Course Chemical Engineering Laboratory

Course code CHMT3004A

Practical No. 11
Title of the report Flooding and Loading in a Packed Column
Date of submission 2021-08-17
Group No. 21
Supervisor Mr Mogopoleng (Paul) Chego

Declaration of group work

• We are aware that plagiarism (the use of someone else’s work without his/her permission and/or
without acknowledging the original source) is wrong.

• We declare that this report has been composed by ourselves. We confirm that the work submitted
for assessment is the result of our own.

• We have followed one of the accepted conventions in referencing the ideas and work of others.

• We understand that the University may take disciplinary action against us if it finds evidence (1)
that we have taken the work of others, or (2) that we have failed to appropriately acknowledge the
source of ideas and words in our writing.

# First name, surname Student No. Signature

1 Tshovelo Shalot Maluleke 2155035 T.S Maluleke

2 Asiphile Hlophe 2115234 A.Hlophe

3 Siphelele Malembe 2172331 S.Malembe

4 Davena Mathobisa 2103767 D.Mathobisa

0
 Table of Content

Abstract 2

Introduction 2

Theory 2

Experimental Procedure 4

3.1 Apparatus 4
3.2 Method 4
Part A: Dry run 4
Part B: Wet run 4
Part C: Counter-current flow 5

Results 5

Discussion 8

Error Analysis 8

Conclusion 9

References 9

Appendix 10

1
Abstract
An experiment was conducted to investigate the behaviour of a dry and a wet column at varying air
flow rates. The loading and flooding that takes place for superficial gas velocity increments at a high
and low liquid flow rate was also investigated. The experiment was conducted by measuring the
pressure drop across the columns at varying air flow rates. The experiment was divided into three
parts, the dry run, wet run and the counter-current flow. Every part was done twice, once for a 90
mm diameter column and another time for a 160 mm diameter column. It was shown that
the pressure drops measured during the dry run of both columns were generally less than those of
the wet run. A comparison of the column diameters revealed that the 90 mm diameter column
had significantly higher pressure drop values than that of the 160 mm diameter column.
Measured pressure drops were also compared with predictions made using semi-empirical
correlations. The Ergun equation was used for the dry runs and the Rose and Young equation was
used for the wet runs. Due to bad experimental data, the expected curves were not obtained.

1. Introduction
Packed bed columns are used for various chemical separation processes, namely distillation, gas
absorption and liquid-liquid extraction. This experiment explores loading and flooding in packed bed
columns by assessing pressure drop at varying superficial velocities for dry packing, wet packing and
counter current flow. Two columns of different diameters are used, one of 90 mm inner diameter,
and another of 160mm inner diameter, both with Raschig ring packing. The experiment is aimed to
determine loading and flooding points of the two packed columns while also assessing the air and
water interaction in the column. For counter current flow, the analysis is done at two fixed
superficial liquid velocities, one high and one low with varied gas velocities to assess the pressure
drop.

2. Theory
A plot of the pressure drop (-𝛥𝑃) vs gas velocity (𝑢𝐺 ) gives a straight line as shown in the below. For
turbulent gas flow, pressure drop is proportional to the gas velocity raised to the power of a value
between 1.8 and 2 (relating to graph A in the figure below). In a column with wet packing, pressure
drop is slightly increased as shown by curve B.

2
Figure 1: Plot of Pressure drop vs air velocity on logarithmic scale (RICHARDSON, J. F., HARKER, J. H.,
BACKHURST, J. R., & COULSON, J. M., 2002)

If gas flows while there is a flow of water (curves C and D), the pressure drop is not significantly
affected if water flow is low and the plot has a similar gradient to that of curve A on the figure
above. Once the gas velocity reaches a certain point (point X), pressure drop increases at a greater
rate and the relationship to gas velocity is 𝑢𝐺2.5 . This point is known as the loading point. Loading is
described as a point on the packed bed where the gas velocity is high enough to oppose the flow of
the liquid. In section XY, liquid flow is interfering with gas flow (RICHARDSON, J. F., HARKER, J. H.,
BACKHURST, J. R., & COULSON, J. M., 2002).

The amount of liquid in the column rises, taking up the free space in the packing. The pressure drop
increases rapidly until the flooding point is reached. Point Y is called the flooding point. At this point
pressure drops at a very high speed with relatively small changes in gas velocity. Point Y shows the
flooding point. Packed columns are best operated between the loading and flooding points (sections
XY). It is impractical to operate in the flooding region as the gas has to bubble through the liquid,
causing a significant pressure drop that is not ideal for chemical processes. The Rose and Young
equation relates the pressure drops in dry and damp packing for Raschig ring packing as show in
Coulson and Richardson's Chemical Engineering (2002):
0.33
−𝛥𝑃𝑤 = −𝛥𝑃𝑑 (1 + )
𝑑𝑛
Where:

−𝛥𝑃𝑤 = Pressure drop across the wet/damp column

−𝛥𝑃𝑑 = Pressure drop across the dry column

𝑑𝑛 = The nominal size of the Raschig ring in centimeters

3
 3. Experimental Procedure

3.1 Apparatus

Figure 2: Schematic diagram of the experimental setup

The apparatus includes two columns packed with Raschig packing, one with a 90 mm inner diameter
and another with a 160 mm inner diameter. Connected to each column are water and gas
rotameters fitted with valves used to control water and gas flow rates. The gas rotameters used in
both columns are the metric 24X type rotameters. The 90 mm ID column is connected to the 14S
water rotameter. The 160 mm ID column is connected to the 24S water rotameter. Each column is
connected to water manometers that are used to measure pressure drop in the columns. The
columns are fitted with valves to control the movement of both gas and water in and out of the
columns.

3.2 Method

Part A: Dry run

Before beginning the experiment, for the dry run, air needs to be turned on the previous day to
ensure the packing is completely dry. In the 90 mm ID column, the pressure drop is to be measured
at varied gas velocities. As the setup has two gas rotameters, one is to be kept open throughout the
experiment. The second one is opened to a low value and the resulting manometer reading is
recorded. The second rotameter value is then slightly increased and the resulting manometer is
recorded. This is repeated until five readings are recorded. The same process is repeated in the 160
mm ID column

Part B: Wet run

Water is run through the column to ensure that the packing is wet in both columns. Just like in the
dry run, one gas rotameter is fully opened while the other is first opened at a low value and the

4
manometer reading is taken for the pressure drop. The pressure drop is recorded for incremental
values of the gas flow rate until five readings are recorded. The same is done for the next column. It
is vital to ensure that the air is only passing in one column at a time.

Part C: Counter-current flow

Before beginning this part of this experiment, ensure that the water and air go through one column
at a time. Set the water flow in the water rotameter at a low flow rate where loading and flooding
can both happen. While keeping the water flow rate constant, one air rotameter is opened to a set
value and also kept constant. The second rotameter is set to a low value and the pressure drop
reading is taken. The second air rotameter is incremented and the corresponding pressure drop
readings are taken. This is repeated until five readings are taken. The water flow rate is then
increased to a higher value and the experiment is repeated. The same is done for the second column
for both low and high water flow rates.

4. Results
The Metric 24XA air calibration chart was used to determine air flowrates from air rotameter
readings, these chart flowrates were corrected using the experimental conditions. Further
calculations were done to obtain the logarithmic plots that are seen below. Formulae for these
calculations can be seen in Appendix A.

Figure 3 below shows the relationship between the logarithmic superficial velocity and logarithmic
pressure drop for the dry and wet run of the 90 mm internal diameter column.

Figure 3: Dry and wet run-90 mm internal diameter column

Figure 4 below shows the relationship between the logarithmic superficial velocity and logarithmic
pressure drop for the dry and wet run of the 160 mm internal diameter column.
5
Figure 4: Dry and wet run-160 mm internal diameter column

Figure 5 below shows the relationship between the logarithmic superficial velocity and pressure
drop when considering counter-current flow in a 90 mm internal diameter packed column. Using the
Metric 14S water calibration chart, the constant low liquid flowrate and the constant high liquid
flowrate were determined to be 1.875 L/min and 3.025 L/min, respectively.

Figure 5: Counter-current flow for 90 mm internal diameter packed column

6
The loading point of the high flowrate run for 90 mm diameter packed column has been labelled as
L1 on Figure 5. For the low flowrate run, point L2 was identified as the loading point but the flooding
point could not be identified. The difficulty in locating the flooding points for these counter-current
runs is explained in the Discussion section of this report.

Figure 6 below shows the relationship between the logarithmic superficial velocity and pressure
drop when considering counter-current flow in a 160 mm internal diameter packed column. Using
the Metric 24S water calibration chart, the constant low liquid flowrate and the constant high liquid
flowrate were determined to be 7.5 L/min and 12.5 L/min, respectively.

Figure 6: Counter-current flow for 160 mm internal diameter packed column

The loading point of the high flowrate run for 160 mm diameter packed column has been labelled as
L3 on Figure 6. For the low flowrate run, both the loading and flooding points could not be easily
identified. The difficulty in locating these points for the counter-current run is explained in the
Discussion section of this report.

Figure 7: The relationship between cross-sectional area of columns and pressure drop.
7
Plots from Figure 3 and Figure 4 were reproduced as Figure 7. The runs of the 90 mm diameter
column are observed to result in higher pressure drops for the same flowrates.

5. Discussion
For the dry and wet runs, pressure drop was expected to vary linearly with superficial gas velocity,
when plotted on the logarithmic scale, as explained by Coulson and Richardson (2002). The dry run
of the 90 mm column and the wet run of the 160 mm column were observed to follow this expected
trend more accurately than the wet run of the 90 mm column and the dry run of the 160 mm
column, respectively. Furthermore, in both the 90 mm and the 160 mm columns, the plots of the
wet runs depict higher pressure drops than the dry runs, when compared with the same superficial
velocities. This observation can be attributed to a portion of the void volume in the packings being
occupied by water.

Proper controlling of the valves is essential in such an experiment. Inaccurate results for the 90 mm
column wet run and the 160 mm column dry run could be due to some of the air entering another
column rather than the column that is currently being used to collect data. Moreover, failure to keep
one of the rotameter readings constant while adjusting the readings of the other rotameter, could
have resulted in these poor data sets.

The plot of the 160 mm column dry run deviates slightly from the linear relationship of logarithmic
pressure and superficial velocity. There is a significant change in pressure between the 8 cm and 12
cm air rotameter readings, this can also be seen by the significant change in gradient between the
third and fourth point on the plot of the 160 mm dry run. A possible reason could be that the column
was not completely dry when this part of the experiment was being run.

In part C of the experiment some loading and flooding points could not be identified. The constant
water flowrates at which the counter-current runs in the experiment were done were too low.
Hence both loading and flooding could not occur. It is recommended to increase both low and high
constant water flowrates to values that allow both flooding and loading to occur. Furthermore, it is
vital to ensure that the selected water flowrates are kept constant for the duration of each run.

As explained by Coulson and Richardson (2002), the relationship between pressure drop and
volumetric gas flowrate per unit area is proportional thus, pressure drop is inversely related to cross-
sectional area. When comparing results of the same flowrates for both wet and dry runs in columns
of varying internal diameters (referring to Figure 7), it was observed that the 90 mm column had
greater pressure drops as compared to the 160 mm diameter column. These results correlate with
this theoretical relationship.

6. Error Analysis
Although the manometer is a closed system, in reality the atmospheric pressure could affect the
functioning of the manometer slightly. The ambient temperature can affect the density of the fluid
which can also affect the pressure drop and can result to having poor data. It is important that the
manometer is level at the beginning of each run. The results can also be affected by the lack of
knowledge on how to use the calibration curve, even though the raw data could have been obtained
correctly.

8
Applying the Ergun and Rose and Young equations for pressure drop (Appendix A), a significant
difference in the theatrical and the actual values for pressure drop was observed. The actual values
were too high as compared to the theoretical values. This is illustrated by Figure 8 and 9 in the
Appendix C.

7. Conclusion
It can be seen from the results that pressure drop varied linearly with superficial gas velocity for
both the dry and wet runs as expected, but with slight deviations from the expected pattern. In this
case, deviations were due to faulty experimental data. Wet and dry results for the 90 mm and 160
mm columns respectively were incorrect, and as discussed previously, the lack of evaluation of air
entering the column could have been one of the reasons the accuracy was lessened. The poor data
also resulted in ambiguous results, making it difficult to pinpoint where the loading and flooding
occurred. This data compromised the accuracy of the results, ultimately resulting in the failure to
obtain the expected curves. Even so, the results matched the expected trend, but erroneous data
degraded the integrity of the results and made them difficult to analyse.

References

1. Brunazzi, E., Macías-Salinas, R. and Viva, A. (2008). CALCULATION PROCEDURE FOR

FLOODING IN PACKED COLUMNS USING A CHANNEL MODEL. Chemical Engineering
Communications, 196(3), pp.330–341.
2. RICHARDSON, J. F., HARKER, J. H., BACKHURST, J. R., & COULSON, J. M. (2002). Coulson and
Richardson's chemical engineering. Vol. 2, Vol. 2. Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann.
3. Zakeri, A., Einbu, A., Wiig, P.O., Øi, L.E. and Svendsen, H.F. (2011). Experimental investigation
of pressure drop, liquid hold-up and mass transfer parameters in a 0.5 m diameter absorber
column. Energy Procedia, 4, pp.606–613.
4. www.separationprocesses.com. (n.d.). Packed Column - Column Diameter. [online] Available
at: http://www.separationprocesses.com/Absorption/GA_Chp04a.htm.

9
Appendices

Appendix A

 The following equation was used for the correction of flowrate values measured from the
rotameters:

𝑇𝐶 𝑃𝐸
𝑄𝐸 = 𝑄𝐶 √
𝑇𝐸 𝑃𝐶

Where:

𝑄𝐸 = The corrected flowrate value (L/min)

𝑄𝐶 = the flowrate of air at 15 ◦C and 760 mm. Hg. Abs.

𝑇𝐶 = Chart temperature of air (K)

𝑃𝐸 = Experimental pressure of air (mm Hg)

𝑇𝐸 = Experimental temperature of air (K)

𝑃𝐶 = Chart pressure of air (mm Hg)

 The following equation is used to calculate the superficial air velocities from the flowrate
values:

𝑄 = 𝐴𝑣
𝑄
∴𝑣=
𝐴

Where:

𝑄 = The flowrate (m3/min)

𝐴 = Anulus area (m2)

𝑣 = superficial gas velocity (m/s)

 The following equation was used to determine the pressure drop from the manometer
reading:

∆𝑃 = 𝜌𝑔∆ℎ

Where:

∆P = change in pressure (Pa)

ρ = density of water (kg/m3)

10
∆h = manometer height (m)

 The Ergun equation below

−∆𝑃 (1 − 𝑒)2 𝜇𝑢𝑐 (1 − 𝑒) 𝜌𝑢𝑐 2

= 150 ( ) ( ) + 1.75 ( )( )
𝑙 𝑒3 𝑑2 𝑒3 𝑑

 The Rose and Young equation

3.30
−∆𝑃𝑤 = ∆𝑃𝑑 (1 + )
𝑑𝑛
taken from Coulson and Richardson’s Chemical Engineering textbook, were used as literature or
theoretical references. Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook was used to determine 𝜇 and𝜌. The
porosity values for the 90 mm and 160 mm columns were 0.50 and 0.49, respectively. The values for
𝑢𝑐 were taken from Tables 1 and 3, found in Appendix B of this report.

11
Appendix B

The Table 1, 2, 3, and 4 show the experimental data obtained for the dry and wet packed column of a 90 mm diameter and a 160 mm diameter.

Table 1: Data for dry 90 mm diameter packed column

Rotameter
reading for Chart superficial
log(𝒖𝒄 )
air (cm) Manometer Flow Corrected Corrected velocity(m/ Pressure
Metric 24XA height (∆h) (m) (L/min) Flow (L/min) Flow(m^3/min) min) drop (Pa) log(ΔP)
0 0.02032004064 13 12.83889967 0.01283889967 2.018147503 198.7415799 0.3049529048 2.298288738
4 0.0254000508 30 29.62823001 0.02962823001 4.657263467 248.4269749 0.6681308072 2.395198751
8 0.03048006096 50 49.38038335 0.04938038335 7.762105779 298.1123698 0.8899795568 2.474379997
12 0.0381000762 70 69.13253668 0.06913253668 10.86694809 372.6404623 1.036107593 2.57129001
16 0.04318008636 91 89.87229769 0.08987229769 14.12703252 422.3258573 1.150050945 2.625647672
20 0.0508001016 112 110.6120587 0.1106120587 17.38711694 496.8539497 1.240227575 2.696228747
24 0.05588011176 136 134.3146427 0.1343146427 21.11292772 546.5393447 1.324548461 2.737621432
27 0.06096012192 155 153.0791884 0.1530791884 24.06252791 596.2247396 1.381341251 2.775409993

Table 2: Data for wet 90 mm diameter packed column

Rotameter
reading for Chart
log(𝒖𝒄 )
air (cm) Manometer height Flow Corrected Corrected velocity Pressure
Metric 24XA (∆h) (m) (L/min) Flow (L/min) Flow(m^3/min) (m/min) drop (Pa) log(ΔP)
0 0.02794005588 13 12.83889967 0.01283889967 2.018147503 273.2696723 0.3049529048 2.436591436
4 0.03302006604 30 29.62823001 0.02962823001 4.657263467 322.9550673 0.6681308072 2.509142103
8 0.04064008128 50 49.38038335 0.04938038335 7.762105779 397.4831598 0.8899795568 2.599318734
12 0.04572009144 70 69.13253668 0.06913253668 10.86694809 447.1685547 1.036107593 2.650471256
16 0.05588011176 91 89.87229769 0.08987229769 14.12703252 546.5393447 1.150050945 2.737621432
20 0.07366014732 112 110.6120587 0.1106120587 17.38711694 720.4382271 1.240227575 2.857596749
24 0.08382016764 136 134.3146427 0.1343146427 21.11292772 819.809017 1.324548461 2.913712691
12
 27 0.08636017272 155 153.0791884 0.1530791884 24.06252791 844.6517145 1.381341251 2.926677668

Table 3: Data for dry 160 mm diameter packed column

Rotameter
reading for Chart
log(𝒖𝒄 )
air (cm) Manometer height Flow Corrected Corrected velocity Pressure log(ΔP)
Metric 24XA (∆h) (m) (L/min) Flow (L/min) Flow(m^3/min) (m/min) drop (Pa)
0 0.00381000762 13 12.83889967 0.01283889967 2.018147503 37.26404623 0.3049529048 1.57129001
4 0.00508001016 30 29.62823001 0.02962823001 4.657263467 49.68539497 0.6681308072 1.696228747
8 0.0063500127 50 49.38038335 0.04938038335 7.762105779 62.10674371 0.8899795568 1.79313876
12 0.00889001778 70 69.13253668 0.06913253668 10.86694809 86.9494412 1.036107593 1.939266795
16 0.009652019304 91 89.87229769 0.08987229769 14.12703252 94.40225044 1.150050945 1.974982348
20 0.01016002032 112 110.6120587 0.1106120587 17.38711694 99.37078994 1.240227575 1.997258742
24 0.0127000254 136 134.3146427 0.1343146427 21.11292772 124.2134874 1.324548461 2.094168755
27 0.01397002794 155 153.0791884 0.1530791884 24.06252791 136.6348362 1.381341251 2.13556144

Table 4: Data for wet 160 mm diameter packed column

Rotameter
reading for Chart
log(𝒖𝒄 )
air (cm) Manometer height Flow Corrected Corrected velocity Pressure log(ΔP)
Metric 24XA (∆h) (m) (L/min) Flow (L/min) Flow(m^3/min) (m/min) drop (Pa) (units)
0 0.0063500127 13 12.83889967 0.01283889967 2.018147503 62.10674371 0.3049529048 1.79313876
4 0.00762001524 30 29.62823001 0.02962823001 4.657263467 74.52809246 0.6681308072 1.872320006
8 0.00889001778 50 49.38038335 0.04938038335 7.762105779 86.9494412 0.8899795568 1.939266795
12 0.01016002032 70 69.13253668 0.06913253668 10.86694809 99.37078994 1.036107593 1.997258742
16 0.01143002286 91 89.87229769 0.08987229769 14.12703252 111.7921387 1.150050945 2.048411265
20 0.0127000254 112 110.6120587 0.1106120587 17.38711694 124.2134874 1.240227575 2.094168755
24 0.01473202946 136 134.3146427 0.1343146427 21.11292772 144.0876454 1.324548461 2.158626744
27 0.01778003556 155 153.0791884 0.1530791884 24.06252791 173.8988824 1.381341251 2.240296791
13
The Tables 5, 6, 7, and 8 tables show the data for counter-current run of constant low and high flowrates of a 90 mm and 160 mm diameter.

Table 5: Data for counter-current run of constant low flowrate of 90 mm

Chart
Rotameter reading for air (cm) Manometer height Flow Corrected Corrected velocity Pressure log(𝒖𝒄 )
Metric 24XA (∆h) (m) (L/min) Flow (L/min) Flow(m^3/min) (m/min) drop (Pa) log(ΔP)
0 0.01778003556 13 12.83889967 0.01283889967 2.018147503 173.8988824 0.3049529048 2.240296791
4 0.02794005588 30 29.62823001 0.02962823001 4.657263467 273.2696723 0.6681308072 2.436591436
8 0.04318008636 50 49.38038335 0.04938038335 7.762105779 422.3258573 0.8899795568 2.625647672
12 0.063500127 70 69.13253668 0.06913253668 10.86694809 621.0674371 1.036107593 2.79313876
16 0.09398018796 91 89.87229769 0.08987229769 14.12703252 919.179807 1.150050945 2.963400475
20 0.1549403099 112 110.6120587 0.1106120587 17.38711694 1515.404547 1.240227575 3.180528586
24 0.2387604775 136 134.3146427 0.1343146427 21.11292772 2335.213564 1.324548461 3.368326605
27 0.317500635 155 153.0791884 0.1530791884 24.06252791 3105.337186 1.381341251 3.492108764

Table 6: Counter-current run of constant high flowrate of a 90 mm

Chart
Rotameter reading for air (cm) Manometer height Flow Corrected Corrected velocity Pressure log(𝒖𝒄 ) log(ΔP)
Metric 24XA (∆h) (m) (L/min) Flow (L/min) Flow(m^3/min) (m/min) drop (Pa)
0 0.05588011176 13 12.83889967 0.01283889967 2.018147503 546.5393447 0.3049529048 2.737621432
4 0.06858013716 30 29.62823001 0.02962823001 4.657263467 670.7528321 0.6681308072 2.826562515
8 0.0889001778 50 49.38038335 0.04938038335 7.762105779 869.494412 0.8899795568 2.939266795
12 0.1193802388 70 69.13253668 0.06913253668 10.86694809 1167.606782 1.036107593 3.067296609

14
 16 0.1549403099 91 89.87229769 0.08987229769 14.12703252 1515.404547 1.150050945 3.180528586
20 0.2184404369 112 110.6120587 0.1106120587 17.38711694 2136.471984 1.240227575 3.329697202
24 0.2921005842 136 134.3146427 0.1343146427 21.11292772 2856.910211 1.324548461 3.455896591
27 0.350520701 155 153.0791884 0.1530791884 24.06252791 3428.292253 1.381341251 3.535077837

Table 7: Data for counter-current run of constant low flowrate of 160 mm

Chart
Manometer Flow Corrected Corrected velocity Pressure
height (∆h) (m) (L/min) Flow (L/min) Flow(m^3/min) (cm/s) drop (Pa)
log(𝒖𝒄 ) log(ΔP)
0.043180086 13 12.83889967 0.0128389 1.064257472 422.3258573 0.027046708 2.625647672
0.048260097 30 29.62823001 0.02962823 2.455978782 472.0112522 0.39022461 2.673952352
0.053340107 50 49.38038335 0.049380383 4.093297969 521.6966472 0.61207336 2.717418046
0.058420117 70 69.13253668 0.069132537 5.730617157 571.3820422 0.758201396 2.756926587
0.071120142 91 89.87229769 0.089872298 7.449802304 695.5955296 0.872144748 2.842356782
0.076200152 112 110.6120587 0.110612059 9.168987451 745.2809246 0.962321378 2.872320006
0.088900178 136 134.3146427 0.134314643 11.13377048 869.494412 1.046642264 2.939266795
0.116840234 155 153.0791884 0.153079188 12.6892237 1142.764084 1.103435054 3.057956583

15
Table 8: Counter-current run of constant high flowrate of a 160 mm

Chart
Manometer Flow Corrected Corrected velocity Pressure log(𝒖𝒄 ) log(ΔP)
height (∆h) (m) (L/min) Flow (L/min) Flow(m^3/min) (cm/s) drop (Pa)
0.066040132 13 12.83889967 0.0128389 1.064257472 645.9101346 0.027046708 2.810172099
0.073660147 30 29.62823001 0.02962823 2.455978782 720.4382271 0.39022461 2.857596749
0.086360173 50 49.38038335 0.049380383 4.093297969 844.6517145 0.61207336 2.926677668
0.101600203 70 69.13253668 0.069132537 5.730617157 993.7078994 0.758201396 2.997258742
0.121920244 91 89.87229769 0.089872298 7.449802304 1192.449479 0.872144748 3.076439988
0.1498603 112 110.6120587 0.110612059 9.168987451 1465.719152 0.962321378 3.166050763
0.495300991 136 134.3146427 0.134314643 11.13377048 4844.32601 1.046642264 3.685233362
0.548641097 155 153.0791884 0.153079188 12.6892237 5366.022657 1.103435054 3.729652502

16
Appendix C 5
3 4,5

4
2,5 3,5

3 90mm wet-R&Y
2 2,5 90mm wet-Experimental
log(ΔP)

2 160mm wet-R&Y
1,5 160mm wet-Experimental
160 mm Dry-Ergun 1,5

160 mm Dry- 1
Experimental 1
0,5
90 mm Dry-Ergun
0
90 mm Dry- 0,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0
Experimenatal
Series5
Figure 9: Comparison of the Rose and Young equation and experimental
0
-1,8 -1,6 -1,4 -1,2 -1 log(uc)-0,8 -0,6 -0,4 -0,2 pressure
0 drops for wet columns.

Figure 8: Comparison of the Ergun equation and experimental pressure

drops for dry columns.

17