Diameter For random packings there are many reports [Billet, Distillation Engineering, Chem Publishing Co., New York, 1979; Chen, Chem. Eng., p. 40, March 5, 1984; Zuiderweg, Hoek, and Lahm, IChemE. Symp. Ser. 104, A217 (1987)] of an increase in HETP with column diameter. Billet and Mackowiak's (Billet, Packed Column Analysis and Design, Ruhr University, Bochum, Germany, 1989) scale-up chart for Pall® rings implies that efficiency decreases as column diameter increases.
Practically all sources explain the increase of HETP with column diameter in terms of enhanced maldistribution or issues with the scale-up procedure. Lab-scale and pilot columns seldom operate at column-to-packing diameter ratios (DT/Dp) larger than 20; under these conditions, lateral mixing effectively offsets loss of efficiency due to maldistribution pinch. In contrast, industrial-scale columns usually operate at DT/Dp ratios of 30 to 100; under these conditions, lateral mixing is far less effective for offsetting maldistribution pinch.
To increase DT/Dp, it may appear attractive to perform the bench-scale tests using a smaller packing size than will be used in the prototype. Deibele, Goedecke, and Schoenmaker [IChemE Symp. Ser. 142, 1021 (1997)], Goedecke and Alig (Paper presented at the AIChE Spring National Meeting, Atlanta, Ga., April 1994), and Gann et al. [Chem. Ing. Tech., 64(1), 6 (1992)] studied the feasibility of scaling up from 50- to 75-mm-diameter packed columns directly to industrial columns. Deibele et al. and Gann et al. provide an extensive list of factors that can affect this scale-up, including test mixture, packing pretreatment, column structure, packing installation, snug fit at the wall, column insulation and heat losses, vacuum tightness, measurement and control, liquid distribution, reflux subcooling, prewetting, sampling, analysis, adjusting the number of stages to avoid pinches and analysis issues, evaluation procedure, and more. Data from laboratory columns can be particularly sensitive to some of these factors. Goedecke and Alig show that for wire-mesh structured packing, bench-scale efficiency tends to be better than large-column efficiency, while for corrugated-sheets structured packing, the converse occurs, possibly due to excessive wall flow. For some packings, variation of efficiency with loads at bench scale completely differs from its variation in larger columns. For one structured packing, Kuhni Rom-bopak 9M, there was little load effect and there was good consistency between data obtained from different sources—at least for one test mixture. Deibele et al. present an excellent set of practical guidelines to improve scale-up reliability. So, it appears that great caution is required for packing data scale-up from bench-scale columns.
Height Experimental data for random packings show that HETP slightly increases with bed depth [Billet, Distillation Engineering, Chemical Publishing Co., New York, 1979; "Packed Tower Analysis and Design," Ruhr University, Bochum, Germany, 1989; Eckert and Walter, Hydrocarbon Processing, 43(2), 107 (1964)].
For structured packing, some tests with Mellapak 250Y [Meier, Hunkeler, and Stocker, IChemE Symp. Ser. 56, p. 3, 3/1 (1979)] showed no effect of bed height on packing efficiency, while others (Cai et al., Trans IChemE, vol. 81, Part A, p. 89, January 2003) did show a significant effect.
The effect of bed depth on packing HETP is attributed to liquid maldistribution. Zuiderweg et al. [IChemE. Symp. Ser. 104, A217 (1987)] suggest that the uneven irrigation generates an uneven concentration profile and localized pinching near the bottom of the beds. The tests by Martin, Bravo, and Fair (Paper presented at the National AIChE Meeting, New Orleans, La., 1988) confirm that the problem area is near the bottom. According to the zone-stage and Lockett and Billingham models (above), as well as the empirical correlation by Moore and Rukovena (Fig. 14-64), the more stages per bed, the greater is the rise in HETP with bed depth. The presence and extent of maldistribution play an important role in determining the bed-depth effect.
As the bed depth increases, end effects (i.e., mass transfer in the region of liquid introduction and in the region where liquid drips from the packing supports) become less important. Such end effects tend to lower the HETP observed in short columns, such as pilot-plant columns.
In summary, bed depth may significantly influence HETP. This adds uncertainty to scale-up. Shallow test beds should be avoided. Most investigators use beds at least 1.5 m tall, and often more than 3 m tall. The FRI sampling technique (below) can detect maldistribution along the bed height.
Loadings For many random and corrugated-sheet structured packings, HETP is independent of vapor and liquid loadings (Figs. 14-59 and 14-60). For wire-mesh and some corrugated-sheet structured packings, HETP changes with gas and liquid loads.
Wu and Chen [IChemE Symp. Ser. 104, B225 (1987)] recommend pilot testing over the entire range between the expected minimum and maximum operating rates, and taking the highest measured HETP as the basis for scale-up. The author concurs. With structured packings, the load effect may be due to liquid rather than gas loads, and the pilot tests should cover the range of liquid loads (i.e., m/s based on column cross section) that is expected in the prototype.
Wetting For operation at low liquid loads, the onset of minimum wetting can adversely affect scale-up, particularly with random packings and aqueous systems. Scale-up reliability at low liquid loads can be improved by pilot-testing at the composition range expected in the prototype, and by using identical packing materials and surface treatment in the pilot tests and in the prototype.
Underwetting At the aqueous end of aqueous-organic columns, underwetting is important. Rapid changes of concentration profiles and physical properties in organic-water separations complicate scale-up [Eiden and Kaiser, IChemE Symp. Ser. 142, 757 (1997)]. Near the onset of underwetting, HETP becomes strongly dependent on composition, packing material and surface roughness, and the presence of surfactants. Scale-up reliability can be enhanced by pilot-testing at the composition range expected in the prototype, and by using identical packing material and surface treatment in the pilot tests and in the prototype.
Preflooding For one structured packing test with an aqueous system, Billet ("Packed Column Analysis and Design," Ruhr University, Bochum, Germany, 1989) measured higher efficiency for a pre-flooded bed compared with a non-preflooded bed. Presumably, the preflooding improved either wetting or distribution. Billet recommends preflooding the packing, both in the prototype and in the pilot column, to ensure maximum efficiency.
Sampling Fractionation Research Inc. (FRI) developed a sampling technique that eliminates the influence of "end effects" and detects a maldistributed composition profile. This technique [Silvey and Keller, IChemE Symp. Ser. 32, p. 4:18 (1969)] samples the bed at frequent intervals, typically every 0.6 m or so. HETP is determined from a plot of these interbed samples rather than from the top and bottom compositions.
It is imperative that the interbed samplers catch representative samples, which are an average through the bed cross section. Caution is required when the liquid is highly aerated and turbulent (e.g., above 1300 kPa psia or above 1 m/min). The author highly recommends the FRI sampling technique for all other conditions.
Aging Billet (loc. cit.) showed that for some plastic packings in aqueous systems, the efficiency after one week's operation was almost double the efficiency of new packings. Little further change was observed after one week. Billet explains the phenomenon by improved wetting. He recommends that data for plastic packings should only be used for scale-up after being in operation for an adequately long period.
Was this article helpful?