0263–8762/06/$30.00+0.

00
# 2006 Institution of Chemical Engineers
www.icheme.org/cherd Trans IChemE, Part A, November 2006
doi: 10.1205/cherd06024 Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 84(A11): 1075– 1080

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION AND MODELLING

OF SULZER I-RING HYDRAULICS
F. KEHRER
, L. SPIEGEL, E. KOLESNIKOV and P. CHOO

Sulzer Chemtech Ltd, Winterthur, Switzerland

W
ith an increasing number of vendor supplied design tools for the calculation of
packing hydraulics, the basis of these design methods needs to be reliable—
reflecting industrial operating conditions as closely as possible. Currently
however, different vendor supplied design tools predict different results for some very
similar packing types. This paper sets out to determine a reliable model for the hydraulic
calculation of I-RingsTM (IMTPTM equivalent). I-Ring sizes from #15 to #70 were tested in
the air–water system at medium to high liquid loads in the Sulzer Chemtech facilities. In
addition, distillation tests with standard test mixtures under total reflux conditions were con-
ducted. Based on these experimental data points, the model originally developed for structured
packing was adapted for random packing. The capacity and pressure drop calculated by the
model compared with the experimental data points were within +4% and +20% respectively.

Keywords: I-Ring; hydraulic model; random packing; pressure drop.

INTRODUCTION to obtain experimental data points for I-Ring sizes #40

The hydraulic and mass transfer characteristics measured
for specific random packings are used for design of absorp-
tion, desorption and distillation columns, as well as a basis
of comparison between different packing types. Although
there are several good hydraulic models (Billet and
Schultes, 1999; Mackowiak, 1991; Strigle, 1994) to predict
the behaviour of different packing types based on certain
parameters, they still do not fully take into account the
dependency of the different shapes and sizes. To overcome
this dependence, we have based our model on experimental
points taken from sources where test conditions are known
and reproducible.
This work gives a complete set of characteristics for
I-Rings #15 to #70 (see Figure 1). The procedure of the
air– water and distillation tests to determine hydraulic
characteristics is described in detail. The reliability of the
model is validated by comparing the model and the exper-
imental data.
EXPERIMENTAL
The experiments in this paper were carried out at the
Sulzer Chemtech test facilities in Winterthur, Switzerland.
An industrial sized air– water simulator and a pilot distilla-
tion column, both with an inner diameter of 1 m, were used


Correspondence to: Mr F. Kehrer, Sulzer Chemtech Ltd, CH-8404,
Winterthur, Switzerland.
E-mail: florian.kehrer@sulzer.com
to #70. A smaller air –water simulator and pilot distillation
column of inner diameter 0.25 m were used to measure the
experimental data points for I-Ring size #15. Figures 2 and
3 show the schematic of the 1 m ID simulator and pilot dis-
tillation column respectively. The small columns are of
similar configuration.
Tables 1 –3 summarize the experimental conditions.
In the air –water simulators, the two phases ran under
ambient conditions in countercurrent flow. In the 1 m ID
simulator, the flow rate of air entering the column is
measured with a delta flow device (diameter integrated
Pitot tube) and regulated by the RPM-controller of the
blower. The saturated air leaving the column is recycled
back into the blower. Contrarily, air is continually taken
from the environment in the 0.25 m ID simulator. The
flow rate is thereby measured with a Pitot tube device.
Both air –water simulators operate with a closed loop
water supply between a storage tank and the column. The
water is transported through pipes from the storage tanks
to the distributors, which then evenly spread the water
over the packed bed.
At the start of every test series, the liquid load is kept
constant while air flow is increased stepwise until flooding
takes place in the column. This is done to ensure that all the
random packing is sufficiently wetted before running tests
and collecting data.
Pressure drop was measured over the complete packed
bed and over the upper half of the bed. The liquid distribu-
tors, hold-down grids and support grids are therefore
included in the measured pressure drop. To avoid water

1075
1076 KEHRER et al.

Figure 1. Sulzer I-Rings.

condensation in the pressure measuring pipes, they were

continually purged with small amounts of nitrogen. The
pressure drop is measured in terms of millimetre Dibu-
tylphthalate in a u-tube and in parallel electronically
sampled and logged in a file. In an after-processing the
pressure drop is corrected for the friction loss of the flowing
nitrogen and the hydrostatic pressure difference between

Figure 3. Schematic of the 1 m ID pilot-distillation-column.

the nitrogen in the measuring pipes and the saturated air

in the column.
The description of the internals used is as follows:
. VKG: channel distributor with ground holes; integrated
arm channels and main trough.
. VEG: channel distributor with ground holes; independent
arm channels and main trough.
The experiments in the pilot distillation columns were
conducted under total reflux conditions. The test system
was CB/EB at a concentration of approximately 20 wt%
light component. In order to reach stable conditions, the
columns were run at a set head pressure and constant
steam load for about 5 h before any readings were taken.
Once stabilized, the liquid samples were drawn from the
condenser reflux and from the liquid collector below

Table 1. Test overview.

I-Ring no. #15 #40 #50 #70

Spec. surface area (m2 m23) 290 150 100 60
Approx. pieces per m3 350 000 50 000 15 000 4600
Air/water X X X X
CB/EB X X X —
Figure 2. Schematic of the 1 m ID hydraulic simulator.

Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2006, 84(A11): 1075– 1080
 INVESTIGATION AND MODELLING OF SULZER I-RING HYDRAULICS 1077

Table 2. Air–water simulators.

Column (inner diameter) 0.25 m 1m

Head pressure Atmospheric pressure, ambient temperature
Test mixture Air/water
Liquid-load 0–100 m3 m22 h21 0–200 m3 m22 h21
Distributor type Sulzer VKG Sulzer VKG
Test scope Pressure drop Pressure drop, holdup

the packing section. All samples were analysed with a gas-

phase chromatograph for light component concentrations.
The gas load was independently determined by a condenser
energy balance considering the concentration for an accu-
rate enthalpy of evaporation and by a condensate mass
flow meter.
Besides the packed bed the pressure drop measured
included the liquid distributor, hold-down grid, support
grid and liquid collector below the packed section. The
pressure drop measuring equipment and procedures were
analogue to the simulators. Figure 4. Pressure drop, experimental results for I-Ring #40, measured in
1 m ID simulator.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The wet pressure drop line in Figure 6 shows the shape
An example of the experimental results for the air – water of a typical pressure drop curve at constant liquid load.
system is shown in Figure 4. In this diagram the pressure
drop per metre packing height is plotted against the Holdup
F-factor, which represents the gas load. As expected, the
pressure drop at constant liquid load is increasing with The liquid holdup is the fraction of the packing volume
increasing gas load. Correspondingly at constant gas load, occupied by the liquid in relation to the volume of packed
we observe increasing pressure drop with increasing bed. Because of the measuring technique with gamma-ray,
liquid load. We find the same characteristics of pressure static and dynamic holdup cannot be distinguished. The
drop versus gas load in the pilot distillation (see Figure 5). holdup depends on the physical properties of the liquid,
the liquid load and to some extent on the gas load.
Billet and Schultes (1999) derive a potential dependence
of the holdup from the specific liquid load wL with a theore-
PRESSURE DROP MODEL
tical exponent of 0.63. In another publication, Jesser and
The pressure drop model was first introduced by Spiegel Elgin (1942) show holdup experiments with a broad variety
and Meier in 1987 to represent hydraulic behaviour of of different random packings, and they derived an exponent
structured packing (Spiegel and Meier, 1993). The essential of about 0.6.
characteristics of the pressure drop model can best be seen
in a log –log-diagram of pressure drop versus gas load as
shown in the graphs below.
The upper part of the graph shows the relationship
between liquid holdup and gas load, see Figure 6 (adapted
from Spiegel and Meier, 1993). At low gas loads (below
point A) the liquid holdup is primarily a function of
liquid rate and independent of the gas rate. This is con-
firmed by the parallel wet and dry pressure drop line
below point A. Point A is called the loading point. Above
point A the vapour begins to interact with the liquid affect-
ing the flow regime. Point B is the operating condition
where the pressure drop is 12 mbar m21 and that represents
100% hydraulic capacity.

Table 3. Pilot distillation columns.

Column (inner diameter) 0.25 m 1m

Head pressure 100, 960 mbar 100, 400, 960 mbar
Test mixture Chloro-/ethylbenzene (CB/EB)
Liquid-load 1–15 m3 m22 h21 (total reflux)
Distributor Sulzer VKG Sulzer VEG
Test scope Pressure drop, efficiency Figure 5. Pressure drop, experimental results for I-Ring #40, measured in
1 m ID pilot-column.

Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2006, 84(A11): 1075 –1080
1078
Figure 6. Log –log diagram to visualize the pressure drop model.
The correlation below fits well our experimental data, it
is only applicable for operating points below the loading
point A.
hL ¼ K1 w0:59
L IR#40 confirm these findings. Represented in the Wallis-
K1 is a constant that can be related to the specific surface
area of the individual rings, wL represents the liquid load
in terms of m3 m22 s21.
Dry Pressure Drop
The tests were all carried out in the turbulent flow
regime. Therefore the dry pressure drop is assumed to be
proportional to rGw2G. The following equation is used for
dry pressure drop dp0:
dp0 =dz ¼ K2 rG w2G ¼ K2 Fv2
K2 is calculated as a function of the specific surface area.
Wet Pressure Drop Below Loading Point
The ratio wet to dry pressure drop (dp/dp0) is calculated
similarly as suggested by Billet and Schultes (1999):
dp=dp0 ¼ (1  hL )1:5 100:004 wL
The first term considers the effect of liquid holdup restrict-
ing the space available for the gas phase, the second term
accounts for the effect of increased interfacial area due to
the liquid flow pattern.
Billet and Schultes (1999) describe the factor in the
exponential term in the above formula as a function of
the specific surface area. For IMTP #25 (I-Ring #25 equiv-
alent, with a ¼ 230 m2 m23, 1 ¼ 1, hL ¼ hL,S) they calcu-
late a value of 0.005. Our value of 0.004 has been
determined by fitting the experimental data.
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2006, 84(A11): 1075– 1080
KEHRER et al.
Capacity Diagram
The maximum hydraulic operating condition is defined
by the point B, where the pressure drop is 12 mbar m21.
In order to determine Point B, the Wallis-diagram was gen-
erated from the experimental data (see Figure 7). Here the
square roots of the gas capacity factor CG is plotted against
the square root of the liquid capacity factor CL, which are
defined as follows:
 0:5
rG
CG ¼ wG 
rL  rG
 0:5
rL
CL ¼ wL 
rL  rG
Each line represents the hydraulic 100% capacity condition
for a specific packing type. The slope and the intercept
point of the lines are parameters used by the model. The
capacity line for the I-Ring #25 has been interpolated
according to the specific surface area.
Influence of the Surface Tension
In general, systems with high surface tension (e.g., water)
show a higher capacity than systems with a low surface ten-
sion (e.g., hydrocarbons). Comparison of data obtained
from our air/water and CB/EB tests for IR#50 and
diagram, the intercept of the CB/EB compared with the
air/water line shows an approximate 4% reduction. Using
these results, we generated a correction factor for organic
systems which was implemented into the Pressure Drop
model. Figure 7 includes the corrected organic data.
Wet Pressure Drop Above the Loading Point
Having determined point A and point B by the above
procedure, the gap between these two points is closed by
a third order polynomial in the log –log scale with four
Figure 7. Wallis-diagram, maximum hydraulic capacity at 12 mbar m21
pressure drop. Dashed line: interpolation for IR #25.
 INVESTIGATION AND MODELLING OF SULZER I-RING HYDRAULICS 1079

Figure 10. Model validation for I-Ring #50, air– water.

Figure 8. Model validation for I-Ring #15, air–water.

degrees of freedom. The four side conditions are: point A

and B have to be part of the polynomial, the first order devi-
ation has to match the slope of the pressure drop curve
below the loading point, and the second order deviation
has to be zero. This polynomial then provides the wet
pressure drop above the loading point.

MODEL VALIDATION
The following graphs show the comparisons of the
pressure drop model with measurements for the different
packing types. In Figure 8 the air – water data for the I-
Ring #15 is given. The lines represent the pressure drop
calculated by the model. Similarly, the data for the I-
Rings #40, #50 and #70 are shown in the Figures 9 – 11.
In Figure 12, the results from the 1 m pilot column with
CB/EB (total reflux) are compared to the pressure drop
prediction of the model.
Figure 11. Model validation for I-Ring #70, air– water.

Figure 9. Model validation for I-Ring #40, air–water. Figure 12. Model validation for I-Ring #40, CB/EB.

Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2006, 84(A11): 1075 –1080
1080 KEHRER et al.

The maximum hydraulic capacity calculated from the FV F-factor, m s21 (kg m23)0.5
hL liquid holdup
Wallis-diagram (Figure 7) fits the experimental data as
Ki constants
good as 4%. This means, that the F-factor where the wG gas velocity, m s21
pressure drop is 12 mbar m21 is predicted with an accu- wL liquid load, m s21
racy of 8%. z packing height, m

Greek symbols
CONCLUSION rL density of the liquid, kg m23
The presented pressure drop model is capable to predict rG density of the gas, kg m23
the pressure drop for I-Rings #15, #40, #50 and #70 for
different systems with widely varying physical properties
like air/water and organic mixtures (CB/EB). The calcu- REFERENCES
lated hydraulic capacity limits are within 8% while the Billet, R. and Schultes, M., 1999, Prediction of mass transfer columns with
pressure drop is predicted with an expected error smaller dumped and arranged packings—updated summary of the calculation
than 20%. method of Billet and Schultes, Chem Eng Res Des, 77: 498.
Jesser, B.W. and Elgin, J.C., 1942, Studies of liquid holdup in packed
towers, Trans Am Inst Chem Engrs, 39: 277.
NOMENCLATURE Mackowiak, J., 1991, Fluiddynamik von Füllkörpern und Packungen
(Salle þ Sauerländer, Frankfurt am Main).
CG gas capacity factor, m s21 Spiegel, L. and Meier, W., 1993, A generalized pressure drop model for
CL liquid capacity factor, m s21 structured packings, I Chem E Symp Ser 128: B85– B94.
dp/dz pressure drop, mbar m21 Strigle, R.F., 1994, Packed Tower Design and Applications, 2nd edition
dp0/dz dry pressure drop, mbar m21 (Gulf Publishing Company).

Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2006, 84(A11): 1075– 1080