8.3.12)
Packing Material m p
US Eng SI Both Units
Raschig ring Ceramic 8.819 8.163 0.935
Berl saddle Ceramic 4.637 3.421 0.744
Intalox saddle Ceramic 10.228 9.512 0.939

Issued:
Section 8
Page 32 Revised:
Equations (8.3.10) and (8.3.11) require information on the packing specific area and
porosity of the packed bed. Variations in these parameters can exist for a nominal packing size
of a particular type due to packing dimensional differences described previously and in the
method used to charge, or load, the packed column. Differences in pressure drop due to
dimensional variations for a particular size of packing will diminish with the use of larger packing
sizes or as void fraction increases.

Issued:
Section 8
Page 33 Revised:
8.4 RANDOM PACKING TOWER EFFICIENCY

The mass transfer efficiency is used to determine the bed height. It is mainly a function of
packing size, the slope of the equilibrium line, and the V/L ratio. All F.R.I. tested systems from
vacuum to high pressures are believed to have a similar HETP because they tend to have a
similar Schmidt for the vapor phase. The Schmidt number is a key factor in the F.R.I. model.
Recent study and experimental data with random packings show that F.R.I. HETP data
measured with old-type liquid distributors such as orifice-plate, weir flow, notched-trough, pipe
ring, and sprays are elevated and are higher than data obtained with modern commercial liquid
distributors. The effect of liquid distributors on measured HETP in the F.R.I. database needs to
be considered when examining and using these data.
For a fixed packing size, the mass transfer efficiency is largely independent of loadings
when away from the flood point as indicated by the total reflux test results. F.R.I. has studied
random packing efficiency both experimentally and theoretically and has developed HETP models
for design use. F.R.I. models use the wetted wall column analogy and the penetration theory and
follow the structure of the two-resistance or two-film theory.
RANDOM PACKING EFFICIENCY (HETP) PREDICTION

F.R.I. models for random packing efficiency are derived from recent F.R.I. experimental
data measured at total reflux distillation conditions (TR152) with good liquid distribution. They
include basic models for the height of a transfer unit for the individual vapor and liquid phases
and for the overall vapor phase. They also include additional models for the effect of bed length
and vapor and liquid back mixing on HETP. These models are mainly based on data for metal
random packings. The applicability of the models to ceramic and plastic packings is uncertain.
F.R.I. has no data for plastic packings. The correlation does not predict the existing F.R.I. data
for ceramic packing.
The Height of a Transfer Unit for the Vapor Phase (HTUV) - The height of a transfer
unit for the vapor phase represents the vapor phase mass transfer resistance. Based on the
wetted column analogy, F.R.I. has obtained the following model:
4 0.8 1 0.4 ⁄
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝑉𝑉 = 𝐾𝐾1 � � � � 𝑅𝑅𝑒𝑒𝑉𝑉0.2 𝑆𝑆𝑐𝑐𝑉𝑉2 3 (8.4.1)
𝑎𝑎 𝑢𝑢𝐿𝐿
4𝑢𝑢𝑣𝑣 𝜌𝜌𝑣𝑣
𝑅𝑅𝑒𝑒𝑉𝑉 = 𝐾𝐾2 (8.4.2)
𝑎𝑎𝜇𝜇𝑉𝑉
𝜇𝜇𝑉𝑉
𝑆𝑆𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 = 𝐾𝐾3 (8.4.3)
𝜌𝜌𝑉𝑉 𝐷𝐷𝑉𝑉
Where
US Eng. SI
𝐾𝐾1 = constant 0.165 0.081
𝐾𝐾2 = constant 1488 1.000
𝐾𝐾3 = constant 0.000672 1.000

Issued:
Section 8
Page 34 Revised:
𝐷𝐷𝑉𝑉 = vapor molecular diffusion coefficient ft2/s m2/s

𝑈𝑈𝑉𝑉
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝑉𝑉 = 𝐿𝐿𝑉𝑉
height of transfer unit for the vapor phase ft m
𝑘𝑘𝑉𝑉 = vapor phase mass transfer coefficient ft/s m/s
𝑅𝑅𝑒𝑒𝑉𝑉 = vapor phase Reynolds number
𝑆𝑆𝑐𝑐𝑉𝑉 = vapor phase Schmidt number
𝑢𝑢𝑉𝑉 = vapor velocity based on column cross sectional area ft/s m/s
𝑢𝑢𝐿𝐿 = vapor velocity based on column cross sectional area ft/s m/s

The Height of a Transfer Unit for the Liquid Phase (HTUL) - The height of a transfer
unit for the liquid phase represents the liquid phase mass transfer resistance. Different models
are developed based on various theories for mass transfer within the liquid phase. F.R.I. has used
the penetration theory to get:
4 0.8 1 0.5
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿 = 𝐾𝐾4 � � (𝑢𝑢𝐿𝐿 )0.2 � � (8.4.4)
𝑎𝑎 𝐷𝐷𝐿𝐿
Where
US Eng. SI
𝐾𝐾4 = constant 0.00394 0.0012
𝐷𝐷𝐿𝐿 = liquid molecular diffusion coefficient ft2/s m2/s
𝑈𝑈
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿 = 𝑘𝑘 𝐿𝐿𝑎𝑎 height of transfer unit for the liquid phase ft m
𝐿𝐿
𝑘𝑘𝐿𝐿 = liquid phase mass transfer coefficient ft/s m/s
𝑢𝑢𝐿𝐿 = liquid velocity based on column cross sectional area ft/s m/s
The Overall Height of a Transfer Unit for the Vapor Phase (HTUOV) - The overall height
of a transfer unit for the vapor phase is given by the height of the transfer units for the individual
phases through the two-resistance theory:
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 = 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝑉𝑉 + 𝜆𝜆𝜆𝜆𝜆𝜆𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿 (8.4.5)

Where
US Eng. SI
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿 = height of transfer unit for the liquid phase ft m
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝑉𝑉 = height of transfer unit for the vapor phase ft m
𝑈𝑈𝑉𝑉
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 = 𝐾𝐾𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 𝑎𝑎
overall height of transfer unit for the vapor phase
𝐾𝐾𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 = overall vapor phase mass transfer coefficient ft/s m/s

Issued:
Section 8
Page 35 Revised:
𝑚𝑚 = slope of the vapor-liquid equilibrium line

𝑢𝑢𝑉𝑉 = vapor velocity based on column cross sectional area ft/s m/s

𝜆𝜆 =𝑚𝑚 𝑉𝑉⁄𝐿𝐿
For common distillation systems the m value is near 1 and at total reflux λ is also near 1.
In cases where λ is small and the second term in Equation (8.4.5) is much smaller than the first
term, this second term can be neglected and the system can be considered as a gas-phase
controlled system. Likewise, when λ is large, the first term in Equation (8.4.5) can be neglected
and the system can be said to be a liquid- phase controlled system. For liquid-phase controlled
systems, HTUOV can be much larger than that for gas-phase controlled and distillation systems.
For most systems tested by F.R.I., the value of the second term in Equation (8.4.5) is about 30
to 40% of the value of the first term if λ=1.
Slope of the Equilibrium Line, m - The slope of the equilibrium line, m, is an important
parameter in efficiency prediction. It affects not only the overall height of the transfer unit for the
vapor phase (HTUOV) but also the HETP. For binary distillation systems, it is calculated from the
mole fraction of the more volatile component in the liquid and the relative volatility.
For ideal systems whose relative volatility is independent of compositions, the following
equation can be used:
𝛼𝛼
𝑚𝑚 = 2 (8.4.6)
�1 + 𝑥𝑥(𝛼𝛼 − 1)�
where
𝑥𝑥 = mole fraction of the more volatile component in liquid
𝛼𝛼 = relative volatility
For non-ideal systems whose relative volatility changes with compositions, it is often
easier to compute the m value from a table of x and y values generated by a process simulator
or phase equilibrium program as
∆𝑌𝑌
𝑚𝑚 = (8.4.7)
∆𝑋𝑋
For absorption and stripping systems where the solute (x) concentration is small, m equals
K, where K is the vapor-liquid equilibrium constant. For multi-component systems, an average m
value should be used for the pseudo-binary pair of distributed components.
Equation (8.4.6) indicates that the m value can vary significantly with composition, x, from
the column top to bottom, particularly when the relative volatility is large. When only a short bed
with a nearly constant m value is involved, the average liquid mole fraction of the entire bed can
be used in Equation (8.4.6) to obtain m. When a long bed with systems having large relative
volatilities is in question, the long bed should be divided into several short beds of nearly constant
m for efficiency calculations.
The Height Equivalent of a Theoretical Plate (HETP) – The HETP is defined as

the bed height where the vapor mole fraction leaving the bed at the top of the bed is in
equilibrium with the liquid mole fraction leaving the bed at the bottom of the bed. It is a function

Issued:
Section 8
Page 36 Revised:
of the overall height of a transfer unit for the vapor phase (HTUOV) and the average mass
transfer driving force. The average mass transfer driving force is determined by the operating
line (V/L) and the equilibrium line (m) and the nature of the two- phase flow. There are many
ways to obtain an average mass transfer driving force based on different assumptions for the
two-phase flow. If the operating line and equilibrium line are linear but not necessarily parallel
and both phases are in plug flow, using the logarithmic mean driving force gives:
ln 𝜆𝜆
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 (8.4.8)
𝜆𝜆 − 1
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 when 𝜆𝜆=1 (8.4.9)
Where
US Eng. SI
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = height equivalent of a theoretical plate (HETP) ft m
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 = overall height of transfer unit for the vapor phase ft m
𝜆𝜆 =𝑚𝑚 𝑉𝑉⁄𝐿𝐿
The logarithmic mean driving force is a good approximation of the real driving force if both
liquid and vapor are in plug flow without any back mixing. Plug flow is a good assumption for
vacuum systems and for low liquid rate applications. If either phase is not in plug flow and has
back mixing, Equation (8.4.8) will underestimate the HETP, particularly for systems having a
large λ value. F.R.I. experimental data show that Equation (8.4.8) under predicts the HETP for
high pressure systems above 165 psia due to possible vapor back mixing (TR152).
EFFECT OF BED LENGTH ON HETP

It is expected that the bed length affects the HETP even if the initial liquid distribution is
perfect. This is because perfect liquid distribution at the bed entrance will deteriorate as the liquid
flows down the packing elements. Consequently, the HETP may increase as the bed length
increases. Based on the limited F.R.I. measured HETP values for different bed lengths, F.R.I.
obtained the following empirical equation for the effect of the bed length on the HETP:
𝐻𝐻 0.7
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 �0.8 + 0.04 � � � (8.4.10)
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻
Where
US Eng. SI
𝐻𝐻 = bed height ft m
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = the HETP from Equation (8.4.8) ft m
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = the average HETP of an entire bed ft m

Issued:
Section 8
Page 37 Revised:
The HETPavg given by Equation (8.4.10) is the average HETP over the entire bed length.
It is important to note that Equation (8.4.10) is based on data obtained only at total reflux.
Systems operating at finite reflux where the operating line approaches the equilibrium line, or
systems with close relative volatility may experience a more serious loss of performance with an
increase in the bed length. This is the reason for the recommendation that for some systems it
may be necessary to limit bed heights to 10 times the HETP.
EFFECT OF LIQUID BACK MIXING ON HETP

When approaching flood at high vapor rates, the vapor can entrain liquid or liquid droplets
upward, particularly at low liquid rates for low pressure systems. Liquid entrainment caused by
the vapor flow can result in severe liquid back mixing. Liquid back mixing reduces the mass
transfer driving force. This is why the HETP always increases significantly when approaching
flood. Empirical correlations have been developed using F.R.I. experimental data:
𝑈𝑈𝑉𝑉
if ≥ 0.76(𝑎𝑎)0.04 (8.4.11
𝑈𝑈𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉
0.04
2.6𝐻𝐻 𝑢𝑢𝑉𝑉
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑃𝑃𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 = 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 �1 + � − 0.76(𝑎𝑎)� � (8.4.12)
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 𝑢𝑢𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉
Otherwise
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑃𝑃𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 = 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 (8.4.13)
Where
US Eng. SI
𝐻𝐻 = bed height ft m
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = the HETP from Equation (8.4.10) ft m
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑃𝑃𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 = the HETP corrected for liquid back mixing effect ft m
= vapor velocity based on column cross sectional
𝑢𝑢𝑉𝑉 ft/s m/s
area
Equation (8.4.11) can also be used to calculate the maximum operating capacity where
the mass transfer efficiency is not affected by liquid back mixing.
EFFECT OF VAPOR BACK MIXING ON HETP

Equation (8.4.8) assumes that both the vapor phase and the liquid phase are in plug flow
without any back mixing. However, some degree of the vapor back mixing is inevitable at the high
liquid and low vapor rates, such as conditions for high pressure distillation systems. It is expected
that the vapor back mixing will reduce the mass transfer driving force, particularly for systems with
a large value of (mV/L). The degree of vapor back mixing can be described by using the vapor
back mixing height, HDUG, and the number of mixing pools (Bo) in a height of the HTUOV (TR152):
𝑢𝑢𝐿𝐿 4
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝑉𝑉 = 21 (8.4.14)
𝑢𝑢𝑉𝑉 𝑎𝑎

Issued:
Section 8
Page 38 Revised:
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂
𝐵𝐵𝑂𝑂 = (8.4.15)
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝑉𝑉
if 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝑉𝑉 ≥ 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 then 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 = 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝑉𝑉 and 𝐵𝐵𝑂𝑂 = 1 (8.4.16)
Otherwise
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑃𝑃𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 = 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
Where
US Eng. SI
ft /ft 3
m2/m3
= number of mixing pools for vapor phase
𝐵𝐵𝑂𝑂
(Bodenstein number)
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝑉𝑉 = vapor phase back mixing height ft m
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 = overall height of transfer unit for the vapor phase ft m
= liquid velocity based on column cross sectional
𝑢𝑢𝐿𝐿 ft/s m/s
area
= vapor velocity based on column cross sectional
𝑢𝑢𝑉𝑉 ft/s m/s
area
Under plug flow conditions where there is no mixing, HDUV=0 and Bo approaches infinity.
Under totally mixed conditions, Bo approaches 1. For partially mixed conditions, the effect of
vapor back mixing can be estimated by:
𝜆𝜆
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑃𝑃𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 = 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑃𝑃𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (1 + (8.4.17)
𝐵𝐵𝑂𝑂
Where
US Eng. SI
= number of mixing pools for vapor phase
𝐵𝐵𝑂𝑂
(Bodenstein number)
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑃𝑃𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 = the HETP from Equation (8.4.12) or (8.4.13) ft m
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑃𝑃𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 = the HETP corrected for vapor back mixing effect ft m
𝜆𝜆 = mV/L
Equation (8.4.17) is recommended for systems with pressures above 165 psia, a (V/L)
ratio smaller than one such as stripping systems, and high liquid rates.
HETP SAFETY FACTOR

The model reliability was analyzed based on the limited data obtained by F.R.I. The ratio
of the predicted and measured HETP is used for the design safety factor of the bed height. The
standard deviation (σc) of the ratio of the predicted to the measured HETP is 0.13 and its mean
(Sm) 1.00. The required safety factor for the bed height is given in the following table as functions
of confidence level (TR152):

Issued:
Section 8
Page 39 Revised:
Confidence Level, % 99 95 90 85 80 70 50
Student’s t 2.3 1.6 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.0
Required Safety 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0
For example, with a confidence level of 95%, a safety factor of 1.21 is required and the
actual bed height should be 1.21 times the calculated bed height. For systems and packings not
in the F.R.I. data range, extra safety factors may be required. It is suggested that the predicted
HETP be compared to and verified by F.R.I. experimental data and/or field data for a similar
application and/or expert opinions.
There are many other factors which the designer needs to consider in the selection of the
bed height. The ability of the control system to keep the composition profile within acceptable
bounds needs to be considered in the determination of the number of stages of separation
needed. If high purity streams are required for all products from the column, higher safety factors
should be considered.

Issued:
Section 8
Page 40 Revised:
GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR HETP

The random packing efficiency (HETP) is mainly a function of packing specific area and λ
value. Good liquid distribution is a prerequisite for good efficiency. However, for systems tested
by F.R.I., the HETP is only a weak function of system properties and pressure and almost
independent of vapor and liquid loadings under total reflux. It is important for a designer to know
quantitatively how various factors affect the packing efficiency.
Packing Size - Packing size or packing specific area is the key parameter in efficiency.
The packing HETP increases as the packing specific area decreases. For the highest efficiency
and lowest HETP, the packing with the largest specific area that satisfies the capacity requirement
should be chosen. Figure 8.4.1 gives the HETP as a function of the packing specific area for
typical hydrocarbon systems tested by F.R.I. with λ = 1. F.R.I. experimental data cover random
packings with specific areas ranging from 17 to 104 ft2/ft3 (56 to 340 m2/m3). It is reminded that
some of the measured HETP values shown in Figure 8.4.1 are elevated by using old type liquid
distributors, particularly for the high surface area packing.
Figure 8.4.1. HETP AS A FUNCTION OF PACKING SPECIFIC AREA FOR TYPICAL

HYDROCARBON SYSTEMS WITH 𝝀𝝀 = 1
Packing Bed Height – The effect of bed length on HETP can be calculated using
Equation (8.4.10) and is shown in Figure 8.4.2. F.R.I. experimental results frequently show that
the separation efficiency of the bottom part of the bed is not as good as the top part of the bed. It
is wise to limit the bed height to within 20 times the HETP for small columns and 25 times for large
columns. Some applications require bed heights of no more than 10 times HETP.

Issued:
Section 8
Page 41 Revised:
Figure 8.4.2. HETP AS A FUNCTION OF BED HEIGHT

Specific Area = 63 ft2/ft3 (141 m2/m3)
Liquid Distribution – The HETP models are based on data obtained using good liquid
distribution. Thus, the HETP calculated from these models can be obtained only with good liquid
distribution. The standard deviation of liquid flow rates measured from sample pour points of liquid
distributors should be limited to within 5% (for mass transfer) to 10% (for heat transfer) of the
mean flow rate for all anticipated flow rates. Liquid maldistribution can significantly reduce the
packing efficiency.
Vapor Distribution – Although the effect of vapor maldistribution on the HETP is not
observed in F.R.I. tests, it is expected that vapor maldistribution will reduce the mass transfer
efficiency for separations close to the pinch area. A vapor distributor may be required if the reboiler
return vapor velocity is very high, particularly in large columns.
Vapor and Liquid Loads – Under total reflux or constant V/L operation, the HETP is
practically independent of vapor and liquid loads when away from the flood point. This conclusion
can be extended to very low liquid and vapor rates, provided that proper liquid distribution is
maintained. Poor performance of the liquid distributor at low rates can be a cause of poor column
performance under turndown conditions.
System Properties and Pressures – For hydrocarbon systems at different pressures

tested by F.R.I., the system properties and pressures have little effect on packing efficiency. This
is because all systems used by F.R.I. have a similar vapor phase Schmidt number.

Issued:
Section 8
Page 42 Revised:
Surface Tension and its Gradient – The effect of surface tension and its gradient on
HETP is not certain. Surface tension and its gradient should have a major effect on the packing
wetting and hence influence the effective mass transfer area. However, F.R.I. data alone are
unable to determine or isolate the effect of surface tension and its gradient on packing efficiency.
This effect, if any, is not included in F.R.I. models. Consequently, caution is required when
applying these models to high surface tension systems such as water-rich aqueous systems.
These aqueous systems are reported to have a higher HETP than non-aqueous systems.
Liquid Viscosity – High liquid viscosity systems have a lower liquid molecular diffusion
coefficient and thus have a higher HETP than low viscosity systems. The effect of liquid viscosity
is accounted for through the liquid molecular diffusion coefficient.

Fractionation Tray Design Handbook PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Fractionation Tray Design Handbook PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

FRACTIONATION TRAY

8.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 2

CONFIDENTIAL - FOR USE BY FRI MEMBERS ONLY

8.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

CONFIDENTIAL - FOR USE BY FRI MEMBERS ONLY

Figure 8.0.1. RANDOM PACKINGS TESTED BY F.R.I.

Packing Parameters - The following summarizes the variations in random packing

Type Feximax® 300

Systems Studied - Physical properties of systems used in F.R.I. research on random

CONFIDENTIAL - FOR USE BY FRI MEMBERS ONLY

Liquid density 20-60 lb/ft3 (320-960 kg/m3)

Surface tension 0.2-70 dynes/cm ((0.2-70) x 10-3 N/m)

CONFIDENTIAL - FOR USE BY FRI MEMBERS ONLY

Mass Transfer Efficiency or HETP - of random packing is relatively insensitive to loading

CONFIDENTIAL - FOR USE BY FRI MEMBERS ONLY

Figure 8.0.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED PRESSURE DROP/STAGE FOR DIFFERENT

System Limit or Ultimate Capacity - is an upper boundary to the capacity of a

CONFIDENTIAL - FOR USE BY FRI MEMBERS ONLY

8.1 RANDOM PACKING TOWER DESIGN

HETP - is the height of packing equivalent to a theoretical plate or equilibrium stage. It is

CONFIDENTIAL - FOR USE BY FRI MEMBERS ONLY

𝑄𝑄𝑉𝑉 = volumetric vapor rate ft3/s m3/s

CONFIDENTIAL - FOR USE BY FRI MEMBERS ONLY

CONFIDENTIAL - FOR USE BY FRI MEMBERS ONLY

CONFIDENTIAL - FOR USE BY FRI MEMBERS ONLY

Packing Size Surface Area Pour Point Density

Large scale or zonal maldistribution must be avoided to obtain optimum performance.

CONFIDENTIAL - FOR USE BY FRI MEMBERS ONLY

Vapor Distribution - Vapor distribution is not as critical as liquid distribution based on

CONFIDENTIAL - FOR USE BY FRI MEMBERS ONLY

Special Devices - If it is necessary to introduce feed or withdraw side streams at

Random Packing vs. Structured Packing - Structured packings have significant

CONFIDENTIAL - FOR USE BY FRI MEMBERS ONLY

DESIGN BASED ON CAPACITY LIMIT FOR PRESSURE FRACTIONATORS

CONFIDENTIAL - FOR USE BY FRI MEMBERS ONLY

CONFIDENTIAL - FOR USE BY FRI MEMBERS ONLY

HETP for a distillation system is estimated from the following equation:

𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 if 𝜆𝜆 = 1 (8.17)

CONFIDENTIAL - FOR USE BY FRI MEMBERS ONLY

FOR DIFFERENT PACKING SIZES

Final Design Checks

CONFIDENTIAL - FOR USE BY FRI MEMBERS ONLY

DESIGN BASED ON PRESSURE DROP LIMIT FOR VACUUM

∆𝑃𝑃𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ≤ ∆𝑃𝑃𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 (8.1.9)

CONFIDENTIAL - FOR USE BY FRI MEMBERS ONLY

CONFIDENTIAL - FOR USE BY FRI MEMBERS ONLY

8.2 RANDOM PACKING TOWER CAPACITY

FLOOD CAPACITY PREDICTION FOR METAL RANDOM PACKINGS

METAL RANDOM PACKING FLOOD CAPACITY

CONFIDENTIAL - FOR USE BY FRI MEMBERS ONLY

Figure 8.2.1. DETERMINING FLOOD POINTS FROM A PERFORMANCE DIAGRAM

CONFIDENTIAL - FOR USE BY FRI MEMBERS ONLY

The performance diagram shown in Figure 8.2.1 is constructed by calculating flooding

FLOODING BY SYSTEM LIMIT

FLOOD SAFETY FACTOR FOR METAL RANDOM PACKINGS

Confidence Level, % 99.9 99 95 90 85 80 70 50 20

CONFIDENTIAL - FOR USE BY FRI MEMBERS ONLY

FLOOD CAPACITY PREDICTION FOR NON-METAL RANDOM PACKINGS

Flooding at a constant ratio of V/L is determined by a trial-and-error procedure or read

CONFIDENTIAL - FOR USE BY FRI MEMBERS ONLY

Figure 8.2.2. FLOODING INTERCEPT PARAMETER, R2

Figure 8.2.3. SLOPE PARAMETER, R3

CONFIDENTIAL - FOR USE BY FRI MEMBERS ONLY