ABSTRACT

The main objective of carrying out this experiment is to investigate the air pressure
drop across the column as a function of air flow rate for different water flow rates through
the column. The experiment is run at different water flow rates (L/min) which are at 1.0
L/min, 2.0 L/min and 3.0 L/min. Different air flow rates are manipulated for each water
flow rates which are 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, 140, 160 and 180 L/min. The liquid and gas
flow are observed and the pressure drop are recorded for each value of water and air flow
rates. The column is also observed for any presence of flooding and the flooding point is
recorded. A graph of pressure drop versus water flow rates is plotted. From the results, it
can be seen that the pressure drop increase as the air flow rate increase. . Flooding
occurred at a water flow rate of 2 L/min during the air flow rate at 160 and 180 L/min.
The pressure drop at these points was 31 and 44 mmH2O respectively. At 3 L/min water
flow rate, flooding started at 120 L/min of air flow rate with 48 mmH2O pressure drop.
The liquid down flow was hindered by the high gas velocity.
1.0 INTRODUCTION

Gas absorption which is also known as scrubbing is a process where a gas mixture is
being contacted with a liquid for the purpose of dissolving the soluble gas from its mixture in
which the solute gas is more or less soluble (Gas Liquid Absorption , 2016). The gas may
be passed over the liquid stream or bubbled through the liquid, in order to provide a large
mass transfer surface area (Earle, 1983). Molecular and turbulent diffusion are involved in
this process or mass transfer of solute A through a stagnant, non diffusing gas B into a
stagnant liquid C (Geankoplis, 2014).

Common equipment used in gas absorption is packed tower. Packed tower is

equipment which consists of a cylindrical column which attached with a gas inlet and
distributing space at the bottom while the liquid inlet and a distributor are at the top. The gas
and liquid outlets are equipped at the top and bottom respectively (Gas Liquid Absorption ,
2016). Figure 1.1 below shows the example of a packed tower.

Figure 1.1: Packed Tower

 Figure 1.2: Semi-batch absorption

In a semi-batch process of gas absorption, more and more gas is passed through the
same liquid, thus the extent of absorption increases with passage of time. Tower packing is a
supported mass of inert solid shapes (Figure 1.3) which dominate the fluid mechanics in the
packed tower (Mazotti, n.d.). There are several types of packing materials used in industry
which can be categorized into random packing and structured packing (Mazotti, n.d.).
Random packing can be distinguished into Raschig Ring, Berl Saddle, Intalox Saddle, Pall
Ring, Mini Cascade Ring and others (Geankoplis, 2014).

Figure 1.3: Tower Packing

2.0 Aims / Objectives

To determine the air pressure drop across the column as a function of air flow rate for
different water flow rates through the column

2.0 Theory

Rate of Gas Absorption

Gas absorption involves the rate of mass transfer. The rate of mass transfer in gas
absorption are inhibited by the extent of the departure of the system from the equilibrium
concentrations and by the resistance by the streams of liquid and gas offered to the mass
transfer (Earle, 1983). Therefore,

Rate of absorption = driving force/resistance

The driving force is the extent of the difference between the actual concentrations and the
equilibrium concentrations which is represented in terms of concentrations (Earle, 1983).

Pressure Drop and Flooding in Packed Tower

Flooding velocity is the term used as the upper limit to the rate of gas flow for a given
type and size of packing and with a definite flow of liquid at which, above this point the
tower cannot operate (Geankoplis, 2014). When flooding occurs, the liquid filled the entire
column and it is difficult for the operation to continue (Gas Liquid Absorption , 2016).
Figure below shows a common gas pressure drop in a packed column. At low gas velocities,
the liquid flows downward through the packing essentially uninfluenced by the upward gas
flow (Geankoplis, 2014).

At loading point, the gas begin to hold back the liquid downflow and local
accumulations or pools of liquid start to form in the packing. As the gas flow rate increases,
the pressure drop also increases. Thus, the accumulation of liquid will also increases until
flooding point where the liquid can no longer flow down through the packingand is blown out
with the gas (Geankoplis, 2014). Figure 1.4 shows flooding point.

Figure 1.4: Flooding point

Empirical correlations for various random packing based on experimental data are
used to predict the pressure drop in the gas. The generalized correlation for pressure drop in
packed column (see Appendix) is used. The following equations are used:

Gas Flow Rate, Gy (kg/m2.s)

Gy =

Where; Ac = Area of packed column diameter , m2

Gx = Air flow rate, m3/h
= Density of air, kg/m3
 Capacity parameter, y-axis

= G2yF0.1
gc (x - y) y

Flow Parameter, x-axis

y
x-axis = Gx
Gy

Liquid Flow Rate, Gx (kg/m2.s)

Gx =

Where;
y = Density of air = 1.175 kg/m3
x = Density of water = 996 kg/m3
Fp = Packing Factor, = 900 m-1
x = Water Vicoscity = 0.001 Ns/m2
gc = Acceleration due to gravity = 1
4.0 EQUIPMENT / MATERIALS

4.1 Equipment

Gas Absorption Unit ( model: BP751-B )

Figure

4.2 Materials

Water, which is supplied by the laboratory.

Compressed air, laboratory main supply.
Carbon dioxide (gas supply).
5.0 PROCEDURES

5.1 General Start-Up Procedures

1. All the valves were ensured closed except the ventilation valve, V13.
2. All the gas connections were checked to be properly fitted.
3. The valve on the compressed air supply line was opened. The supply was set between
2 to 3 bar by turning the regular knob clockwise.
4. The shut-off valve on the CO2 gas cylinder was opened. The CO2 gas cylinder
pressure was checked to be sufficient.
5. The power for the control panel was turned on.

5.2 Experiment Procedures

1. The general start-up procedures were performed as described above.

2. The receiving vessel B1 was filled with 50 L of water through the charge port by
opening the valve V3 and V5.
3. The valve V3 was closed. Valve V10 and V9 were slightly opened. The flow of water
from vessel B1 through pump P1 was observed.
4. Pump P1 was switched on. Valve V11 was slowly opened and adjusted to give a
water flow rate of around 1 L/min. The water was allowed to enter the top of column
K1, flow down the column, and then accumulate at the bottom until it overflowed
back into vessel B1.
5. Valve V11 was opened and adjusted to give an air flow rate of 20 L/min into column
K1.
6. The liquid and gas flow in column K1 were observed and the pressure drop across the
column at dPT-201 was recorded in a fixed period of 2 minutes.
7. Step 5 was repeated with different values of air flow rate, each time increasing by 20
L/min while maintaining the same water flow rate until flooding occurs.
8. Step 4 was repeated with different value of water flow rate, each time increasing by 1
L/min by adjusting valve V11, followed by repeating steps 5 and 7.
9. All the data was tabulated.
5.3 General Shut-down Procedures

1. Pump P1 was switched off.

2. Valves V1, V2, and V12 were closed.
3. The valve on the compressed air supply line was closed and the regulator knob was
turned counter-clockwise all the way to exhaust the supply pressure.
4. The shut-off valve was closed on the CO2 gas cylinder.
5. Valves V4 and V5 were opened to drain all the liquid in column K1.
6. Valves V7 and V8 were opened to drain all the liquid from the receiving vessels B1.
7. Valve V10 was opened to drain all the liquid from pump P1.
8. The power for the control panel was turned off.

6.0 RESULTS

Table 1.1: Pressure Drop for Wet Column

Flow rate Pressure Drop (mmH2O)

(L/min)
Air
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Water

1.0 0 0 1 3 4 6 8 10 14

2.0 0 3 6 9 11 17 21 F F

3.0 0 13 17 23 28 F F F F
Table 1.2: Log Gas Flow and Log Pressure Drop

Water 1.0 2.0 3.0

Air

Air Log Pressure Log Pressure Log Pressure Log

Flow Air Drop Pressure Drop Pressure Drop Pressure
Rate Flow (mmH2O) Drop (mmH2O) Drop (mmH2O) Drop
Rate
(mmH2O) (mmH2O) (mmH2O)
1.301 - 0 - 0 -
20 0
1.602 - 3 0.477 13 1.130
40 0
1.778 0 6 0.778 17 1.230
60 1
1.903 0.477 9 0.954 23 1.362
80 3
2.0 0.602 11 1.041 28 1.447
100 4
2.079 0.778 17 1.230 F -
120 6
2.146 0.903 21 1.322 F -
140 8
2.204 1 F - F -
160 10
2.255 1.146 F - F -
180 14
Table 1.3: Theoretical Flooding Point

Air Air Gy y-axis x-axis x-axis x-axis Pressure Drop

Flow Flow (kg/ms2) 1 LPM 2 LPM 3 LPM Correlated
Rate Rate (mmH2O)
(L/min) (m3/h) 1 2 3
LPM LPM LPM
20 1.2 0.0779 0.001174 1.4568 2.9136 4.3705 2.083 6.25 14.6
40 2.4 0.1558 0.004696 0.7284 1.4568 2.1852 7.60 20.83 40.40
60 3.6 0.2337 0.010567 0.4856 0.9712 1.4568 19.16 27.5 72.50
80 4.8 0.3117 0.018798 0.3641 0.7282 1.0923 22.5 39.2 101.63
100 6.0 0.3896 0.029368 0.2913 0.5826 0.8739 25.84 41.7 110.9
120 7.2 0.4675 0.042286 0.2428 0.4855 - 59.32 83.32 -
140 8.4 0.5454 0.057552 0.2081 0.4162 - 80.81 116.6 -
160 9.6 0.6233 0.075167 0.1821 - - 103.30 - -
180 10.8 0.7012 0.095130 0.1618 - - 123.30 - -

Table 1.4: Log Pressure Drop Correlated in mmH2o

Log Pressure Drop Correlated in mmH2O

1 LPM 2 LPM 3 LPM
0.319 0.796 1.164
0.881 1.319 1.606
1.282 1.439 1.860
1.352 1.593 2.007
1.412 1.620 2.045
1.773 1.921 -
1.907 2.067 -
2.014 - -
2.091 - -
7.0 SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

Density of air, y = 1.175 kg/m3

Density of water, x = 996 kg/m3
Column diameter = 80 mm
Area of packed column diameter, Ac = /4 D2 = /4 (0.08m) 2= 0.005027 m2
Packing Factor, Fp = 900 m-1
Water viscosity, x = 0.001 Ns/m2
Acceleration due to gravity, gc = 1

Theoretical Flooding Point for 20 L/min:

G = 20 L/min

= 20 / 13/1000 60 /1 = 1.2 m3/h

Gas Flow Rate, Gy (kg/m2.s)

Gy =

= 1.2 m3/h x 1 h/ 3600 s x 1.175 kg/m3

0.005027 m2

= 0.0779 kg/m2s

Capacity parameter, y-axis

= G2yF0.1
gc (x - y) y

= (0.0779 kg/m2s)2 (900 m-1) [(0.001 N.s/m2) / (996 kg/m3)] 0.1

1(996 kg/m3 1.175 kg/m3)1.175 kg/m3

= 0.001174
 Liquid Flow Rate, Gx (kg/m2.s)

At 1 LPM;

Gx =

= 1 L/min x 1m3/1000L x 1 min/60 s x 996 kg/m3

0.005027 m2
= 3.3022 kg/m2s

Flow Parameter, x-axis

At 1 LPM;
y
x-axis = Gx
Gy

1.175 3
2
= 3.3022 kg/m s
996 3 1.175 3

0.0779 kg/m2s
= 1.4568
8.0 DISCUSSION

Pressure Drop VS Air Flow

30

25
Pressure drop (mmH2O)

20 water flow
1.0 l/min
15
2.0 l/min

10
3.0 l/min

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Air flow(L/min)

Pressure drop (log P)against air flow rate (log V)

1.6

1.4

1.2
Pressure Drop(Log P)

1 water flow

0.8 1.0 L/min

0.6 2.0 L/min

0.4 3.0 L/min

0.2

0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
Air flow (log V)
 Log Air Flow rate against Log Pressure Drop Correlated
2.5
Log Pressure Drop Correlated (mmH2O)

1.5 water flow

1 LPM
1
2 LPM

0.5 3 LPM

0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
Log Air Flow Rate

This experiment was carried out to investigate the pressure drop across the absorption
column by manipulating the air flow with constant water flow rate. The experiment was
run at different water flow rates (L/min) which are at 1.0 L/min, 2.0 L/min and 3.0 L/min.
Different air flow rates are manipulated for each water flow rates which are 20, 40, 60,
80, 100, 120, 140, 160 and 180 L/min. In packed column, air was fed into the bottom and
water is transferred to the top of the column.

First, the liquid flow rate is set to 1 L/min and the air flow rate is recorded. The air
flow rate is raised after 5 minutes at 20 L/min intervals until 180 L/min. All the data were
tabulate. Three graphs were plotted which is the pressure drop vs air flow rate, pressure
drop (log P) against air flow rate (log V) and log air flow rate vs log pressure drop
correlated.

Throughout the experiment, the pressure drop is recorded and calculated digitally by
two transmitters which is attached at the top of the column and the other one slightly
above air nozzle. Based on the graph of pressure drop vs air flow rate, it can be said that
the pressure drop increase as the air flow rate increase. This is because as the liquid flow
down the column, it encountered greater resistance caused by the high air flow rate and
thus, the higher the pressure drops across the packing.
 The other two graphs followed the same trend. At some points of the experiment,
flooding was occurred. Flooding is a situation where the liquid filled the entire column
with increasing pressure drop due to the accumulation of liquid in side packed column.
According to the result, there was no flooding during 1 L/min water flow rate. Flooding
occurred at a water flow rate of 2 L/min during the air flow rate at 160 and 180 L/min.
The pressure drop at these points was 31 and 44 mmH2O respectively. At 3 L/min water
flow rate, flooding started at 120 L/min of air flow rate with 48 mmH2O pressure drop.
The liquid down flow was hindered by the high gas velocity.

9.0 CONCLUSION

From this experiment, it can be concluded that the pressure drop increases as the air
flow rate increases with constant water flow rate of 1 L/min to 3 L/min due to the higher
resistance of the down flow of the liquid caused by the high air flow rate. Other than that,
it can be said that flooding point is reached at certain points where the pressure drop is
very large. From the experiment, the value of the experimental pressure drop is lower
compared to the correlated values for packed column.

10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Ensure that the gas absorption unit is in an excellent condition. Check if there is a any
leakage.
Make sure that the system is sufficiently ventilated when working at atmospheric
pressure.
When adjusting the air flow rate, make sure that the eye level is parallel to the reading
scale to avoid parallax error.
The flow rates of liquid and gas must be maintained throughout the whole experiment.
Wear safety equipment when handling hazardous materials such as CO2.
11.0 REFERENCES

(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.separationprocesses.com/Absorption/GA_Chp03.htm

Earle, R. (1983). Gas Absorption. Retrieved from The New Zealand Institute of Food & Science
Technology Inc: http://www.nzifst.org.nz/unitoperations/conteqseparation8.htm

Gas Liquid Absorption . (2016). Retrieved from Sakshat Virtual Labs:

http://iitb.vlab.co.in/?sub=8&brch=116&sim=951&cnt=1

Geankoplis, C. J. (2014). Stage and Continuous Gas Liquid Separation Processes. In C. J. Geankoplis,
Transport Processes & Separation Process Principles (Includes Unit Operations) (pp. 625-62).
Edinburgh Gate: Pearson.

Mazotti, P. M. (n.d.). Gas-Liquid Contactors: Packed Columns. Retrieved from Hyper-TVT:

http://www.hyper-tvt.ethz.ch/contactors-packing.php

iitb.vlab.co.in,. (2011). Gas Liquid Absorption. Retrieved 15 April 2016, from

iitb.vlab.co.in/?sub=8&brch=116&sim=951&cnt=1
12.0 APPENDICES