Professional Documents
Culture Documents
F
or several decades, the Sherwood-Eckert generalized
pressure-drop correlation (GPDC) chart has been the
standard for predicting flood points and pressure drops
in packed columns. This chart [initially developed by Sher-
wood, et al. (2) and later modified by Lobo, et al. (3)] con-
tained only a single curve that predicted packing flood points.
Leva added a new family of curves to the charts flood-point
curve to predict packing pressure drop (4). Eckert proposed
further modifications (57), the most recent of which omitted
the flood curve, retained only the pressure drop curves, and
incorporated several other minor modifications. Strigle
changed the scales of this latest Eckert version from log-log
to semi-log to make interpolation between adjacent pressure-
drop curves easier (8). Known as Strigles chart (Figure 1),
this is the best and latest, and preferred, version of the
GPDC, as discussed in current distillation texts (810).
Those versions of the GPDC are based on random pack-
ing only. For structured packings, Kister and Gill (11) devel-
oped a modified chart [GPDC(SP), where SP stands for
structured packings], Figure 2, that empirically was a better
fit to a large database of published structured-packing data.
The GPDC chart ordinate is the capacity parameter (CP),
given by:
CP = C
S
F
P
0.5
0.05
(1)
In Eq. 1, is the kinematic viscosity of the liquid. Note
that the kinematic viscosity (in centistokes) is obtained by
dividing the dynamic viscosity (in centipoises) by the liq-
uid density in g/cm
3
not by the liquid density in
English units.
F
P
is the packing factor, which is an empirical factor
characteristic of the packing size and shape. Packing fac-
tors for common packings are listed in most distillation
texts (810).
C
S
is known as the C-factor, which is the superficial gas
velocity (U
S
) corrected for vapor and liquid densities (
G
and
L
). It is given by:
C
S
= U
S
[
G
/(
L
G
)]
0.5
(2)
The C-factor describes the balance between the vapor mo-
mentum force, which acts to entrain swarms of liquid droplets,
and the gravity force, which resists the upward entrainment.
This closely resembles the force balance used by Souders and
Brown for entrainment flooding in tray columns (13).
The GPDC chart abscissa is the flow parameter, F
lv
,
given by:
F
lv
= (L/G)(
G
/
L
)
0.5
(3)
This flow parameter represents the ratio of liquid kinetic
energy to vapor kinetic energy. High flow parameters are
typical of high liquid rates and high pressures. Conversely,
Realistically Predict
Capacity and Pressure Drop
for Packed Columns
Henry Z. Kister
Jeffrey Scherffius
Khashayar Afshar
Emil Abkar
Fluor Corp.
Generalized pressure-drop correlation (GPDC)
charts have been the standard for predicting
packing flood points and pressure drops.
This article guides engineers on the correct
and incorrect uses of the GPDC interpolation
procedure, and updates the method for
todays new state-of-the-art packings.
This article is based on a paper presented at the 2007 AIChE Spring
Meeting (1). The full paper, including an appendix containing all of the
updated charts, is available at the CEP website, www.aiche.org/cep.
28 www.aiche.org/cep July 2007 CEP
CEP July 2007 www.aiche.org/cep 29
low flow parameters are typical of vacuum and low-liquid-
rate operation.
Removal of the flood curve from recent versions of the
GPDC chart curtailed its ability to predict flood. This capa-
bility was reinstated by a simple correlation (14):
P
Fl
= 0.12F
P
0.7
(4)
Equation 4 expresses the pressure drop at the flood
point as a function of the packing factor alone. Once this
pressure drop is known, the flood velocity can be calculat-
ed from the GPDC (or any other good pressure-drop pre-
diction method). Equation 4 states that the pressure drop at
the flood point decreases as the packing capacity increas-
es, as observed earlier by others (1517). The numerical
constant originally proposed by Kister and Gill was 0.115;
Strigle (8) endorsed Eq. 4, but with the coefficient round-
ed up to 0.12.
Predictions from the latest version of
the GPDC (Figures 1 and 2) were com-
pared to thousands of packing pressure-
drop measurements (8, 11, 14). The
GPDC correlation gave good predictions
for most pressure-drop data. It generally
works well for the air-water system with
flow parameters as low as 0.01 and as
high as 1 (8). For nonaqueous systems, it
works well for flow parameters from
0.03 to 0.3 (typical of atmospheric and
mild vacuum distillation).
The GPDC correlation was shown
(11, 14) to be optimistic for flow param-
eters greater than 0.3 (typical of pres-
sure distillation and/or high-liquid-rate
applications). These optimistic
predictions were attributed to
enhanced liquid frothiness at
higher pressures (8). The
GPDC correlation is also limit-
ed at low liquid rates (flow
parameters < 0.03), where liq-
uid properties have much less
of an effect on pressure drop
than the GPDC predicts (18).
GPDC interpolation
Predictions from the GPDC
correlation are sensitive to the
packing factor. While most pack-
ing factors reported in the litera-
ture are satisfactory (8, 11, 14), a
IFigure 1. Strigles GPDC chart for random packings. (Reprinted from Ref. 8. Copyright
Gulf Publishing, Houston, TX (1994). Reprinted with permission from Elsevier.)
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
0.005 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.50 1.0 5.0
C
S
F
P
0
.
5
0
.
0
5
(L/G)(
G
/
L
)
0.5
P, in. H
2
O/ft
1.5
0.25
0.10
0.5
1.0
0.05
IFigure 2. Kister and Gills GPDC(SP) chart for structured packing.
2.00 1.00 0.50 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.005
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
Flow Parameter
P, in. H
2
O/ft
P = 1.5
0.25
0.10
0.5
1.0
Nomenclature
A
T
= tower cross-section area, ft
2
C
S
= C-factor based on tower superficial velocity,
defined by Eq. 2, ft/s
CP = capacity parameter, defined by Eq. 1
F
lv
= flow parameter, defined by Eq. 3
F
P
= packing factor, characteristic of packing geometry, ft
1
P = pressure drop, in. H
2
O/ft of packing
G = gas mass flowrate, lb/h
L = liquid mass flowrate, lb/h
U
S
= superficial vapor velocity, ft/s
Greek Letters
= density, lb/ft
3
L
= liquid viscosity, cP
= kinematic viscosity, cSt
Subscripts
Fl = at flood
G = gas
L = liquid
MOC = at maximum operational capacity
30 www.aiche.org/cep July 2007 CEP
few are a poor fit to experimental pressure-drop data. In addi-
tion, for some packings, the dependence of pressure drop on
vapor and liquid loads is not adequately predicted by the
GPDC correlation.
The deviations from the correlation tend to be system-
atic rather than random (14). Furthermore, some regions
where the correlation provided poor pressure-drop predic-
tions are those of great commercial interest. It follows that
an excellent fit to experimental data is insufficient to ren-
der a packing pressure-drop correlation suitable for design.
In addition, the correlations limitations must be fully
understood. This applies to other packing pressure-drop
correlations as well.
These limitations are overcome by GPDC interpolation.
Superimposing experimental data points (for a specific
packing) on the curves of the GPDC chart converts the
GPDC into an interpolation
chart (for that packing).
Pressure drops are calculated
by interpolating the plotted
pressure-drop data. The corre-
lation curves merely help guide
the interpolation. An atlas of
interpolation charts and an
application procedure are avail-
able in Refs. 10 and 12.
For random and grid pack-
ings, the curves on the inter-
polation charts are those of the
Strigle version of the Eckert
GPDC, Figure 1 (8). For struc-
tured packings, the curves on
the interpolation charts are
those of the Kister and Gill
GPDC(SP), Figure 2 (11). For
all charts (random, structured
or grid packings), the abscissa
is the flow parameter, given
by Eq. 3, and the ordinate is
the capacity parameter, given
by Eq. 1.
Flood and maximum oper-
ational capacity (MOC) data
are also plotted on the GPDC
interpolation charts, and the
charts are invaluable for inter-
polating these. The MOC (also
referred to as the maximum
efficient capacity) is defined
as the maximum vapor rate
that provides normal efficien-
cy of a packing (8). Where
flood data are absent, Eqs. 4
and 5, respectively, can be
used for inferring flood points
and MOCs from pressure-drop
data on the charts.
U
S,MOC
= 0.95U
S,Fl
(5)
Distillation
IFigure 4. GPDC interpolation chart for Mellapak Plus 252Y with flood and pressure drop data,
2.00 1.00 0.50 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.005
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
P, in. H
2
O/ft
Flow Parameter
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
rP = 1.5
0.25
0.10
0.5
1.0
Basis: F
P
= 12
P = 1.5 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 0.25 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 0.10 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 0.5 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 1.0 in. H
2
O/ft
Flood MOC
Legend for Data Points
NOTE: The GPDC curves are for guidance only. Interpolation of
the data points must be used to predict packing performance.
IFigure 3. GPDC interpolation chart for Mellapak Plus 752Y with flood and pressure drop data.
0.005 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.50 1.00 2.00
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
Flow Parameter
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
P = 1.5 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 0.25 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 0.10 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 0.5 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 1.0 in. H
2
O/ft
Flood MOC
Legend for Data Points
P, in. H
2
O/ft
P = 1.5
0.25
0.10
0.5
1.0
Basis: F
P
= 40
NOTE: The GPDC curves are for guidance only. Interpolation of
the data points must be used to predict packing performance.
In all GPDC interpolation charts (Figures 39), large symbols denote data for non-aqueous systems and
small symbols denote data for aqueous systems.
CEP July 2007 www.aiche.org/cep 31
Flood-point predictions from Eq. 4 were compared to an
extensive data bank for modern random and structured
packings (11, 14). Pressure drops were calculated using the
GPDC interpolation charts. Equation 4 predicted all the
flood points in the data bank to within +15%, and most to
within +10%. This procedure was also shown to be insensi-
tive to reasonable errors in packing factors (10).
The suitability of the GPDC interpolation charts as a
basis for interpolation is not accidental. Packing pressure
drops correlate extremely well with GPDC coordinates,
i.e., the flow parameter and the
capacity parameter. The depen-
dence does not always follow
the correlation contours, but
always appears to exist.
Furthermore, the correlation
coordinates are essentially a
performance diagram, i.e., a
plot of a vapor load against
liquid load, a tool commonly
used for charting column
hydraulic performance.
The conversion of the
GPDC into interpolation charts
overcomes a multitude of limi-
tations of the correlation. The
GPDC interpolation charts
readily identify any regions
where data veer off the correla-
tion curves, and give reliable
estimates (by data interpola-
tion) in these regions.
It may be argued that the
interpolation procedure breaks
down when data are absent. The
counter-argument is that the
GPDC correlation curves are
always there to fall back on and
to get a prediction, but now
there is also a tool to warn that
there are no data in this region
and that uncertainty is involved.
A shortcoming of the
GPDC interpolation data chart
procedure is that it replaces a
single correlation chart by an
atlas. The interpolation charts
consume more storage space in
the design manual or on the
computer and require more
updating effort.
Updates
The last update of the GPDC interpolation procedure was
issued in 1995 (12). Much has happened in packing technolo-
gy since, and these developments are addressed in this article.
Updated charts for 22 packings are presented in full in
Ref. 1 (Figures 39 here are typical examples), along with a
comprehensive table outlining the sources of the data shown
in the charts. The updates address the following:
1. Arecent development followed the realization that liq-
uid drainage in structured packings was restricted at the ele-
IFigure 6. GPDC interpolation chart for Montz B1-250M with flood and pressure data.
2.00 1.00 0.50 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.005
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
P, in. H
2
O/ft
Flow Parameter
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
P = 1.5
0.25
0.10
0.5
1.0
P = 1.5 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 0.25 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 0.10 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 0.5 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 1.0 in. H
2
O/ft
Flood MOC
Small symbols = aqueous data
Large symbols = non-aqueous data
Basis: F
P
= 13
NOTE: The GPDC curves are for guidance only. Interpolation of
the data points must be used to predict packing performance.
IFigure 5. GPDC interpolation chart for Flexipac HC 2Y with pressure drop data.
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.005 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.50 1.00 2.00
Flow Parameter
Basis: F
P
= 13
NOTE: The GPDC curves are for guidance only. Interpolation of
the data points must be used to predict packing performance.
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
P = 1.5 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 0.25 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 0.10 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 0.5 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 1.0 in. H
2
O/ft
Flood MOC
Legend for Data Points
P, in. H
2
O/ft
P = 1.5
0.25
0.10
0.5
1.0
32 www.aiche.org/cep July 2007 CEP
ment-to-element transition rather than inside elements. This
means that the liquid accumulation leading to flood initiates
at the element transition region. Afourth-generation of
structured packings evolved in which the main body of
each element has layers inclined at 45 deg., but the top or
both ends of each element are rounded or vertical to pro-
mote drainage at this end region. These high-capacity struc-
tured packings offer more capacity than equivalent 45-deg.-
inclined packings; some (1922) have the same efficiency,
while others (23) have a slightly lower efficiency. These
packings are represented in Figures 36.
2. Inside each element of a structured packing, corrugat-
ed sheets are most commonly inclined at about 45 deg. to
the vertical (typically indicated by the letter Y following
the packing size). This angle is large enough for good liquid
drainage, avoiding stagnant pockets and regions of liquid
accumulation, and small enough to prevent gas from
bypassing the metal surfaces. In some packings, the inclina-
tion angle to the vertical is
steepened to 30 deg. (typically
indicated by the letter X fol-
lowing the packing size). This
improves drainage, and there-
fore capacity, but at the
expense of reduced gas-liquid
contact, and therefore, efficien-
cy. Many new X-type packings
have come on the market since
the previous update of the
charts. Figure 7 is a typical
chart for one of these packings.
3. For one line of popular
structured packing (Flexipac
1Y, 2Y, 3Yand 4Y), the origi-
nal GPDC interpolation charts
(10) were based on pressure-
drop data measured in an exten-
sive air-water test program by
Koch Engineering in 1982 (24,
25). Recent publications by the
same company appear to have
shifted support to new air-water
data (21, 26) that measured sig-
nificantly larger pressure drops
under equivalent conditions.
(This is discussed further in the
examples.) Figure 8 is an
example of a revised chart for
one of these packings based on
the vendors latest data.
4. The Raschig Super-Ring
high-capacity random packing
has become available and
gained popularity. Figure 9 is a
new GPDC chart for one size
of these packings.
5. Data and GPDC charts
for Hyperfil knitted-mesh
tower packing were recently
published (27).
Distillation
IFigure 8. GPDC interpolation chart for Flexipac 2Y with flood and pressure drop data.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
0.005 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.50 1.00 2.00
P, in. H
2
O/ft
Flow Parameter
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
rP = 1.5
0.25
0.10
0.5
1.0
Basis: F
P
= 15
P = 1.5 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 0.25 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 0.10 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 0.5 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 1.0 in. H
2
O/ft
Flood MOC
Small symbols = aqueous data
Large symbols = non-aqueous data
NOTE: The GPDC curves are for guidance only. Interpolation of
the data points must be used to predict packing performance.
IFigure 7. GPDC interpolation chart for Flexipac 3X with pressure drop data.
2.00 1.00 0.50 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.005
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
P, in. H
2
O/ft
Flow Parameter
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
rP = 1.5
0.25
0.10
0.5
1.0
Basis: F
P
= 5
P = 1.5 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 0.25 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 0.10 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 0.5 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 1.0 in. H
2
O/ft
Flood MOC
Legend for Data Points
NOTE: The GPDC curves are for guidance only. Interpolation of
the data points must be used to predict packing performance.
In all GPDC interpolation charts (Figures 39), large symbols denote data for non-aqueous systems and
small symbols denote data for aqueous systems.
CEP July 2007 www.aiche.org/cep 33
Use and misuse of the GPDC charts
The following examples illustrating common misuses of
the GPDC charts are based on actual experiences. Some
details may have been changed to make it difficult for read-
ers to recognize where the experience occurred.
Example 1: Typical flood and pressure-drop
calculations for a possible retrofit
A6-ft-dia. chemical vacuum tower contains a 20-ft bed
of #1.5 metal Raschig Super-Ring packing. The tower is to
be retrofitted for a vapor flowrate of G = 40,000 lb/h, vapor
density of
G
= 0.036 lb/ft
3
, liquid flowrate of L = 32,000
lb/h, liquid density of
L
= 48 lb/ft
3
, and liquid viscosity of
L
= 0.60 cP. Would the packing achieve these flowrates? If
the packing is to be replaced by Mellapak Plus 252Y or
Flexipac HC 2Y structured packing, can a pressure drop
reduction be achieved?
Solution. Figures 9, 4 and 5 are GPDC interpolation
charts for these packings. These charts are the basis for
the calculations.
1. Calculate the flow parameter from Eq. 3. F
lv
=
(32,000/40,000)(0.036/48)
0.5
= 0.022.
2. Calculate the C-factor from Eq. 2. The tower area =
A
T
= (/4)6
2
= 28.27 ft
2
. The vapor velocity = U
S
=
40,000/(3,600 0.036 28.27) = 10.9 ft/s. From Eq. 2, the
C-factor = 10.9[0.036/(48 0.036)]
0.5
= 0.299 ft/s.
3. Calculate the kinematic viscosity in cSt. This is
obtained by dividing the dynamic viscosity in cP (
L
) by the
liquid density in g/cm
3
(
L
). Centistokes, centipoises and
g/cm
3
are all units in the CGS system, and are consistent
units. An accurate estimate of
kinematic viscosity is obtained
by dividing the dynamic viscos-
ity by the specific gravity.
Misuse #1: Mixing units in
kinematic viscosity calculations
has been the top cause of get-
ting incorrect answers from the
GPDC correlations. The kine-
matic viscosity is raised to the
power of 0.05 in the calculation
(Eq. 1). The conversion factor
between the English units of
lb/ft
3
and the CGS units of
g/cm
3
is 62.4. When 62.4 is
raised to the 0.05 power, it pro-
duces an error of 23%. This
makes a large difference in the
final answer, yet the wrong
answer makes sense, so the
error is difficult to identify.
Thus, liquid density =
L
= 48/62.4 = 0.769 g/cm
3
and
kinematic viscosity = = 0.60/0.769 = 0.78 cSt.
4. Calculate the capacity parameter. Figure 9 gives a
packing factor of 18 for the #1.5(M) Raschig Super-Ring.
From Eq. 1, CP = 0.299 18
0.5
0.78
0.05
= 1.25.
5. Calculate the flood point. Figure 9 does not contain
flood data, so Eq. 4 is used to give P
Fl
= 0.12 18
0.7
=
0.91 in. H
2
O/ft of packing. The flood capacity parameter
is the ordinate at the flood pressure drop and at the flow
IFigure 9. GPDC interpolation chart for #1.5(M) Raschig Super-Ring with pressure drop data.
5.00 1.00 0.50 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.005
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
P, in. H
2
O/ft
Flow Parameter
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
P = 1.5
0.25
0.10
0.5
1.0
Basis: F
P
= 18
P = 1.5 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 0.25 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 0.10 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 0.5 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 1.0 in. H
2
O/ft
Flood MOC
Legend for Data Points
NOTE: The GPDC curves are for guidance only. Interpolation of
the data points must be used to predict packing performance.
Table. Packings considered for retrofit in Example 1.
Flexipac HC 2Y Mellapak Plus 252Y
F
P
(Figures 4 and 5) 13 12
CP (Eq. 1) 1.065 1.023
P
Fl
(Eq. 4) 0.72 0.68
Flood CP
(from F
lv
and P
Fl
) 1.62
1.57*
% Flood 66% 65%
Actual Pressure Drop
(from F
lv
, CP), in. H
2
O/ft 0.25
0.22
Notes:
* There are actual flood data, so there is no need to use Eq. 4. The
flood point is a direct interpolation of flood data, so it is predicted with
a high degree of confidence.
L
= 41 lb/ft
3
, and
L
= 3 cP.
Solution. Figure 13 is the GPDC interpolation chart for
this packing and the basis for the calculation.
1. Calculate the flow parameter. From Eq. 3,
F
lv
= (580,000/77,000)(0.45/41)
0.5
= 0.79.
2. Calculate the C-factor from Eq. 2. A
T
= (/4)5
2
=
19.64 ft
2
. U
S
= 77,000/(3,600 0.45 19.64) = 2.42 ft/s.
C
S
= 2.42[0.45/(41 0.45)]
0.5
= 0.255 ft/s.
3. Calculate the kinematic viscosity. = 3/(41/62.4)
= 4.57 cSt.
4. Calculate the capacity parameter. Based on a pack-
ing factor of 10 as shown in Figure 13, CP = 0.255
4.57
0.05
10
0.5
= 0.87.
5. Plot the flow parameter on the abscissa and the capac-
ity parameter on the ordinate to identify the operating point
on Figure 13. This figure shows that the operating point in
this tower falls in a region where the flow parameter is high-
er than the range at which data are available for this packing.
Extrapolation is required, and uncertainty exists. It is
quite possible that the vendor has little data in this zone,
and any proprietary predictions are likely to be uncertain.
The strength of the GPDC is that it does give this warning
to the user, whereas the proprietary program does not.
Fortunately, flood data (measured by the packing ven-
dor) are available all the way to a flow parameter of 0.56,
and from there to 0.79 the extrapolation only needs to
travel a short path. Also, the flood data appear to trend
well, and should give a reasonable prediction, despite the
uncertainty. The flood data extrapolate to a capacity
parameter of about 0.8 at a flow parameter of 0.79. From
this, the percent of flood = 100 0.87/0.8 = 109%.
Unlike the proprietary method, the GPDC interpola-
tion procedure predicted flooding at the operating condi-
tions. Considering that the high loads were only at the
top of the bed, the entire pressure drop of unflooded
packing in this service should have been less than 35 in.
H
2
O, as can be calculated from Figure 13 and integrated
over the bed. The actual measured pressure drop was
about four times higher.
In this case, the GPDC interpolation calculation also
invalidated a proposed revamp with a more open packing.
While it was estimated that the new packing would operate
at 88% of flood, the GPDC interpolation chart for the pro-
posed packing showed that although the more open pack-
ing would satisfactorily handle current conditions, it would
experience flooding at the revamp loads. On this basis, the
stripping section cylinder (can) was replaced with a larger
one, and trouble-free operation was achieved.
Example 6:
Extrapolating data
Consider again Example 5.
Would a retrofit with Flexipac
3X permit current operation
without flooding?
Solution. The GPDC inter-
polation chart for Flexipac 3X
is shown in Figure 7 and is the
basis for this calculation. F
lv
,
C
S
and are the same as in
Example 4. For Flexipac 3X,
the packing factor is much
lower, F
P
= 5, so the capacity
parameter is CP = 0.255
4.57
0.05
5
0.5
= 0.615. The
point (0.79, 0.615) can be
plotted on Figure 7. In the
absence of flood data, Eq. 4 is
used for the flood pressure
IFigure 13. GPDC interpolation chart for packing in tower stripping section, showing an operating
point above flood.
0.005 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.50 1.00 5.00
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
P, in. H
2
O/ft
Flow Parameter
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
P = 1.5
0.25
0.10
0.5
1.0
Basis: F
P
= 10
P = 1.5 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 0.25 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 0.10 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 0.5 in. H
2
O/ft
P = 1.0 in. H
2
O/ft
Flood MOC
Legend for Data Points
NOTE: The GPDC curves are for guidance only. Interpolation of
the data points must be used to predict packing performance.
Operating Point
CEP July 2007 www.aiche.org/cep 37
drop P
Fl
= 0.12 5
0.7
= 0.37 in. H
2
O/ft of packing.
The closest data points for this pressure drop are at
flow parameters of 0.30.4, much lower than the 0.79 in
the tower. The operating point is well outside the available
data range for Flexipac 3X. This interpolation chart is
unable to tell where the flood point is at a flow parameter
of 0.79. Therefore, the interpolation chart cannot tell
whether Flexipac 3X will permit operation at the current
loads without flooding.
Misuse #4: Any extrapolation must be performed with
good engineering judgment. In Example 5, the extrapolation
was to a nearby region, there were well-defined flood data,
and the data trends were clear. Although there was some
uncertainty, extrapolation could be expected to yield a rea-
sonable estimate. In Example 6, however, there were no
flood data, the operating point was quite far from the pres-
sure-drop data points, and the data trends were not complete-
ly clear at the higher flow parameter. Under such circum-
stances, extrapolation is unreliable and must be avoided.
Example 7: Unrealistic predictions
This example presents several experiences in which pre-
dictions for a packed tower by the vendor and by simulators
were optimistic. In each of these, Eq. 4 gave an excellent
prediction for the maximum capacity.
Tower A. This chemical tower, equipped with wire-mesh
structured packing with a packing factor of 21, ran com-
pletely smoothly until reaching a pressure drop of 1 in.
H
2
O/ft of packing. It would then rapidly lose efficiency,
exactly as predicted by Eq. 4. Simulation (both vendor-spe-
cific and general options) predicted a much higher capacity.
Tower B. This chemical tower, equipped with random
packing with a packing factor of 18, rapidly lost efficiency
when the pressure drop increased above 0.67 in. H
2
O/ft of
Literature Cited
1. Kister, H. Z., J. Scherffius, K. Afshar, and E. Abkar, GPDC
Interpolation: Use, Misuse, and Updates, in Distillation 2007:
Continuing the Heritage of John Kunesh, Mich Sakata, Frits
Zuiderweg, Bill Bolles and Nick Chopey, Proceedings of Topical
Conference, AIChE Spring Meeting, Houston, TX (Apr. 2007).
2. Sherwood, T. K., G. H. Shipley, and F. A. L. Holloway, Flood-
ing Velocities in Packed Columns, Ind. Eng. Chem., 30 (7),
pp. 765769 (1938).
3. Lobo, W. E., L. Friend, H. Hashmall, and F. A. Zenz, Limit-
ing Capacity of Dumped Tower Packings, Trans. AIChE, 41,
pp. 693710 (1945).
4. Leva, M., Flow Through Irrigated Dumped Packings, Chem. Eng.
Progress Symp. Ser., 50 (10), pp. 5159 (1954).
5. Eckert, J. S., Tower Packings Comparative Performance,
Chem. Eng. Progress, 59 (5), pp. 7682 (May 1963).
6. Eckert, J. S., Selecting the Proper Distillation Column Packing,
Chem. Eng. Progress, 66 (3), pp. 3944 (Mar. 1970).
7. Eckert, J. S., How Tower Packings Behave, Chem. Eng.,
pp. 7076 (Apr. 14, 1975).
8. Strigle, R. F., Jr., Packed Tower Design and Applications, 2nd
ed., Gulf Publishing, Houston, TX (1994) (1st ed. was published
in 1987).
9. Perry, R. H., and D. Green, Chemical Engineers Handbook,
8th ed., McGraw-Hill, NY (to be published in 2007).
10. Kister, H. Z., Distillation Design, McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY (1992).
11. Kister, H. Z., and D. R. Gill, Flooding and Pressure Drop
Prediction for Structured Packings, IChemE Symp. Ser. 128, pp.
A109A123 (1992).
12. Kister, H. Z., K. F. Larson. and D. R. Gill, More Interpolation
Charts for Predicting Packing Flood and Pressure Drop, presented
at the AIChE Spring National Meeting, Houston, TX (Mar. 1995).
13. Souders, M., Jr., and G. G. Brown, Design of Fractionating
Columns, Ind. Eng. Chem., 26 (1), pp. 98103 (1934).
14. Kister, H. Z., and D. R. Gill, Predict Flood Points and Pressure
Drop for Modern Random Packings, Chem. Eng. Progress, 87 (2),
pp. 3242 (Feb. 1991).
15. Zenz, F. A., What Every Engineer Should Know About Packed
Tower Operation, Chem. Eng., pp. 176184, (Aug. 1953).
16. Strigle, R. F., Jr., and F. Rukovena, Jr., Packed Distillation
Column Design, Chem. Eng. Progress, 75 (3), pp. 8691
(Mar. 1979).
17. Mackowiak, J., Fluiddynamik von Kolonnen mit Modernen
Fllkrpern und Packungen fr Gas/Flssigkeitssysteme, Otto Salle
Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, und Verlag Sauerlnder, Aarau,
Frankfurt am Main (1991).
18. Robbins, L. A., Improve Pressure-Drop Prediction With a New
Correlation, Chem. Eng. Progress, 87 (5), pp. 8791 (May 1991).
19. Lockett, M. J., R. A. Victor, and J. F. Billingham, Structured
Packing Flooding: Its Measurement and Prediction, in Distillation
and Absorption 2006, IChemE Symp. Ser., 152, pp. 400408 (2006).
20. Pilling, M., and L. Spiegel, Design Characteristics and Test
Validation for High Performance Structured Packings, paper pre-
sented at the John Kunesh Distillation Honors Session, AIChE
Annual Meeting, Reno, NV (Nov. 2001).
21. McNulty, K., and R. A. Sommerfeldt, New Twist Adds Capacity
to Flexipac Structured Packings, in Distillation: Horizons for the
New Millennium, Topical Conference Proceedings, pp. 89101,
AIChE Spring Meeting, Houston, TX (Mar. 1999).
22. Schultes, M., and S. Chamber, How to Surpass Conventional and
High Capacity Structured Packings with Raschig Super-Pak,
Chem. Eng. Res. and Des., 85 (A1), pp. 118129 (Jan. 2007).
23. Olujic, Z., A. F. Seibert, B. Kaibel, H. Jansen, T. Rietfort, and
E. Zich, Performance Characteristics of a New High Capacity
Packing, Chem. Eng. and Proc., 42, pp. 5560 (2003).
24. McNulty, K., and C. L. Hsieh, Hydraulic Performance and Efficien-
cy of Koch Flexipac Structured Packings, paper presented at the
1982 Annual Meeting of the AIChE, Los Angeles, CA. (Nov. 1982).
25. Koch Engineering Co., Flexipac Structured Packing, Bulletin
KFP-3, Wichita, KS (1989).
26. Koch-Glitsch LP, Flexipac Structured Packing, Bulletin KFP-5,
Wichita, KS (1997).
27. Cooling, M., and M. Neuman, Hyperfil Knitted Mesh Tower
Packing A High-Efficiency Leader for the Future, in
Distillation 2005: Learning from the Past and Advancing the
Future, Topical Conference Proceedings, pp. 389399, AIChE
Spring Meeting, Atlanta, GA (Apr. 2005).
28. Kister, H. Z., Distillation Troubleshooting Wiley, Hoboken,
NJ (2006).
29. Koch-Glitsch LP, KG-TOWER Reliably Predicting Packed
Tower Pressure Capacity and Pressure Drop, Koch Glitsch
Newsletter,Wichita, KS (4th Qtr, 2006).
30. Fair, J. R., and J. L. Bravo, Distillation Columns Containing Struc-
tured Packings, Chem. Eng. Progress, 86 (1), pp. 1929 (Jan. 1990).
packing. This compares to a flood pressure drop of 0.9 from
Eq. 4. The measurement was slightly lower than the predic-
tion because the vapor load was high only near the top of
the packings, so much of the bed operated at a lower pres-
sure drop. Simulations (using various options) predicted a
much higher capacity. The plant initially theorized that the
shortfall in capacity was due to vapor maldistribution.
Tower C. This chemical absorber was equipped with ran-
dom packing with a packing factor of 18. The highest pres-
sure drop at which operation was stable was 0.8 in. H
2
O/ft
of packing. Above this, the pressure drop would rise rapidly.
This compares to a flood pressure drop of 0.9 from Eq. 4.
Simulation predictions (both vendor and general options)
were of a 20% higher capacity.
Tower D. Random packing installed in a chemical tower
fell short of achieving the design capacity. The vendor
method predicted flooding at a pressure drop of 1.5 in.
H
2
O/ft of packing. With a packing factor of 18, Eq. 4 pre-
dicted that the packing would flood significantly earlier, at a
pressure drop of 0.9 in. H
2
O/ft of packing. The packing
flooded exactly at that pressure drop.
38 www.aiche.org/cep July 2007 CEP
Distillation
CEP
HENRY Z. KISTER is a Fluor Corp. senior fellow and director of fractionation
technology at Fluor Corp. (3 Polaris Way, Aliso Viejo, CA 92698; Phone:
(949) 349-4679; E-mail: henry.kister@fluor.com). He has over 30 years of
experience in design, troubleshooting, revamping, field consulting, control
and startup of fractionation processes and equipment. He is the author of
three books and 80 articles, and has taught the IChemE-sponsored
Practical Distillation Technology course more than 300 times. A recipient
of several awards, Kister obtained his BE and ME degrees from the Univ. of
New South Wales in Australia. He is a Fellow of IChemE and AIChE, and
serves on the Fractionation Research Institutes Technical Advisory and
Design Practices Committees.
JEFFREY SCHERFFIUS is a senior process engineer at Fluor. He has nine years
of experience with various gas-processing technologies, including
hydrogen manufacture, carbon dioxide recovery and sequestration, and
ammonia manufacture. He has also worked on several column
troubleshooting and debottlenecking projects. Scherffius received his BS
in chemical engineering from the Univ. of California, San Diego and is a
registered professional engineer in California.
KHASHAYAR (KASH) AFSHAR is an associate process engineer at Fluor. He
has one year of experience in carbon dioxide capture technology. He
received his BS in chemical engineering and materials science and
engineering from the Univ. of California, Berkeley and his MS in chemical
engineering from Stanford Univ.
EMIL ABKAR is an associate process engineer at Fluor. He has more than ten
years of engineering experience in oil and gas processing, petroleum
refining, heavy oil upgrading and petrochemical plants, with expertise in
linear alkyl benzene and hydrogen manufacture. Abkar holds a BSc from
Isfahan Univ. of Technology in Iran, and a Masters from the Univ. of
Southern California, both in chemical engineering. He is a member of AIChE.
www.aiche.org/cep or Circle No.123