PRESSURE

DROP AND LIQUID

TWO PHASE CONCURRENT
PACKED
BEDS
V

SPECCHIA

and G

lstltuto & Chlmtca Industtlale,

BALD1

Pohtecmco

(Recerued 26 July 1976. accepted

HOLDUP
FOR
FLOW IN

& Tormo,

Italy

1 September 1976)

Abstract-Pressure
drop and hqlud holdup for two-phase concurrent downward low m packed beds were
correlated for various types of packmgs by takmg mto account two hydrodynanuc regnnes a poor and a h@
gas-bqlud mteraction regnne
Foammg and non-foammg systems have been consldered
In the poor mteractlon regune, the pressure drop was calculated as due to the gas flowmg KIa bed restrxted by
the presence of the hqud A correlation vahd for a free hqutd tr~cklmg. moddied In order to take into account the
effect of the pressure drop, IS proposed and used to correlate lrqud holdup IIIthe presence of a concurrent gas
flow
In the h@ Interaction regme, emplncal correlations were proposed for both foammg and non-foammg systems
All the employed correlations fit experimental results from several authors better than those proposed m the
hterature

INTRODUCTION

S,, IS calculated by consldermg

each phase as flowing
through a section restrtcted by the presence of the other
phase The pressure drop of each phase flowmg through
the restricted section 1s assumed to be expressed by the
same relationship
as that vahd for a smgle phase flow
through the whole section, so that no interaction effects
between the phases are taken mto account Accordmg to
this approach,
S,, 1s correlated
as a function
of a
parameter x, defined as

Packed beds with concurrent downflow two-phase flow

are widely used m chemical
mdusties
either as absorption apparatuses
or as catalytic reactors (trtckle bed
reactors)
Pressure drop 1s one of the most important parameters
m the design of two-phase
concurrent
beds, even for
gas-hquld
hquld-sohd
forecastmg
and
mass
transfer [8,9,15,19,20]
A wide literature exists on the two-phase
pressure
drop
and
many
correlations
have
been
&o
proposed[3,14,21,23]
However, it can be observed that
each of these correlations
fits (more or less) well the
expenmental
data obtamed by each author, but does not
agree well with the data obtamed
by other authors
Furthermore they were proposed mdependently
from the
different hydrodynamic
regunes involved m a two-phase
concurrent
flow m packed beds, Increased gas and/or
liquid flow rates leads to dtierent
condltlons
of gashquld mteraction[3,24],
and hence to dtierent
mechamsms of momentum
transfer, so that it appears more
suiable
to have different
correlations
for different
hydrodynamic
repmes
To this regard, Weekman and
Myers[24]
observed that their aLo data at low gas and
llquld flow rates were considerably
dtierent from those
calculated from the Larkms et al correlation, while their
6LG data at high gas and liquid flow rates agree substantially with tis correlation
Moreover,
the cited correlations
do not consider
foammg systems,
rt was noted[14,23]
that the pressure
drop increases remarkably when foammg arises
As regards the approach used for these correlations,
Larkms et al [14] and Sato et al [21] adopted the Lockart
and Martmelh approach [ 161 for concurrent
two-phase
flow in pipes
Basically this approach assumes independent flows of
the two phases
The two-phase frictional pressure drop

x= J($ )
0

where 6, and So are the smgle phase frictional pressure

drop m the bed for the liquid and the gas flow respectively, determined at the same flow rate as m the twophase flow
Charpentler[2]
mtroduced
a modfied
x parameter,
based on an energy instead than a momentum
balance
Turpm
and Huntmgton[23]
proposed
an emplncal
correlation of a two-phase friction factor fLo as a function of the ratlo between
the gas and hquld phase
Reynolds numbers, each rased to a suitable exponent
This correlation
was tested for one gas-hquld
system
(au-water)
and one type of packmg (8 mm tabular allumma) only
Recently Hutton and Leung[12] proposed a model, m
which &.o IS considered as a function of the gas flow rate
m the restrrcted section of the bed, and the hqud holdup
as a function of the hquld flow rate and the pressure
drop They assumed
that the gas pressure drop m the
restrtcted sectron IS expressed by the same relatIonship
as that valid for a smgle phase flow through the whole
section m a dry packmg
The agreement of tlus model
with the experunental data IS poor even at low liquid and
gas flow rates where the model, accordmg to the authors,
would be vahd
515

516

SPECCHIA

and G

Similar problems exist for liquid holdup, which IS

closely connected with pressure drop Larkms et al [14]
and Sato et al 1211correlated the total saturation with the
x parameter these correlations give rather dtierent
results Charpentier and Favier[3] examined several
foaming and non-foaming systems, their data of total
saturation did not agree neither with Larkms et al nor
with Sato et al correlation, these data were thus correlated as a function of a modlfied x parameter previously introduced by Bakos and Charpentierll] On the
other hand, these latter authors proposed two different
correlations of the dynamc saturation for dilierent packings To this regard it can be observed that it seems more
approprmte to consider the dynamic saturation than the
total saturation
The total saturation in fact is equal to the dynamic
saturation plus the static saturation, for a given packing
m a two-phase flow, the former depends on the gas and
hquid flow rates, the latter instead, which may be of the
same order of magmtude of the dynamic saturation at
high gas flow rates, depends only on the liquid phase
physical properties [2,3]
As for S,, the correlations for liquid holdup available
in the literature do not consider the hydrodynamic regimes
From the foregoing, it thus appears that correlation of
pressure drop and liquid holdup in concurrent two-phase
flow in packed beds needs to be examined more

thoroughly, especially as regards the influence of the

hydrodynamic regimes
In this work we examined experimental data for
foaming and non-foaming systems obtained by many
workers together with some obtamed directly by us,
covering a quite wide range of operative conditions,
packmg shapes and sues and physical properties of the
fluids Liquid holdup for free liquid trickling (at zero gas
flow rate) was also considered expecially as concerns the
small porous packings used m trickle bed reactors
Table 1 shows the source of the experimental values
examined, m tis table the symbols used in the following
figures are also listed The packing properties and those
of the liquids directly tested during this work are listed m
Tables 2 and 3

A schematic drawmg of the experimental apparatus

used for pressure drop and hquid holdup determinations
is shown m Fig 1
The plexiglass column had an id of 0 08 m It consisted of flanged segments of dtierent lengths, the
maximum height was 105 m
Uniform distribution of the liquid on the column section was ensured by mtroduction through a bundle of 100
1 mm I d stainless steel tubes
Six pressure taps were drilled on the column wall
Seven manometers were connected to them to

Table 1 Expenmentai
Symbol

Paclung, D,

lo3

Esp

data

Catalyst
cylutdetr,t
61assbeads, 3
Berl

z
8
Cl

L
h
e

25
39
Halos
saddles 25
30
Steel
rings 51
R1ngs,G 4
I 10 3
IO 3
103
22
Glass
beads,4 73
6lass
beads 4 13
Crushed partlcles.2
91
II
0 541

g
?I
a
A
A
$

2
32
32
Carbon part&s,0
99
Carbon cylrnders,4 1
Slass spheres. 6
Glass cylmdcrs, 2 7
_
54
_
54
.
54
54
54
0

x ( 0)
X(0)

saddles

Catalyst

<
A

cylmdets.3

toarnmg

systems

natural

(*)
(*I
(*I
(*)
(*I

(D>
( WI
(,I
(0 >

x (0)
x (0)
x (0)

LarkIns,

air- water

Dodds

atr-

Charpentler
I

et al 1960

x(,*1
x(,*1
x (*I

water

air-sugar
aqueous solution 70% by wclght
rr-lropropanol
90%
air- water
nitrogen-methanol
air - water

x(,,*)
x (*I
x(*1
x(*1
x (*>

1968

I
n

.
Hochman and Effron 1969
6010 and Smith 1975
*

carbon dlolidc-dtsulturlzed
gas otl
air -nondesutfurlred
gas 011
air-kerosene

x (0)
x (0)
x (0)

x
x
x
X

References

gas-kerosene
1

X(0)

x (*)
x (,I

system

PO

X(O)

x
x
x
x
x
X(b)
X(b)

data exammed

6as-llquld

rcgorted

616
0

BALDI

x (*I
x (*I
x(,*1
x(,*1
x(,,*)
X to,*)
x (o**)

Chrrpentwr

atr- water

Colombo

air-water

Ttus

.
at

r9=u

non-foammg

systems

_
-

Farmr,t975

et aI ,1976

work

.
olr-glycerol aqueous salutlon
9% by wcrght
n
29%
1

rlr-water with surfactant,a,=

0 056 kg/s2
,,
3,
~L=ou50

ad

Pressure

drop and llqmd holdup for two-phase

concurrent

517

flow m packed beds

Table 2 Packmg properties

Porosity
60

Twe
Glass spheres, 6 mm
Glass cylmders, 5 4 x 5 4 mm
Glass cyhnders, 2 7 x 2 7 mm

040
0 37

0 38

Nommal
diameter
fh. Cm1
00060
0 0054

0 0027

Geometrxal
area

n. [m-Y
600
700

1360

Table 3 Llquld phases physlcal propertles

Llquld phase
Water
Glycerol aqueous soluUon 9% by weight
Glycerol aqueous solution 2% by we&
Water with 8 ppm of surfactant
Water with 16ppm of surfactant

Ftg 1 Experunental apparatus A, gas and liquid dlstnbutor, B,

packed zone, C, hquld measunng vessel, E, rotameters, F, llquld
tank, G, blower, H, au humIdtier, P, llqmd pump, T, thermometer,

V. qmck-closmg

electical

valves

measure either the pressure drop or the pressure along

the column Each tap was fitted with a hquld separator to
mamtam
the manometer
leads m a single-phase
gas
condlfion
The pressure drop along the column was quite constant except in the top section where it was higher,
probably due to the entrance effects These higher values
were therefore neglected
For hqmd holdup measurements,
the column
was
eqmpped with three quick-closmg
electical
valves
two
on the gas and hqtud mlet pipes, and one at the outlet of
the column These valves were closed sunultaneously
by
an electical
srgnal, then, by openmg the bottom valve,
the hqmd was allowed to dram mto a measurmg vessel
Fifteen mmutes were generally enough to collect all the
drammg hqmd To take mto account the hqmd m the
unpacked parts of the apparatus (hqmd dlstnbutor,
bottom collector), three dtierent
heats
of packing (1 05,
0 75 and 0 30 m) were exammed for each hqmd and gas
flow rate The collected hquld volume was plotted versus
the he&t
of the packmg Tlus gave a straet
lme whose
slope was propotional
to the dynamic holdup

Density
pr. [kg/m7

vlscoslty
pLL[k&n sl

Surface
tenslon
UL Ik8lsl

1000
1030
1070
1000
1000

0 00100
0 00126
0 00235
0 00100
0 00100

0072
0 OS2
0044
0 056
0 050

The experimental
runs were carried out at room
temperature
Super&al
velocities up to 0 030 mls and up to 109 mls
were used for the hqmd and gas phases respectively
to
cover all the hydrodynamic
regunes
Runs with gas or
hqmd single phase flow were also carried out
Pressure drop for a gas flow through a wetted bed was
also measured
Fust the packmg was completely wetted,
the llquld was then allowed to dram for some tnne, so
that only the static holdup was present m the column, m
these
condltlons
pressure
drop for gas flow was
measured
After each run the packmg was wetted agam
and pressure drop for single gas flow again measured
The various
hydrodynamic
regunes
were also observed, particularly for foammg systems
The transition
from one hydrodynamic
regune to another was determmed by visual mspectlon
of the flow behavlour
and
also from the effects on the pressure drop
EYDRODYNAhIICRRGIMES

Charpentler and Favler [3] observed several hydrodynamic regunes m concurrent downward two-phase flow
m packed beds
At low llquld and gas flow rates, a tncklmg flow regime
exists
(Weekman
and Myers gas contmuous
flow),
where the flow of one phase IS little affected by the flow
of the other, It may be called poor interaction regme
An increase of gas and/or liquid flow rates leads to
pulsmg and spray Aow for non-foaming
systems,
and
foaming, foammg-pulsing,
pulsmg flow and spray flow
for foammg systems
These regrmes are characterized by
an high interaction between the phases due either to an
high shear stress at the gas-liquid
interface with a formation of hqud droplets or of froth, or to periodical
packmg iioodmg (pulsmg and foammg-pulsmg
flow) All
these regunes may be gathered mto an ?ugh mteractlon
regune
By takmg Into account the physical properties of the
flu& Charpenkr
and Favler were able to correlate the
transition flow rates between the poor interaction and the

518

SPECCIM

high interaction regnne by one curve valid for foammg

and non-foammg
systems
In Fe 2 tlus curve IS plotted together with the experunental results obtamed m thus work Our values for
non-foammg
systems
agree well with the results of
Charpentier
and Favler, for foaming systems,
we observed a transition between poor and lllgh mteracbon
regune at lower hquld flow rates than those observed by
these workers (as said before, for the meanmg of the
symbols see Table 1)

and G BALDI
one obtams

8 =
Y

k,

I1- d1 - fis)]
cLooo

IO-

3
GE/X

610

k,

1- EO(l- fis)

pouo2

Eb(l- Bs)
(3)

k, and kz calculated
m this way dtiered
sdcantly
from those for a dry packmg, since wettmg changes the
packmg shape Hutton and Leung[lZ]
on the contrary
used an expression valid for dry packmg In Ftg 3 some
data
obtamed
by
us
and
by
expenmental
S,,
Charpentier[2]
m the poor Interaction regune are compared with the S,, values calculated from the expression
proposed by Hutton and Leung and from eqn (2)
6,

,001
6

QoYl- Bs)

[ ka/m*ll

Fig 2 Condlttons for the translbon to the lugh mteraction regme

Foaming IS not yet well utiderstood, but probably the
concentration
gradients near the gas-hqmd interface play
a slgzuficant role To this regard It can be noted that
Charpentler and Favzer employed hydrocarbon
mixtures
as hqusd phase, we used glycerol solutions
and surfactants solutions m water
POOR

lNTERAC!TlON RRGthlR

PRRBURE

DROP AND LIQUID EOLDUP

Our pressure drop and llqmd holdup data obtamed m
ths regune did not agree at all with the correlations for
two-phase flow proposed m the hterature
An approach
sumlar to that of Hutton and Leung[lZ]
was therefore
used &- was calculated as due to the gas flowmg m a
bed restricted by the presence of the liquid, and the
mfluence on the hquld holdup of the concurrent gas flow
was taken mto account
Beanng m mmd that the free
section of the column avdable
for the gas flow 1s
proportional to +,( 1 - & - &,). where & and &_, are the
hqmd
saturations
correspondmg
to the static
and
dymumc holdup respectively,
the pressure drop may be
expressed by an Ergun-type equatlon[7]

(2)
where k, and kl are coefficients
dependmg on packmg
shape and stze
Good correlation
of ii,, values requued
these coefficients to be evaluated from the pressure drop 6, for
gas flow through a wetted pa&u&,
1 e when only the
static hqutd holdup was present m the bed In tlus case,

IO

/
6

10-l

1
2

y-00026
6

IO

[m/s1

Fag 3 Comparison between &_, experimental values and those

calculated with eqn (2) and with the expresslon proposed by
Hutton and Leung[lt]
The used values of k, and k2, obtamed from expenmentat 8, values through eqn (3), and the values of &,
obtamed by the correlation proposed by Charpentier[2],
are listed in Table 4 It can be seen that our model aves
better results than that suggested by Hutton and Leung
It is mterestmg
to note that a packmg geometry
determmed from gas pressure drop m a wetted packmg
has been taken as a basis to correlate mass transfer
coefficients m the gas phase in both countercurrent
and
concurrent packed towers [9,22]
Fqure 4 shows a comparison
between
S,, values
calculated from eqn (2) and expenmental
data obtamed
by us and Charpentier121
The expenmental
S,, values
were obtamed for 00023 ~v,<OO22
m/s and 0 082~
ua =S109 m/s and with dfferent packmgs (see Table 1)
Almost all the expenmental
data fall between *30!% of
the calculated values
To use eqn (2) for aLo calculations,
rt IS necessary to
know, besides
kl, k2 and Bs, the values of fiD as a
function of the type of packmg and the hqtud and gas
flow rates As the gas-liquid interaction m tis regune IS
poor, it may be assumed that the concurrent
gas flow
does not s&cantly
change the mechamsm
of momentum transfer between the tr~cklmg hqud and the packmg

Pressure

drop and llquld holdup for two-phase concurrent flow m packed beds
Table 4 k,. k, and &
Paclung

Dp [ml

Mm

Glass spheres
Glass cyhnders
Glass cylinders
Rings
Izlngs
Rmgs

0 oo60
0 0054
0 0027
00064
0 0103
0 0220

1 45 x
1 36 x
460x
965x
397x
252x

Reference
Thus work

Charpenfier

121

values for the au-water

system

--2
1

Mm-1

IO
10t
10
10
10
IO

Whe same k,, k, and & values were obtamed for the systems
9% and 2% by weight

202
267t
460
1620
924
600

au-glycerol

ld
3

519

100

0 125
0 137t
0 132
0 036
0 039
0 023

aqueous solutrons

610

6102

6103

-1
102

610

hLp

10

lo5

5 &,

regnne

So flD m this regme may be correlated by assummg as a

basis a correlation valid for a free hqmd trlckhng (u. =
0)

In this connection, It may be noted that there IS a lack

of holdup correlations
for free hquld tncklmg on packmgs with size and shape correspondmg
to catalyst pellets
as used m trickle bed reactors Almost all the numerous
works on hquld holdup deal w~tb the packmgs used m
absorption apparatuses
Liquid saturation at v0 = 0, &,,,
was generally[5,17.18]
correlated as
&,, = a(ReL)b(Ga)cF

(%)06s

raho between the forces associated

with kmetlc energy
(responsible for the drsslpatlon of energy) and the forces
assocrated with gravity (responsible for the acceleration
of the free tickling hquld)
In the presence
of a concurrent
gas flow, the acceleratmg forces actmg on the hquld are due to the
pressure
gradient as well as to gravity
A modtied
Froude number can then be defined

from which

(4)

where Ga IS the Gahleo number and F 1s a function of

the packmg properties
The proposed correlations
usually do not gve a good
fit with the data for catalyst pellets moreover the functions F are rather complicated
By characterumg
the
packing with the dlmensronless
group a&./e,,
we were
able to correlate our &, expernnental data and those of
other authors [2,4,6,10,1
l] for numerous
porous and
non porous packmgs, for 0 0005 s DP =S0 05 m and for
0 3 s ReL d 3000 Figure 5 shows tlus correlation,
the
best mterpolatmg
line, with a mean relaave quadratic
error of 22%, is as follows
&JO= 3 86(Re,)0Y5(Ga)-042

bqmd (u, = 0)

[b/m24

FIJJ4 S,, calculated from eqn (2) vs S,, experlmental values m

the poor mteractlon

correlation for free tnckimg

a new Galileo
Ga*

number

arises

Ds-3p&.g+ &.o)
PL2

If the hydrodynamics
of the liquid tnckhng on the
packmg m the poor mteractlon regme IS not very dtierent from that of the free hqmd trlckhng, a general
correlation for /&, m concurrent two-phase flow can be
obtained by replacing Ga with Go* m eqn (5)
/3~ = 3 86(Re,) 545(Ga*)-o 4* ( ~)0ss

(8)

In particular, for a @ven packmg and a gven hqmd

flow rate, the vacation
of &, as a function of uo, and
hence of SLo, ts gven by

(5)
(9)

The Ga number IS the ratio between ReL2 and Fr =

pLuL2/DPpLgr as IS well known, tbe Froude number IS the

Fme

6 shows

that

eqn

(9) closely

desc&es

the

520

SPECCHIA and G

4
2

EqCS)
2

4
G

12

[m/s1

Fig 6 Comparison

between experlmental & values

calculated from eqn (9) vs ug

and those

behavlour of &, as a function of vG, the theoretical lmes

were obtamed by usmg the experimental values of pDO
and S,,
In Fig 7 & values from eqn (8) are compared with our
experimental values and those of Charpentier[2], obtamed m the poor interaction regune Almost all the
expernnental points lie between *20% of the calculated
values
If k, and kz from pressure drop data for gas flow m
wetted packmg, and the static holdup are known, eqns
(2) and (8) can be used to calculate simultaneously &
and & for two-phase flow m the poor mteractlon regime
This was done for our data and those of Charpentler, SLo
and &, values generally lay between +30% of the expernnental data
6

BALDI

An attempt to interpret S,, data for non-foaming

system m pulsing flow with eqn (2), did, m fact, give rise
to slgmficant variations of the coefficients k, and kz with
the liquid flow rate
Owmg to the lack of knowledge of pulsing, foaming
and spray flow hydrodynamics
and the complexity of
interaction phenomena between the phases, the pressure
drop and the liquid holdup can only be correlated on an
emplrlcal basis
Our a,_, experlmental data for non-foaming systems m
the high interaction reame agree satisfactorily with the
correlations proposed by Sato et al [21] and Turpm and
Huntmgton[23],
but disagree completely with that of
Larkms et al [14]
To take account also of the foaming systems, for
which all the correlations proposed m the literature are
not valid, we moddied the correlation of Turpm and
Huntmgton[23]
These authors defined a two-phase fnction factor fLo

where D, IS the equivalent

channels given by

(11)
fLG was correlated[23]

with the parameter Z defined as

(12)

* =2

;8;IAI;

Fig 7 &, calculated from eqn (8) vs &

the poor interaction

experimental
regme

of the packing

where the Reynolds numbers for the gas and the liquid
flow rates are calculated on the superficial velocltles and
the nominal packmg diameter
By consldermg that Charpentler and Favler[3] were
able to correlate the transition flow rates between the
poor and the high mteractlon regme for foammg and
non-foaming systems with a parameter r&so defined

diameter

values

AlGH INTRRACTION REGIME PRWSIJRR

DROP AND LIQUID EOLDUF

In pulsmg, foaming, foaming-pulsing and spray flow,

an approach slmdar to that of the previous section 1s no
longer valid
The pulsing flow IS probably due to
periodical floodmg of the packmg channels, this gives
nse to periodical acceleration of both phases, with a by
no means neghable effect on the pressure drop As
regards the foammg flow the gas-liquid interaction 1s
even stronger, due to foam bndges among the packing
particles

[E (P.?J]

(13)

we assumed m the high interaction regnne, for foaming

and non-foaming systems, S,, as a function of 2 and +
Figure 8 shows the results of this correlation the data
pomts refer to results obtained by us, by Charpentler[2]
and by Larkms [13] with several gas-lrqmd systems and
packmg shapes and sizes (see Table 1) The examined
data cover a quite wide range of operating condltlons and
0 0016 s v, s 0 025 m/s,
physical
properties
fhnds
OOll~v,~246m/s,
0001~pLL~OO05kg/ms,
810~
0027~~~~0072kg/s~,
07~p~S
pL G 1070 kg/m,
1 2 kg/m The best interpolating lme with a 32% mean
relative quadratic error 1s expressed by
fL,=782-1

30In(Z/$)-00573[ln(Z/@)]

(14)

In Fe 8 the mterpolatmg lme of the results of Turpm

and Huntmgton[23] 1s also plotted, for the gas-hqmd

Pressure

drop and hqmd holdup for two-phase concurrent Bow m packed beds

Fig

3 610

6100

610

162

Z/4J
Fig 8 Two-phase

flow frlctlon factor correlation for foaming

and non-foammg systems III the high mteractlon regime

system (a=-water) used by these workers 4 1s equal to 1

It can be seen that the results of Turpm and Huntington
agree well with the present correlation
The correlation
proposed 1s empulcal,
on the other
hand it can be used very easily and with confidence,
owmg to the large amount
of expernnental
data exammed
It can be noted, however, that all the consldered data
were obtamed m laboratory columns,
data obtamed m
industrial apparatuses
would be necessary
m order to
confirm the validity of eqn (14) for large towers also
As regards the liquid holdups, our values agree with
the Charpentler
and Favler correlatlon[3]
(*30%)
and
better with that of Sato et al [21] (&20%). they disagree
at all with Larkms et al correlatlon[l4]
On the other
hand, as said before, the results of Charpentler
and
Favler do not agree well with the Sato et al correlation
To tins regard, it can be pomted out that Sato et al [21]
tested only non-foaming
systems while Charpentler and
Favler tested mainly foaming systems
All these correlations
consider the total holdup as a
function of parameters
that depend on the fluids flow
rates, whereas
only the dynamic
holdup 1s actually
affected by the phases veIocltles
For this reasons we
exammed only the dynamic holdup
By consldermg that a relatlonshlp between S,, and the
liquid holdup also exists m the presence of a high gasliquid interaction, we correlated the dynamic saturation
pa with the same parameter Z/q, as used for SLo To
take mto account the effect of the packing, the dlmenslonless
group (uJ&./~J~ was used, as for the correlation of &, in the poor mteractlon regime It can be
observed that m the previous correlations
of the liquid
holdup generally the packing effect was disregarded,
Sato et al (211 only introduced the packmg area per unit
column volume
Figure 9 shows
our correlation
for non-foaming
systems
here our experimental
values and those obtamed by Charpentler[2]
were considered
The best
interpolating line is as follows

(15)

9 &,

correlation

521

for non-foaming
interaction regime

systems

m the

hrgh

Equation (15) gives a good fit with the experimental

points, the mean relative quadratlc error between calculated and experlmental & values IS 13%
Figure
10 shows
the fiD correlation
for foammg
systems for our experimental data and those obtained by
Larkms [ 133 and Charpentler and Favler [3] The range of
physical
properties
and flow rates of fluids LS approximately the same as for S,, correlation
In this figure
the lme from eqn (15) 1s also plotted
3,

Fig 10 &

610

610

correlation for foaming systems

tion regime

The best fit lme with a mean relative

13 6% 1s expressed as follows

IO

610

m the high mterac-

quadratic

error of

(16)
It can be seen that, for a given packmg, & for foaming
systems
IS always
lower than that for non-foaming
systems
To this regard It can be observed that at the
same Z/4 and vG values and for a given packmg S,, 1s
the same either for non-foaming
or foaming
systems
(accordmg to Fig 8)
Pressure drop m the high interaction regime may be
assumed
dependent
on the actual velocity of the gas
phase through the restrlcted section of the bed, and on
the phases mteractlon
As It 1s hkely to suppose that the
gas-liquid interaction m foaming systems 1s higher than
that m non-foaming
systems,
the reduction of the gas
flow area, and hence the llqud holdup, must be lower for
foaming than for non-foaming
systems m order to have
the same SLG value
Charpentler
and Favrer[3] gave a correlation of the
total saturation
valid for foaming
and non-foammg
systems,
but their data obtamed with water as hquld
phase (non-foaming
system) shows a certain scatter from
theu correlation
At high ratios of gas to hqutd flow rates, and hence at

522

SPeccHlA

high values of Z/@ , the values of &,(a,Dp/~o)-065 for

foammg and non-foaming systems tend to be equal, m
these condltlons the formation of froth IS hmdered by the
lugh shear stress at the gas-hquld interface, and foaming
systems behave hke non-foaming systems (spray flow)
CONCLUSIONS

In this work a Large amount of pressure drop and hqmd

holdup data from several authors for concurrent downward two-phase flow m packed beds was examined
Good correlations of these parameters either for nonfoammg or foaming systems were obtained by considering two mam hydrodynamic regimes a poor and a
high interaction regime
The correlations previously proposed by other authors
generally did not take into conslderatton the hydrodynamic regmes
As regards the hqmd holdup we proposed correlations
for the dynamic Instead of the total saturation, as made
m most of the previous studies, since the dynamic and
static saturation depend on ddferent parameters
In the poor interaction regime, the usual model which
considers the gas to flow through a bed restricted by the
presence of the hquld was adopted, but It was pointed
out that the variations of the packmg shape due to the
presence of the hquld should be taken mto account to
have good results
For the high Interaction regime, the complexity of
hydrodynamics
suggests an empulcal approach at the
moment Fauly good correlations of S,, and /3,, were
obtained for a quite wide range of operative condltrons
and physical properties of the liquids As regards SLo, it
was possible to gather data for either foaming or nonfoaming systems mto one correlation Two correlations
were instead proposed for &. valid for foaming and
non-foaming systems respectively
Acknowledgements-This
work was carried out with the financial
support of C N R , Rome The authors gratefully thank Mr G
Marcalh for hn help m carrying out the experimental runs, and
Prof A Glanetto for his helpful dlscusslons
NOTATION

6
0,
DP
F
Fr
Fr*

fLB
G:
Ga*
GO
GL
k,
kz

paclung geometrlcal area, m-

equivalent diameter of packmg channels, m
nominal packing diameter, m
function of the packmg propeties,
dlmenaonless
uL*/D,g, Froude number, dlmenslonless
pLvLz/Dp (prg + SLo), modtied Froude number,
dlmenslonless
two-phase frlctlon factor, dlmenslonless
acceleration of gravity, m/s
P~WP~ILCL~, Galileo number, dlmenslonless
Dp3pL(pd + &)/pL2,
moddied Gahleo number,
dlmenslonless
gas phase superficial mass velocity, kg/ms
hquld phase superficial mass velocity, kg/m* s
coefficient defined m eqn (2). mm2
coefficient defined m eqn (2), m-

and G BALDI
~op&~/~~, Reynolds number of the gas phase,
dlmenslonless
Reynolds
number of the liquid
ReL vLpLDplpL,
phase, dlmenslonless
t)G gas phase superficial velocity, m/s
vL hquld phase superficial velocity, m/s
Z parameter defined m eqn (12), dlmenaonless
I packmg height, m

ReG

Greek symbols
dynamic hqtud saturation, dlmenslonless
dynamic liquid saturation at t)G= 0, dlmensronless
stahc hqud saturation, dunenslonless
frlctlona] pressure drop of the gas phase,
kg/m* s*
two-phase frIctIona pressure drop, kg/m2 s2
frlctlonal pressure drop of the hqmd phase,
kg/m* s*

frictional pressure drop of the gas phase through

a wetted packmg, kg/m2 s*
porosity of dry packmg, &menslonless
parameter
defined
by
C(PdPJ
(PJPW)lo5,
Charpentler and Favler [3], dnnenslonless
gas and hqmd phase vlscoslty, kg/ms
viscosity of water, kg/ms
au density, kg/m
gas and liquid phase density, kg/m3
density of water, kg/m
hquld phase surface tension, kgls*
surface tension of water, kg/s
parameters defined m eqn (11, dnnenslonless
~~~/u~L)~~cLJcL,~~P~~P~~~I~
3, dlmenslonless
REFERENCE8

[l] Bakos M and Charpentler J C , Chem Engng Scr 1970 25

1822
[2] Charpentler J C , Docteur-Ingemeur These, Umverslte de
Nancy (1968)
[3] Charpentier J C and Favler M , A I Ch E J 1975 21 1213
[4] Colombo A J , Bald1G and Slcardi S , Chem Engng SCI 1976
31 1101
[5] Davldson J F , Truns lnst Chem Engrs London 1959 37
131
[6] Dodds W S , Stutzman L F , Sollam~B J and I&Carter
R J,AIChEJ
19606390
I73 Ergun S , Chem Engng Progr 1952 48 89
[S] Glanetto A , Bald1 G and Specchla V , Quad Ing Chum
Ztnl 1970 6 125
[9] Gmnetto A , Specchla V and Bald1 G , A ZCh E I 1973 19
916
[lo] Goto S and Smith J M , A Z Ch E I 1975 21 706
[ll] Hochman J M and Effron E , Ind Engng Chem FundI
1969 8 63
[12] Hutton B E T and Leung L S , Chem Engng Scr 1974 29
1681
[13] Larkms R P , Ph D Thesis, Umverslty of Mlchlgan (1959)
[14] LarkmsR
P ,WhrteR R andJeffreyD
W ,A ICh E J 19617
231
[15j Lemay Y , Pmeauit G and Ruether J A , Ind Engng Chem
Proc Des Develop
1975 14 280
[16] Lockhart R W and Martmelh R C , Chem Engng Progr
1949 45(l) 39
[17] Mohunta D M and Laddha G S , Chem Engng Scr 1%5 20
1069
[IS] Otake T and Okada K , Kagaku Kogoku 1953 17 176

Pressure drop and Ilqud holdup for two-phase concurrent Uow III packed beds
1191 Relss L P , Xnd Engng Chem Proc Des Develop 1%7 6
486
[20] Sato Y , Huose T , Takahash~ F and Toda M , Pact@
Chem Engng Gong, Session 8, Paper 8-3, p 187 (1972)
[21]SatoY,HuoseT,TakahashlF
andTodaM,J
Chem
Engng Japan 1973 6 147

523

[22] &car& S and Gmnetto A, Quad Ing Chrm Ital 1975 11

[23] :&In J L and Huntmgton R L , A ZCh E J 1967 13 11%
[24] Weekrnan V W Jr and Myers J E , A ICh E J 1964 10
951