About twelve of the GPDC interpolation charts were first published by the authors in Chem. Eng. Prog., February, p. 32, 1991. The kind permission of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers for reprinting these charts is gratefully acknowledged.
The authors are grateful to those who donated invaluable unpublished data to the research that produced the GPDC interpolation charts. Special thanks are due to Dale Nutter, Nutter Engineering; Jose Bravo, Separation Research Program; and George Bonilla and Layton Kitterman, Glitsch Inc.
1. Strigle, R. F., Jr., Random Packings and Packed Towers, Gulf Publishing, Houston, 1987.
2. Billet, R., Chem. Eng. Prog. 63(9), p. 53, 1967.
3. Eckert, J. S., and L. F. Walter, Hydrocarb. Proc. & Pet. Ref., 43(2), p. 107, 1964.
4. Eckert, J. S., E. H. Foote, and L. F. Walter, Chem. Eng. Prog. 62(1), p. 59, 1966.
5. Billet, R., Packed Column Analysis and Design, Ruhr Universität Bochum, Germany, 1989.
6. Elsby, K., N. Ashton, and A. Arrowstnith, I. Chem. E. Symp. Ser. 104, p. A143, 1987.
7. Norton Company, Bulletin DC-11, Akron, Ohio, 1977.
8. Glitsch, Inc., Bulletin 217, 3d ed., Dallas, Texas, 1975.
9. Koch Engineering Company, Inc., Bulletin KRP-1 and KRP-2, Wichita, Kansas, 1987. (Revised version with HcKp, 1991)
10. Strigle, R. F., Jr., and K. E. Porter, I. Chem. E. Symp. Ser. 56, p. 3.3/19, 1979.
11. Strigle, R. F„ Jr., and F. Rukovena, Jr., Chem. Eng. Prog. 75(3), p. 86, 1979.
12. Nutter Engineering, Division of Patterson-Kelley Co.—HARSCO Corporation, Unpublished data.
13. Nutter, D. E., I. Chem. E. Symp. Ser. 104, p. A129, 1987.
14. McNulty, K. J., and C. L. Hsieh, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AIChE, Los Angeles, California, November 14-19, 1982.
15. Gangriwala, H. A., /. Chem. E. Symp. Ser. 104, p. B89, 1987.
16. Jaeger Products Inc., General Catalogue 100, Spring, Texas.
17. Billet, R., and J. Ma6kowiak, Chemie-Technik 13(12), p. 37,1984; ibid. 14(4), p. 91, 1985; ibid. 14(5), p. 195, 1985.
18. Norton Company, Bulletin SI-72, Akron, Ohio, 1973.
19. Norton Company, Bulletin HY-30, Akron, Ohio, 1975.
20. Eckert, J. S., Chem. Eng., April 14, p. 70,1975.
21. Norton Company, Bulletin IM-82, Akron, Ohio, 1979.
22. Strigle, R. F., Jr., and M. J. Dolan, Can. Proc. Equip. Control News, October 1983.
23. Glitsch, Inc., Bulletin 345, Dallas, Texas, 1986.
24. Wu, K. Y., and G. K. Chen, I. Chem. E. Symp. Ser. 104, p. B225, 1987. 26. Glitsch, Inc., Bulletin TP/US/M4, Dallas, Texas, 1983.
26. Nutter Engineering Company, Chem-Pro Bulletin 703, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1977.
27. Jaeger Products Inc., Bulletin JTP-600, Spring, Texas.
28. Billet, R., "Modern plastic packings for more efficient separation processes," paper presented at the Center for Energy Studies, University of Texas, Fall 1985.
29. Billet, R„ and J. Madkowiak, Verfahrenstechnik 16, p. 67, 1982.
30. Norton Company, Bulletin GWS-1, Akron, Ohio, 1987.
31. Lantec Products Inc., Technical Bulletin 8T-5, Agoura Hills, California.
32. Lantec Products Inc., "IMPAC," Technical Bulletin, Agoura Hills, California.
33. Leva, M., D. Bhaga, and A. Trickett, Chem. Engr. (London), p. 25, September 27, 1990.
36. Meier, W„ and M. Huber, I. Chem. E. Symp. Ser. 32, p. 4:31, London, 1969.
36. Bravo, J. L., J. A. Rocha, and J. R. Fair, Hydrocarb. Proc. 55(3), p. 45, 1986.
37. Billet, R., I. Chem. E. Symp. Ser. 32, p. 4:42, London, 1969.
38. Bravo, J. L., Separation Research Program, private communication, 1990.
39. Martin, C. L., J. L. Bravo, and J. R. Fair, Paper presented at the AIChE National Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, March 7,1988.
40. Spiegel, L., and W. Meier, I. Chem. E. Symp. Ser. 104, p. A203, 1987.
41. Meier, W., W. D. Stoecker, and B. Weinstein, Chem. Eng. Prog. 73(11), p. 71, 1977.
42. Meier, W., R. Hunkeler, and D. Stöcker, /. Chem. E. Symp. Ser. 56, p. 3.3/1, London, 1979.
42a. Sulzer Chemtech, "Separation Columns for Distillation and Absorption," Winterthur, Switzerland.
43. Fair, J. R., and J. L. Bravo, Chem. Eng. Prog. 86(1), p. 19, 1990.
44. Koch Engineering Company, Inc., Knight Division, Bulletin KCP-1, Akron, Ohio, 1989.
45. BoniHa, J. A., J. Shieh, and P. Wang, Paper presented at the AIChE Summer National Meeting, Denver, Colorado, August 24, 1988.
46. Glitsch, Inc., Bulletin 357, Dallas, 1989.
47. Julius Montz GmbH "Montz-Pak Typ Bl" Bulletin, Hilden, Germany.
48. Norton Company, Bulletin IS-1, Akron, Ohio, 1988.
49. Rukovena, F., Jr., and R. F, Strigle, Jr., Paper presented at the AIChE Spring National Meeting, Houston, Texas, April 1989.
50. Jaeger Products, Inc., Product Bulletin 500, Spring, Texas, Dec. 1989.
51. Glitsch, Inc., Bulletin 207, Dallas, Texas, 1985.
52. Koch Engineering Company Inc., Bulletin KFG-2, Wichita, Kansas, 1986.
53. Nutter Engineering, Bulletin SG-1, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1987.
Currently, interpolation of experimental HETP data is the most reliable means of obtaining packed-tower design HETPs. Due to our poor understanding of packing hydraulics and mass transfer, rules of thumb outperform theoretical models, while data interpolation outperforms both (Sees. 9.1.4 to 9.1.6).
Eckert (6) was first to tabulate HETP data in a format suitable for interpolation. Vital, Grossel, and Olsen (65) recommended such data over predictive methods, subject to availability of data for a system similar to that considered. The author concurs with this recommendation. In this chapter, Eckert's table is updated and largely expanded, and new tables and charts are added for structured packings.
Table 11.1 contains published efficiency data for random packings. Section 11.1.1 presents a procedure recommended by the author for applying these data. Section 11.1.2 is a legend for the comments in the right-hand column of Table 11.1.
11.1.1 Interpolation procedure
1. Examine Sec. 9.1.3, and determine what constitutes a system similar to the system under consideration. Then scan Table 11.1, marking all the data for similar systems.
2. Check if sufficient marked data are available for the packing under consideration. If so, use these data and go directly to step 6; it may pay to use steps 3 to 5 as a check. If not, proceed to step 3.
3. Compare HETPs for the marked systems to HETPs of other systems with the same packing. If significantly higher, a system effect is implied. Estimate the magnitude of this system effect from these data, and allow for it in the design.
4. Compare the HETP for the packing under consideration to the rule of thumb in Eq. (9.34). If different, estimate the magnitude of this packing effect from the data, and allow for it in the design.
5. Predict packing HETP using Eq. (9.34) and adjust its prediction using factors derived in steps 3 and 4 above. Examine the reliability of these factors. The larger the number of data points they are based on, the more reliable they are. Some judgment is required here; the author advocates a conservative approach.
6. Closely examine the considerations in Sec. 9.3.3. Use these to scale up the HETP from the above steps to your column. Pay attention to effects of diameter, height, and wetting. Judgment is required. It may pay to look at the original reference from which the data were derived in order to check whether distribution, data scatter, or test procedure have influenced the data.
7. Compare the value calculated in step 6 against prediction from Eq. (9.34). Select the most conservative, unless there is enough data to verify with confidence that the HETP calculated in step 6 is lower.
11.1.2 Legend for Table 11.1 comments
1. Data show a clear loading region (see Figure 8.16a). HETP in the loading region is lower than the listed HETPs.
2. Data show a continuous decline of HETP with higher loads (see Fig. 8.166). This implies maldistribution; at low liquid rate (<2 gpm/ft2) also a possible wetting problem. The HETPs listed are within a turndown of 1.5 from the apparent loading point.
3. High purity (>95 percent) of nonaqueous component in column overhead.
4. Where two values are shown under column diameter or column height, the first describes the relevant dimension above the feed, the second describes the relevant dimension below the feed.
5. Value reported under reflux ratio is mass vapor to liquid ratio.
6. High purity (>99 percent) distillate product.
7. Low purity (<90 percent) of nonaqueous component in column overhead.
8. Given ring dimensions 35 x 35 mm.
9. Batch distillation data.
10. Value reported under reflux ratio is mass vapor to liquid ratio at the bottom of the column.
12. Data measured with chemically oxidized packing particles made out of phosphor bronze. In this application, much higher HETPs were demonstrated for the same or similar packing that were not specially surface-treated.
13. AEC is short for Atomic Energy of Canada.
15. Original installation experienced plugging, maldistribution, and much higher HETP. Cited HETP was achieved after modifications, but a small degree of plugging and maldistribution remained.
16. Data marked * were not directly supplied by the article, but were estimated by the author from information contained in the article. They may not be accurate, but should be quite reasonable.
17. Separation was performed in two columns in series, each containing three packed beds of 27 to 30 ft in depth. Feed entered below the second bed.
Was this article helpful?