Gas Absorption: Determination and Plotting of Drag and Flooding Flows

Pre-laboratory Experiment 2

Dean Joyce B. Alboroto | Ma. Kathleen Pearl F. Grande | John Salvador Y. Ricacho

I. INTRODUCTION

Absorption is a mass transfer operation that separates soluble components of a gas

mixture by contact with an adequate solvent (Green & Perry, 2008). Absorption is widely used
for separating gas mixtures, recovering valuable chemicals, and removing impurities. Gas
absorption, also known as scrubbing, primarily involves the transfer of a soluble component of
a gas phase into a nonvolatile liquid absorbent, for the purpose of dissolving one or more
components of gas mixture, and to form a solution in the liquid (Foust, Wenzel, Clump, Maus,
& Andersen, 1980). The species transferred to the liquid phase are referred to as solutes or
absorbates (Henley, Seader, & Roper, 2011). The process of absorption involves molecular and
turbulent diffusion or mass transfer of absorbent from the gas phase through a stagnant
nondiffusing liquid (Geankoplis, 2015). Thus, the absorbent transferred is absorbed by the
liquid.
Typical examples of gas absorption are the washing of ammonia from a mixture of
ammonia and air by means of liquid water and absorbing sulfur dioxide (SO2) from the flue
gases by absorption in alkaline solutions (McCabe, Smith, & Harriot, 2006; Geankoplis, 2015).
Gas Absorption Column (CAG) unit manufactured by Edibon will be used in
conducting the experiment. The CAG is a laboratory scale unit specifically designed to study
absorption process and hydrodynamics in a packed column. A packed column is a pressure
vessel that consists of certain packing material (Henley et al., 2011), and used for continuous
contacting of gas and liquid (Geankoplis, 2015). The packed column shown in Figure 1,
consists of a cylindrical column, or tower, equipped with a gas inlet and distributing space at
the bottom; a liquid inlet and distributing device at the top; gas outlet at the top; liquid outlet
at the bottom; and a supported mass of inert solid shapes, called tower packing (McCabe et al.,
2006; Geankoplis, 2015).

Figure 2. Raschig rings

Figure 1. Packed Column (McCabe et al., 2006) (McCabe et al., 2006)
 Most packing materials are made of inert and cheap materials such as clay, porcelain,
graphite, or plastic and must have 60% to 90% void spaces to attain the characteristic of good
packings. Packings permit relatively large volumes of liquid to pass countercurrently to the gas
flow through the openings with relatively low pressure drops for the gas (Geankoplis, 2015).
The packing materials employed in the experiment are glass Raschig rings 10x10 mm with a
specific area of packing per unit of volume of packing equals to 440m2/m3. Raschig rings are
pieces of tubes with approximately equal diameter and length that promotes contact between
vapor and liquid phases while minimizing hold-up in the column (Sella, 2008).
In a packed column with a specific size, type of packing, and definite flow of liquid,
there exists a flooding velocity, which is an upper limit to the rate of gas flow. Above the
flooding gas velocity, the column cannot operate. At low gas velocities, the liquid flows
downward through the tower packings typically uninfluenced by the upward gas flow. As the
gas flow rate is increased at low gas velocities, the pressure drop is proportional to the flow
rate to the 1.8 power. At a loading point, a gas flow rate, the gas starts to obstruct the liquid
downflow, thus local accumulations or pools of liquid start to appear in the packing. The
pressure drop of the gas starts to rise at a faster rate. As the gas flow rate is increased, the liquid
accumulation or holdup increases. At the flooding point, the liquid can no longer flow down
through the packing and is blown out with the gas (Geankoplis, 2015).
The flowrate of the water and air are determined using the following equations stated
in the manual of the experiment:
𝑙
𝑙 𝑄𝐻2 𝑂 (%)∙3.87
𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑄𝐻2 𝑂 (𝑚𝑖𝑛) = (Eq. 1)
100

𝑙
𝑙 𝑄𝑎𝑖𝑟 (%)∙80
𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑄𝑎𝑖𝑟 (𝑚𝑖𝑛) = (Eq. 2)
100

II. OBJECTIVES

The main objective of the experiment was to determine the characteristics and
effectiveness of the gas absorption column. Specifically, the experiment aimed:
1. to determine at which condition the flooding and column drag occurs;
2. to gain experience of using a Gas Absorption Column (CAG) equipment;
3. to be able to plot the influence of the air and water flow rates variation on the
pressure inside the column (ln ∆𝜌 vs ln Q);
4. and to identify the different sections of each curve of the plot.

III. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

The experiment was conducted inside the Research and Instrumentation Room of the
School of Technology using the packed column for the gas-liquid contact. The packed column
uses Raschig rings as packing materials. The gas sample used was air, and the liquid sample
used was water. Both the air and water were assumed to be at room temperature, 25 °C.
Moreover, the water was assumed to be nonvolatile, such that, no water evaporated during the
experiment. The parameters that were varied were the flow rates of the air and water, and the
effect on the pressure drop inside the column was monitored. The specific flowrates that were
used were the prescribed flowrates provided by the manual by Edibon. Additionally, the
flowrates were varied until flooding inside the packed column occurred.
IV. METHODOLOGY

A. Materials and Apparatus

1. Gas Absorption Column (CAG)
2. Timer or Stopwatch
3. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
4. Water supply

B. Diagram of the Apparatus

Figure 3. Diagram of the gas absorption column (Edibon, 2016)

C. Methodology

The CAG unit was plugged in and was switched on. The water pump was
connected and the pump switch was turned on. Then, the water flowrate was
adjusted to 30%. Next, the air blower was turned on and the air flowrate was
adjusted to 10%. After steady state was achieved, the pressure drop of the gas when
crossing the column was measured. Afterwards, the air flowrate was increased to
20%, 30%, 40% 50, 60% and 70%. The steps mentioned above were repeated for
water flowrates of 50% and 70%. During the experiment, the water level inside the
column was monitored to ensure that no water obstructed the manometers that can
cause erroneous pressure readings.
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The experiment was conducted to study the characteristics and effectiveness of the gas
absorption column by determining at which air and water flowrates, flooding and column drag
will occur. Variation of water flow rate with values of 30%, 50%, and 70% were used. In
addition, increasing air flow rate from 10% to 70% were set for every water flowrate and
pressure drops were recorded. Flow rates and pressure drops were summarized in Table 1 and
a gas pressure curve was generated.

Table 1. Datasheet for the calculation of drag and flooding flow rates
QH2O Qair Qair ΔP
QH2O (%) Ln (Qair) Ln (ΔP)
(L/min) (%) (L/min) (mmH2O)
10 8 1 2.079442 0
20 16 2 2.772589 0.693147
30 24 3 3.178054 1.098612
40 32 6 3.465736 1.791759
30 1.161 50 40 9 3.688879 2.197225
60 48 13.5 3.871201 2.60269
70 56 30.5 4.025352 3.417727
10 8 2.5 2.079442 0.916291
20 16 4 2.772589 1.386294
30 24 6 3.178054 1.791759
50 1.935 40 32 9 3.465736 2.197225
50 40 13 3.688879 2.564949
60 48 38 3.871201 3.637586
70 56 (flooding) 4.025352 (flooding)
10 8 3 2.079442 1.098612
20 16 6 2.772589 1.791759
30 24 9 3.178054 2.197225
40 32 12 3.465736 2.484907
70 2.709 50 40 35 3.688879 3.555348
60 48 (flooding) 3.871201 (flooding)
70 56 (flooding) 4.025352 (flooding)

A packed bed column was used for gas absorption, wherein, a component of a gas
stream is absorbed into the liquid stream. Air, the gas sample used in the experiment, enters at
the bottom of the column and leaves at the top. Meanwhile, water moves counter current to that
of the gas. The downward motion of water is due to the effect of gravitational force. Column
packings, such as Raschig rings, maximize the vapor-liquid contact area, maximize void space
per volume, and minimize resistance to the vapor upflow. In order to determine the drag and
flooding flow rates, pressure drops for each water and air flow rates were recorded.
Results found in Table 1 show that for a constant water flow rate, increasing the air
flow rate will also increase the pressure drop. This occurs due to the increase of resistance for
the water to flow downward caused by the increase of air flow rate. Furthermore, with the
increase of water flow rate, there is also an increase with the pressure drop. Low water flow
rates obtain low pressure drop due to the blockage of gas flow when liquid flows down the
column. However, flooding was observed at 50% (1.935 L/min) water flow with 70% (56
L/min) air flow and at 70% (2.709 L/min) water flow with 60% (48 L/min) air flow. Flooding
is an undesirable occurrence when the gas or liquid flow rate is too high for the system
operation.
In a column, there is a maximum gas velocity, known as the flooding velocity, which
needs to be determined for more understanding of the flooding point, which represents the
operating condition of a packed bed column. The flooding velocity can be obtained from the
relationship between the pressure drop across the column and the gas flow. It occurs when the
liquid begins to hold up in the column resulting to resistance of air flow and a rise in pressure
drop. The higher the velocity of the gas, the greater the resistance experienced by the liquid,
thus, the higher the pressure drop across the packings. This was confirmed by the results
obtained in the experiment.

4
3.5
C: Flooding
3
point
2.5
ln ΔP

2 30%

1.5 50%

1 B: Loading point 70%

0.5
0 A
0 1 2 3 4 5
ln Qair

Figure 4. Plot of the gas pressure drops through the packing: drag and flooding velocities

Figure 4 shows the gas pressure drop curve that was generated using the gathered data.
It shows the relationship between the pressure drop and the gas flow for varying water flowrate.
As observed from the graph, at a constant liquid flow, the velocity of the gas is enough to be
turbulent, where the pressure drop of the gas is proportional to the square of its velocity for
fluids (sections A-B) (Edibon, 2016). Then, pressure drop rises as liquid flow increases. The
liquid fills up the column reducing the space for the gas to flow.
Reaching the loading point (B), the pressure drop begins to be proportional to a power
more than two of the gas velocity (Edibon 2016). The velocity and flow rate at this point is
known as the drag velocity and drag flow rate. The loading point is identified by a sudden
increase in the slope of the ln ΔP vs ln Qair graph (Mccabe, Smith, & Harriott, 2006). From
Figure 4, it is evident that point B is indeed the loading point.
Beyond the loading point, there is a rapid increase of the pressure drop with the gas
flow resulting to a hold up of liquid in the column. This hold up occurs when it reaches point
C, the flooding point. At this point the liquid stops flowing down, thus, filling all the gaps
between the packings, as observed during the experiment. The gas velocity and flow at this
point is known as the flooding velocity and flooding flow rate, respectively. In addition, the
gas bubbles formed contribute to the massive increase of the pressure drop. Beyond the
flooding point, the column does not operate properly. No pressure drop reading was obtained
for higher flow rates due to instability of the manometer reading. Flooding in the column was
demonstrated by liquid hold up inside, since the high pressure drop of the gas leads to the
restriction of downward liquid flow.
 The results of the experiment determined the operating conditions of the packed
column. It was found that the column can operate at less than 70% (56 L/min) air flow rate for
all water flow rates used, and less than 60% (48 L/min) of air flow rate for a 70% (56 L/min)
water flow rate. Above these conditions, flooding phenomenon may occur, where the pressure
drop would rise drastically and the liquid may overflow from the column.

VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In conclusion, the experiment was conducted to study the characteristics and effectiveness
of the gas absorption column. It was observed from the results of the experiment, that there is
a direct proportionality between the flow rates and the pressure drop. Increasing the air flow at
constant water flow, pressure drop also increases. A rise in the pressure drop also occurs when
there is an increase in water flow at constant air flow. The relationship between the pressure
drop across the column and the gas flow is defined by the gas pressure drop curve (ln ∆𝑃 vs ln
Qair). The drag and flooding velocities were identified from the graph generated. It was found
that the column has a flooding flow rate of 70% (56 L/min) air flow at 50% (1.935 L/min)
water flow, and 60% (56 L/min ) air flowrate at 70% (2.709 L/min) water flow rate. Beyond
these conditions, flooding of the column will occur.
It is recommended to do the experiment, determination of the characteristics and
effectiveness of the gas absorption column, using various gas samples, such as carbon dioxide.
Furthermore, experiments such as determination of the conditions of air and water flow in
which absorption may occur and the determination of mass transfer coefficient of a packed
column, can also be conducted.

VII. REFERENCES

Foust, A. S., Wenzel, L. A., Clump, C. W., Maus, L., & Andersen, L. B. (1980). Transfer
operations. In Principles Of Unit Operations (2nd ed., p. 13). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Geankoplis, C. J. (2015). Stage and continuous gas-liquid separation processes. In Transport
Processes and Separation Process Principles (Includes Unit Operations) (4th ed.,
pp. 584, 610-613). Philippines: Pearson Education South Asia Pte. Ltd.
Henley, E. J., Seader, J. D., & Roper, D. K. (2011). Absorption and stripping of dilute
mixtures. In Separation Process Principles (3rd ed., p. 206). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
McCabe, W. L., Smith, J., & Harriott, P. (2006). Gas absorption. In Unit Operations of
Chemical Engineering (7th ed., pp. 686-688). McGraw-Hill Professional.
Perry, R. H., & Green, D. W. (2008). Gas absorption and gas-liquid system design. In Perry's
Chemical Engineers' Handbook (8th ed., p. 14-6). McGraw-Hill Osborne Media.
Sella, A., (2008). Classic Kit: Raschig’s rings. Retrieved March 4, 2019, from
https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/classic-kit-raschigs-rings/3004935.article
VIII. APPENDICES

Sample Calculations

 QH2O = 30% and Qair = 10%

 Qair (L/min):

𝐿
𝐿 𝑄𝑎𝑖𝑟 (%) ∗ 80 (𝑚𝑖𝑛)
𝑄𝑎𝑖𝑟 ( )=
𝑚𝑖𝑛 100
𝐿
𝐿 10 ∗ 80 (𝑚𝑖𝑛)
𝑄𝑎𝑖𝑟 ( )=
𝑚𝑖𝑛 100
𝐿 𝐿
𝑄𝑎𝑖𝑟 ( )= 8 ( )
𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑖𝑛

 Ln (Qair):
𝐿𝑛 (𝑄𝑎𝑖𝑟 ) = 𝐿𝑛(8)
𝐿𝑛 (𝑄𝑎𝑖𝑟 ) = 2.079442

 Ln (ΔP):
𝐿𝑛 (𝛥𝑃) = 𝐿𝑛(1)
𝐿𝑛 (𝛥𝑃) = 0