So2 Absorption

DESIGN OF AN ABSORPTION PACKED COLUMN FOR ABSORPTION OF
SULPHUR (IV) OXIDE GAS (SO2) FROM EFFLUENT FLUE GAS STREAM.
A Plant Design Project Report
Presented to the
Department of Chemical Engineering

Faculty of Chemical and Materials Engineering
College of Engineering
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi
By
AIDOO, SAMUEL DONKOH
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
Bachelor of Science (HONS)
Chemical Engineering
April, 2016.
TABLE OF CONTENT
TABLE OF CONTENT............................................................................................................
LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................................
LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................................
6.0 DESIGN OF A SULPHUR (IV) OXIDE (SO2) GAS ABSORPTION COLUMN.............
6.1 Problem statement...........................................................................................................
6.1.1 Objective..................................................................................................................
6.1.2 Specific objectives...................................................................................................
6.2 Introduction.....................................................................................................................
6.3 Choice of Solvent for Absorption...................................................................................
6.4 Absorption equipment.....................................................................................................
6.4.1 Agitated Vessels.......................................................................................................
6.4.2 Cooler Absorbers......................................................................................................
6.4.3 Spray Towers............................................................................................................
6.4.4 Venturi Scrubbers.....................................................................................................
6.4.5 Bubble plate Towers.................................................................................................
6.4.6 Packed Towers (Wet Scrubbers)..............................................................................
6.4.7 Trays Towers versus Packed Towers........................................................................
6.5 Equipment Selection and Justification............................................................................
6.5.1 Description and Operation of a Packed Column......................................................
6.5.2 Packing...................................................................................................................
6.5.2.1 Packing types.......................................................................................................
6.5.3 Choice of packing material....................................................................................
6.5.4 Packing size............................................................................................................
6.6 Chemical engineering design of a packed column............................................................
6.6.1 Specification of inlet gas composition.......................................................................
6.6.2 Superficial gas velocity..............................................................................................
6.6.3 The diameter of the column.......................................................................................
6.6.4 Dry-gas-pressure drop................................................................................................
6.6.5 Specific liquid holdup................................................................................................
6.6.6 Pressure drop when the bed is irrigated.....................................................................
6.6.7 Number of overall gas-phase transfer units...............................................................
6.6.8 Mass-transfer Coefficients and effective wetted area of packing using Ondas
method.................................................................................................................................
6.6.9 Liquid film mass transfer coefficient, kmol/m2s(kmol/m3) or m/s.............................
6.6.10 Gas film mass transfer coefficient in kmol/m2s.atm................................................
6.6.11 Film transfer unit heights.........................................................................................
6.6.12 Sizing the packed column height of an absorber.....................................................
6.6.13 Column internals......................................................................................................
6.6.13.1 Packing support plate........................................................................................
6.6.13.2 Hold down plates...............................................................................................

6.6.13.3 Liquid distributors.............................................................................................
6.6.14 Heat effects...............................................................................................................
6.7 Mechanical engineering design.........................................................................................
6.7.1 Column thickness.......................................................................................................
6.7.2 Column head design (Dome head).............................................................................
6.7.3 Weight loads...............................................................................................................
6.7.4 Weight of Insulation...................................................................................................
6.7.5 Wind Loading.............................................................................................................
6.7.6 Analysis of stress........................................................................................................
6.7.5 Check buckling stress.................................................................................................
6.7.6 Design of vessel support............................................................................................
6.7.6.1 Approximate weight................................................................................................
6.7.6.2 Total weight.............................................................................................................
6.7.6.3 Bending Moments and Stresses..............................................................................
6.7.6.4 Base ring and anchor bolt........................................................................................
LIST OF REFERENCES........................................................................................................
LIST OF TABLES
Table 6.0 Representative Commercial Applications of Absorption ..........................................
2
Table 6.1 Recommended size ranges for several column diameters .......................................
13
Table 6.2 Calculated flue gas composition into the Packed Absorption Column ................... 14
Table 6.3 Partial pressures of H20 and SO2 over aqueous solution of SO2 oxide at 20
...... 15
Table 6.4 Calculated value of Partial pressure kPa, mole fraction of SO2 in gas phase
and in water .................................................................................................................. 16
Table 6.5 Hydraulic properties of Ceramic Intalox saddle (Random Packing) .......................
21
Table 6.6 Summary of Chemical Engineering Design ............................................................
34
Table 6.7 Packed Tower Design specification......................................................................... 35
Table 6.8 Summary of Mechanical Engineering Design .........................................................
46
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig 6 shows a packed column with its internals. Source (Seader et al. 2006c) .........................
9
Figure 6-1 some types of packing in a packed column. Source: (Sinnott et al. 2013) ............
11
Figure 6-2 Makeup of structured packing. Source: (Sinnott et al. 2013b) ..............................
12
Fig 6.3 shows the schematic diagram of packed column with inlet and outlet liquid
(water) and flue gas compositions ............................................................................... 20
Figure 6.4 shows stacked packing used to support random packing. (Sinnott et al.
2013i) ........................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 6.5 shows the principle of the gas-injection packing support (Sinnott et al. 2013i) ....
33
6.0 DESIGN OF A SULPHUR (IV) OXIDE (SO2) GAS ABSORPTION COLUMN

6.1 Problem statement
To design a packed column for the absorption of 95% SO 2 in a SO2 rich effluent flue gas
stream at an average temperature of 60.87 C. The SO 2 gas stream is counter currently
contacted with pure water (as absorbent) at a flooding fraction of 60%.
6.1.1 Objective
The main objective of this work is to design a packed column for absorption of sulphur
(IV) oxide gas (SO2) from effluent flue gas from a furnace (combustion chamber).
6.1.2 Specific objectives
The specific objectives of this work are to;
1. Identify the types of equipment for gas-liquid operations capable of gas
absorption
2. Justify packed column as the chosen equipment needed for the specified
absorption of sulphur (IV) oxide gas from effluent flue gas of a furnace.
3. Perform chemical engineering calculations
4. Perform mechanical engineering calculations
5. Perform engineering drawing of a packed column.
6.2 Introduction
Gas absorption is a unit operation in which soluble components of a gas mixture are
dissolved in a liquid. (Perry et al. 2008a)
Absorption may be either a physical or a chemical process. Physical absorption depends

on the solubility of the substance absorbed, and chemical absorption involves chemical
reactions between the absorbed substance and the absorbing medium.
(Cheremisinoff, 2000a)
In the process of absorption, the gas mixture is brought into intimate contact with a
liquid (the absorbent or solvent) to selectively dissolve one or more components by
mass transfer from the gas to the liquid. The components transferred to the liquid are
referred to as solutes or absorbate. Absorption is used to separate gas mixtures; remove
impurities, contaminants, pollutants, or catalyst poisons from a gas; or recover valuable
chemicals.
Thus, the species of interest in the gas mixture may be all components, only the
component(s) not transferred, or only the component(s) transferred. (Seader et al 2006a)
Table 6.0 lists representative, commercial absorption applications. In most industrial
cases, the solutes are contained in gaseous effluents from chemical reactors. Passage of
strict environmental standards with respect to pollution by emission of noxious gases
has greatly increased the use of gas absorbers in the past years.
Table 6.0 Representative Commercial Applications of Absorption
Solute
Absorbent
Type of Absorption
Acetone
Water
Physical
Ammonia
Water
Physical
Ethanol
Water
Physical
Formaldehyde
Water
Physical
Hydrochloric Acid
Water
Physical
Sulphur dioxide
Water
Physical
Sulphur trioxide
Water
Physical
Benzene and toluene
Hydrocarbon oil
Physical
Carbon dioxide
Aqueous NaOH
Irreversible Chemical
Hydrochloric acid
Aqueous NaOH
Chlorine
Aqueous NaOH
Carbon monoxide
Aq. Cuprous ammonium salts
Reversible Chemical
2
CO2 and H2S
Aq. Monoethanolamine
Reversible Chemical
(MEA) or diethanolamine
(DEA)
Nitrogen oxides
Water
Reversible Chemical
Source: (Seader et al 2006b)
When water and hydrocarbon oils are used as absorbents, no significant chemical
reactions occur between the absorbent and the solute, and the process is commonly
referred to as physical absorption. When aqueous sodium hydroxide (a strong base) is
used as the absorbent to dissolve an acid gas, absorption is accompanied by a rapid and
irreversible neutralization reaction in the liquid phase and the process is referred to as
chemical absorption or reactive absorption. More complex examples of chemical
absorption are processes for absorbing CO2 and H2S with aqueous solutions of
monoethanolamine (MEA) and diethanolamine (DEA), where a reversible chemical
reaction takes place in the liquid phase. Chemical reactions can increase the rate of
absorption, increase the absorption capacity of the solvent, increase selectivity to
preferentially dissolve only certain components of the gas, and convert a hazardous
chemical to a safe compound. (Seader et al. 2006b)
6.3 Choice of Solvent for Absorption
The following properties of the absorbent should be taken into consideration in selection
of solvent for the absorption operation:
1. Gas solubility
The gas solubility should be high, thus increasing the rate of absorption and decreasing
the quantity of solvent required. Generally, solvents of a chemical nature similar to that
of the solute to be absorbed will provide good solubility. Thus hydrocarbon oils, and not
water, are used to remove benzene from coke-oven gas. (Treybal 1980a)
2. Volatility
3
The solvent should have a low vapor pressure since the gas leaving an absorption
operation is ordinarily saturated with the solvent and much may thereby be lost.
(Treybal 1980a)
3. Corrosiveness
The material of construction required for the equipment should not be unusual or
expensive. (Treybal 1980a)
4. Viscosity
Low viscosity is preferred for reasons of rapid absorption rates, improved flooding
characteristics in absorption towers, low pressure drops on pumping and good-heat
transfer characteristics. (Treybal 1980a)
6.4 Absorption equipment
The objective of the equipment used for mass-transfer operations is to provide intimate
contact of the liquid and gas phases in order to permit interphase diffusion of the
constituents. The rate of mass transfer is directly dependent upon the interfacial area
exposed between the phases, and the nature and degree of dispersion of one phase into
the other are therefore of prime importance. (Benitez 2009a)
Below are described some of the various equipment for gas absorption:
6.4.1 Agitated Vessels
These are vessels in which the gas is introduced directly into the liquid and is
mechanically dispersed by means of a suitable agitator. They are used mainly where the
absorption is accompanied by a slow chemical reaction between the dissolved gas and
some constituent of the liquid, and sufficient time has to be allowed for this reaction to
proceed to the required extent.
Agitated vessels are suitable for batch operations. If used for a continuous process,
counter-current flow cannot be obtained within individual vessels, and it is then almost
always necessary to use a series of vessels arranged in multiple stages. The pressuredrop
through agitated vessels is high compared with that for packed towers.
(Cheremisinoff, 2000b)
6.4.2 Cooler Absorbers
When the absorption of a gas is accompanied by the evolution of heat, an important
function of the absorption equipment is the removal of the heat generated. This may be
accomplished by using a number of towers in series, the liquid from each tower being
circulated through an external cooler. There are different types of cooler-absorbers in
which processes of this type can be carried out in a single unit. The materials of which
these cooler-absorbers are constructed should be of high thermal conductivity and
resistant to corrosion by the substances used in the process. (Cheremisinoff, 2000b)
6.4.3 Spray Towers
A spray tower consists of an empty shell into the top of which the liquid is sprayed by
means of nozzles of various kinds; the droplets thus formed are then allowed to fall to
the bottom of the tower through a stream of gas flowing upwards. The use of sprays
appears to offer an easy way of greatly increasing the surface area exposed to the gas,
but the effectiveness of the method depends on the production of fine droplets. These
are difficult to produce and suffer from the disadvantage that they are liable to
entrainment by the gas even at low gas velocities. The surface area may also be reduced
as a result of the coalescence of the droplets first formed. As a consequence of these
effects, the large increase in surface area expected may not be achieved, or if achieved
may be accompanied by serious entrainment and internal circulation of the liquid so that
5
true counter-current flow is not obtained. A single spray tower is suitable for easy
absorption duties. (Cheremisinoff, 2000b)
6.4.4 Venturi Scrubbers
Like spray towers and spray chambers, equipment that relies on the venturi principle are
mainly used for removing particulate matter from gas streams, however there are some
applications in gas absorption. With gas absorbers based on the venturi principle, the
required interface contact is achieved by differences between the gas and liquid
droplets, and by the turbulent nature of the venturi throat. Venturi systems are able to
achieve a high degree of liquid-gas mixing, but have the disadvantage of a relatively
short contact time which generally leads to poor absorption efficiency. However, for gas
systems with high solubility and proper selection of the scrubbing liquid, the venturi can
be an excellent devise. A major disadvantage is the high pressure drop with attendant
high poor requirements needed for operation. (Cheremisinoff, 2000b)
6.4.5 Bubble plate Towers
They consist of a number of shallow plates or trays over each of which the liquid flows
in turn on its way down the tower. The gas enters at the bottom of the tower and is made
to flow through a number of bubble caps on each plate. These caps may be of various
shapes, though they usually take the form of inverted cups, and their edges are slotted so
that the gas escapes from them into the liquid in the form of bubbles.
Bubble-plate towers may be preferred to packed towers when:
a. the liquid rate is so low that a packed tower could not be used effectively since
the packing would not be adequately wetted.
b. a slow chemical reaction occurs in the liquid. As with agitated vessels, the use of
a bubble-plate tower allows time for the chemical reaction to proceed to the
desired extent.
The pressure-drop through bubble-plate towers is high compared with that for packed
towers and is of the order of 1 to 2 in. of water per plate. The performance of
bubbleplate towers is expressed in terms of plate efficiencies. These indicate the extent
to which equilibrium between gas and liquid is attained on the plate. Though high
efficiencies have been achieved with bubble-plate columns in distillation, it is important
to realize that plate efficiencies in absorption or stripping may be less than 10% if the
gas concerned is of low solubility. (Cheremisinoff, 2000b)
6.4.6 Packed Towers (Wet Scrubbers)
Packed towers, used for continuous contact between liquid and gas in both
countercurrent and co-current flow, are vertical columns which have been filled with
packings or devices of large surface area. The liquid is distributed over and trickles
down through, the packed bed, exposing a large surface to contact the gas. The tower
packing, or fill, should provide a large interfacial surface area between liquid and gas
per unit volume of packed space. It should possess desirable fluid-flow characteristics.
This means that the fractional void volume in the packed bed should be large enough to
permit passage of the volumes of gas and liquid to be processed at relatively high
velocity, with low pressure drop for the gas. The packing should be chemically inert to
the fluids being processed, and should possess structural strength to permit easy
handling and installation. (Benitez 2009b). Tower packing have developed to the point
where they now provide serious competition to mass transfer applications previously
limited to trays. (Cheremisinoff, 2000b)
6.4.7 Trays Towers versus Packed Towers

The choice between a plate and packed column for a particular application can only be
made with complete assurance by costing each design; however, the choice can usually
be made on the basis of experience by considering the main advantages and
disadvantages of each type, listed below:
1. Liquid / gas ratio
Very low values of this ratio are best handled in tray towers. High values are handled in
packed towers. (Treybal 1980b)
2. Liquid cooling
Cooling coils are more readily built into tray towers; and liquid can more readily be
removed from trays to be passed through coolers and returned than from packed towers.
(Treybal 1980b)
3. Cost
If there is no overriding consideration, cost is the major factor to be taken into account.
(Treybal 1980b)
4. Pressure drop
The pressure drop per equilibrium stage (HETP) can be lower for packing than plates,
and packing should be considered for vacuum columns. (Sinnott et al. 2013a)
6.5 Equipment Selection and Justification
Each absorption equipment has advantages and disadvantages depending on a specified
absorption operation. A packed column in countercurrent configuration will be used for
the absorption of sulphur (IV) oxide gas due to the following reasons:
1. High liquid-to-gas ratio
Packed columns are well suited for high liquid-to-gas ratio (Treybal, 1980b)
2. Low pressure drop
According to Cheremisinoff (2000b) pressure drop is lower in packed towers. This will
make the power requirement of a forced draft fan be less hence reducing accessory cost.
3. High efficiency
6.5.1 Description and Operation of a Packed Column
Fig 6 shows a packed column with its internals. Source (Seader et al. 2006c)
The absorption packed column consists of a cylindrical column or tower, equipped with
a gas inlet and distributing space at the bottom; a liquid inlet and distributor at the top;
gas and liquid outlets at the top and bottom, respectively; and a supported mass of inert
solid shapes, called tower packing. The packing support is typically a screen, corrugated
to give it strength, with a large open area so that flooding does not occur at the support.
9
The liquid inlet, which may be pure solvent or a dilute solution of solute in the solvent
and which is called the weak liquor, is distributed over the top of the packing by the
distributor and, in ideal operation, uniformly wets the surfaces of the packing. The
distributor could be a set of perforated pipes. The solute containing gas or rich gas
enters the distributing space below the packing and flows upward through the interstices
in the packing countercurrent to the flow of the liquid. The packing provides a large area
of contact between the liquid and encourages intimate contact between the phases. The
solute in the rich gas is absorbed by the fresh liquid entering the tower, and dilute, or
lean gas leaves the top. The liquid is enriched in solute as it flows down the tower and
concentrated liquid, called strong liquor, leaves the bottom of the tower through the
liquid outlet. (McCabe et al 1993a)
6.5.2 Packing
The tower packing, or fill used in a packed column should possess the following
characteristics:
a. Be chemically inert to fluids being processed
b. Have structural strength to permit easy handling and installation
c. Represent low cost
d. Possess desirable fluid-flow characteristics
e. Large interfacial surface between liquid and gas per unit volume of packed
(Benitez 2009b)
6.5.2.1 Packing types
Many types and shapes of packing have been developed. They can be divided into two
broad classes:
Packings with a regular geometry (Structured packings), such as stacked rings,

grids, and proprietary structured packings. (McCabe et al 1993b)
10
Random packings: rings, saddles, and proprietary shapes, which are dumped into
the column and take up a random arrangement. (McCabe et al 1993b)
Figure 6-1 some types of packing in a packed column. Source: (Sinnott et al. 2013)
The figure above shows the types of packing (Koch-Glitsch, LP); (a) Raschig rings (b)
Pall rings (c) Berl Saddle ceramic; (d) INTALOX saddle ceramic (e) Metal HY-PAK
(f) Ceramic, SUPER INTALOX
Structured Packing
Structured packing refers to packing elements made up from wire mesh or perforated
metal sheets. The material is folded and arranged with a regular geometry, to give a high
surface area with a high void fraction. Different designs of structured packing are
produced by a number of manufacturers. The basic construction and performance of the
various proprietary types available are similar. They are available in metal, plastics, and
stoneware. The advantage of structured packing over random packing is their low HETP
(typically less than 0.5 m) and low pressure drop (around 100 Pa/m). (Sinnott et al.
2013b)
11
The applications have mainly been in distillation, but structured packing can also be
used in absorption, in applications where high efficiency and lower pressure drop are
needed. The cost of structured packing per cubic meter will be significantly higher than
that of random packing, but this is offset by its higher efficiency. Structured packing has
a high surface area of thin metal, and consequently can be susceptible to ignition of
trapped hydrocarbons or pyrophoric corrosion products, as heat is not easily conducted
away from local hot spots. (Sinnott et al. 2013b)
Figure 6-2 Makeup of structured packing. Source: (Sinnott et al. 2013b)
6.5.3 Choice of packing material

Metal packings are lighter and resist breakage better than ceramic packings, making
metal the choice for deep beds. Metal also lends itself to packing geometries that yield
higher efficiencies than ceramic or plastic packing shapes. Plastic packings offer the
advantage of lightness in weight, but they must be chosen carefully since they may
deteriorate rapidly with certain organic solvents and with oxygen-bearing gases at only
slightly elevated temperatures. (Benitez, 2009b). Compared to standard plastic packings,
metal packings withstand higher temperatures and provide better wettability. Ceramic
packings manufactured in chemical porcelain offer optimal corrosion resistance for
applications such as SO, and SO2, absorption, mercaptan removal, natural gas or LPG
12
sweetening, and corrosive distillation. Therefore, ceramic packings shall be used in the
SO2 absorption from the flue gas.
6.5.4 Packing size
In general, the largest size of packing that is suitable for the size of column should be
used, up to 50 mm. Small sizes are appreciably more expensive than the larger sizes.
Above 50 mm the lower cost per cubic meter does not normally compensate for the
lower mass transfer efficiency. Use of too large a size in a small column can cause poor
liquid distribution.
Table 6.1 Recommended size ranges for several column diameters
Column Diameter
Use Packing Size
< 0.3 m (1 ft.)
< 25 mm (1 in.)
0.3to 0.9 m (1 to 3 ft.)
25 - 38 mm (1 to 1.5 in.)
> 0.9 m
50 to 75 mm (2 to 3 in.)
Source: (Sinnott et al. 2013b)
6.6 Chemical engineering design of a packed column

The chemical engineering design parameters to be determined include;
(i) Determination of component specification
(ii) Calculation of liquid absorbent (water) and flue gas flow rates
(iii)
Selection of packing
(iv)Hold down plate

(v) Packing support plate
(vi)Superficial gas velocity
(vii)
Determination of column diameter
(viii)
Determination of column height
(ix)Wetting rate
(x) Pressure drop of column
13
(xi)Determination of liquid hold up

6.6.1 Specification of inlet gas composition
Table 6.2 Calculated flue gas composition into the Packed Absorption Column
Component of Mass flow rate
Mass %
Mole kg mol/h Mole fraction
flue gas
kg/h
CO2
H2O
8,154.5993
-
11.3994
-
185.3318
-
0.0770
-
N2
54,338.2799
75.9603
1,940.6529
0.8061
O2
8,993.0221
12.5715
281.0319
0.1167
SO2
24.8720
0.0348
0.3886
0.0002
fly ash
24.3670
0.0341
Total
71,535.1403
100.0000
2,407.4052
1.0000
Molar mass of Inlet flue gas stream into the Packed Absorption column
=
Where
represents the mole fraction of gas constituent in flue gas and M, the molar
mass
= 0.0770 (44) + 0 (18) + 0.8061 (28) + 0.1167 (32) + 0.0002 (64)
= 29.7045 kg/kg mol
Using the ideal gas law at the following conditions in the Absorption column
Temperature of flue gas = 293 K
Pressure of flue gas = 101.325 kPa
Molar gas constant
= 8.314 (kPa) (m3)/ (kmol) (K)
Molar mass of inlet gas = 29.7045 kg/kg mol

Average density of gas, kg/m3
14

= 1.235
Component of inlet flue gas to be scrubbed is Sulphur (IV) Oxide, SO2 gas
Choice of Absorbent is pure water (Seader et al. 2006b)
Table 6.3 Partial pressures of H20 and SO2 over aqueous solution of SO2 oxide at 20
g SO2/100 g H20
Partial pressure, mmHg at 20
0.01
0.07
0.05
1.07
0.1
3.03
0.15
5.37
0.2
7.93
0.25
10.6
0.3
13.5
0.4
19.4
0.5
25.6
58.4
129
202
277
Source: (Perry et al. 1998b)
Moles of SO2 in solution
= 0.00781
Mole of water
= 5.55
15
Table 6.4 Calculated value of Partial pressure kPa, mole fraction of SO2 in gas
phase and in water
g SO2/100 g Mole of
Partial
Partial pressure, y,
mole
x,
mole
kPa at
H20
SO2 in
pressure,
fraction
fraction
solutio
mmHg at
of SO2 in
of SO2 in
20
n
20
gas phase
solution
0.01
0.00016
0.05
0.07
0.00933
9.2E-05
2.81242E-05
0.00078
0.14265
0.00141
0.000140605
0.1
0.00156
0.40397
0.00399
0.000281171
0.15
0.00234
0.71594
0.00707
0.000421697
0.2
0.00313
1.05725
0.01043
0.000562184
0.25
0.00391
1.41322
0.01395
0.000702631
0.3
0.00469
1.79985
0.01776
0.000843039
0.4
0.00625
2.58645
0.02553
0.001123736
0.5
0.00781
3.41305
0.03368
0.001404275
0.01563
7.78603
0.07684
0.002804612
0.03125
17.1986
0.16974
0.005593536
0.04688
26.9311
0.26579
0.008366904
0.0625
36.9303
0.36447
0.011124845
16
Mole fraction of SO2 in aqueous solution x,
0.001404275
Y, mole fraction of SO2 in gas phase
= 0.03368
Below is a graph of equilibrium plot of mole fraction of Sulphur (IV) oxide gas, SO 2 in
gas phase against mole fraction in aqueous solution
17
Fig 6.3 A graph of mole fraction of SO2 in the gas phase against that of aqueous
phase
in gas and liquid phase, Equilibrium plot

2
Mole fraction of SO
in gas phase(fue)
SO
0.4
y = 31.747
R = 0.994
0.35
x, 0.3
mole fraction of2 SO
in solution
0.25
0.2
0.15
Y, mole fractio
0.1 n of
0.05
0
0
0.002
0.004
Material balance around packed column (using 95% SO2 recovery)

Moles of SO2 gas in packed column, kg mol/h
18
= 0.3886
0.006
0.008
0.01
Moles of SO2 out, kg mol/h
= 0.05 0.3886
= 0.0194
Mole fraction of SO2 out of packed column (y2)

=
= 8.06
At the base of the column, the water exiting is saturated with SO2 therefore equilibrium
is established.
From the graph, the equation of the line of best fit is y = 31.747x 1
Therefore 0.0002 = 31.747x1
x1 = 5.0849
y1 = inlet SO2 mole fraction, 0.0002 y2 =
outlet SO2 mole fraction, 8.06
x2 = inlet SO2 composition of scrubbing liquid (pure water), 0 x 1=
outlet SO2 composition of scrubbing liquid, 5.0849
Lm = liquid (water) mole flow rate kg mol/h
Gm = flue gas mole flow rate kg mol/h, 2,407.4052
at
minimum
Actual liquid to gas ratio is usually 1.1-1.5 times the minimum liquid to gas ratio
19
(McCabe et al 1993c)
Therefore
Lm = 33.1753
2,407.4052 = 79866.5040 kg mol/h
Where Gm is 2,407.4052 kg mol/h

Therefore liquid (pure water) flow rate into the packed column is 79866.5040 kg mol/h
or
1437597.0723 kg/h or 399.3325 kg/s
Lm out of the packed column = mole flow rate of water in + SO2 removed
= 79866.5040 kg mol/h + 0.95(0.3886)
= 79866.5234 kg mol/h
6.6.2 Superficial gas velocity

lnYflood = -[3.5021+1.0281nX+0.11093(lnX)2] (Benitez, 2009c)
X=
(Benitez, 2009d)
Where
Lm is outlet mass flow rate of absorbent liquid (pure water), 399.3325 kg/s
Gm is the inlet mass flow rate of flue gas, 19.8709 kg/s
is
calculated density of flue gas at 293 K, 1.2356 kg/m 3
is
density of liquid absorbent (pure water) at 293 K, 998 kg/m3
20
Gm
2 = 2407.036 kg mol/h
y2 = 8.06
Lm2 = 79866.5040
kg mol/h
x2 = 0
Gm1 = 2 ,407.4052
kg mol/h
y1 = 0.0002
Lm1 = 79866.5234
kg mol/h
x1 = 5.0849
Fig 6.3 shows the schematic diagram of packed column with inlet and outlet liquid
(water) and flue gas compositions
X
X = 0.7071
lnYflood = -3.1591
Yflood = 0.0425
21
Volumetric flow rate of inlet flue gas
= 16.077 m3/s
Table 6.5 Hydraulic properties of Ceramic Intalox saddle (Random Packing)
Type
Fp ft /ft
a, m /m
50 mm ceramic
intalox saddle
40
114.6
0.761
Ch
Cp
0.747
Source: Benitez (2009e)

Where
Cp = is a packing constant, 0.747, a = specific surface area of packing, 114.6 m2/m3,
= packing void fraction, 0.761, FP = packing factor, 40 m2/m3,
Ch = is a characteristic of the particular type and size of packing, Assuming 1.0
(Benitez, 2009f)
= Viscosity of liquid water at 20
, 1.002
packing factor, 40 m2/m3
= 0.0460 m/s
The superficial gas velocity can be calculated as
VGF
(Benitez, 2009f)
22
kg/ms Sengers et al (1986) FP =
2
3
2
3
Where VGF = the superficial gas velocity at flooding, m/s

VGF
VGF = 1.3071 m/s
The superficial gas velocity at flooding is 1.3071 m/s
For a given fluid flow rates and properties, and a given packing material, superficial gas
velocity can be calculated from the expression given by:
VG = VGF
(Benitez, 2009g) Where, VG = superficial gas
velocity, m/s f = a fraction of flooding and is usually 0.5-0.7
(Benitez, 2009c)
VG = 1.3071
0.6 = 0.7842 m/s
Hence the superficial gas velocity VG = 0.7842 m/s

6.6.3 The diameter of the column
D=
(Benitez, 2009c)
Where QG = volumetric flow rate of flue gas, 16.077 m3/s
D=
D = 5.1095 m
The effective particle diameter, dp, is given by d p
(Benitez, 2009h)
23
Where, dp = the effective particle diameter, m a = specific surface

area of packing, 114.6 m2/m3 (Benitez, 2009e)
= 0.761
dp
5m
The wall factor can be important for columns with an inadequate ratio of effective
particle diameter to inside column diameter, and is given by:
Where, = packing void fraction, 0.761 (Benitez, 2009h)

D = Diameter of column, 5.1095m
Kw = wall factor
= 0.9932
The Reynolds number of the inlet flue gas can be calculated as
Where, G = kinematic viscosity of the gas mixture, 1.825
kg/ms (Assuming the
kinematic viscosity of the gas mixture to be approximately equal to that of

atmospheric air at 20
24
The Reynolds number of the gas ReG = 2760.9127

The dry-packing resistance coefficient (a modified friction factor), , is given by the
empirical expression:
Where, = the dry-packing resistance coefficient (a modified friction factor) C p =

is a (packing constants) characteristic of the particular type and size of packing,
0.747.
= 0.7307
The dry-packing resistance coefficient, = 0.7307

6.6.4 Dry-gas-pressure drop
The dry-gas-pressure drop can be calculated from the dimensionally consistent
correlating equation given by:
Where, Z = packing height, m

= the dry-gas-pressure drop, Pa
Pa/m
Hence the dry-gas pressure drop
Pa/m
The liquid mass velocity can be calculated as

25
GX
Where, GX = liquid mass velocity, Kg/m2.s
GX =
GX = 19.4726 kg/m2.s
The Reynolds number of the liquid can be calculated as:
ReL
Re
L
Hence the Reynolds number of the liquid ReL = 169.5787

The Froude number of the liquid can be calculated as
FrL
Where, Frl = Froude number of the liquid
g = acceleration due to gravity, 9.81m/s2
FrL =
For ReL 5, the ratio of the specific areas is given by;
For ReL 5
Where, Ch is a (packing constants) characteristic of the particular type and size of

26
packing,
. Assuming Ch to be 1.0
ah = hydraulic, or effective, specific area of packing, m2/m3
6.6.5 Specific liquid holdup

The specific liquid holdup (i.e. volume of liquid holdup/volume of packed bed) in the
preloading region can be calculated from the dimensionless expression:
Where, hL, = specific liquid holdup, m3holdup/m3packed bed
0.1001 m3 hold up/ m3 packed

Hence the liquid holdup in the column is 0.1001 m3 hold up/ m3 packed
6.6.6 Pressure drop when the bed is irrigated
When the packed bed is irrigated, the liquid holdup causes the pressure drop to increase.
The correct pressure drop for liquid holdup is calculated with the equation;
where, p = Actual pressure drop when the bed is irrigated, Pa
The actual pressure drop when the bed is irrigated is therefore

Pa/m
27
6.6.7 Number of overall gas-phase transfer units

The number of overall gas-phase transfer units is given by:
(Sinnott et al. 2013c)

Where, NOG = the number of overall gas-phase transfer units
m = is the slope of the equilibrium line, 31.747
Gm/Lm= the slope of the operating line.
y1 and y2 = the mol fractions of the solute(SO 2) in the gas at the bottom and top of the
column respectively.
Gm and Lm are molar flow rate of flue gas and liquid absorbent respectively in kg
mol/h y1 = inlet SO2 mole fraction, 0.0002 y2 = outlet SO2 mole fraction, 8.06
x2 = inlet SO2 composition of scrubbing liquid (pure water), 0 x 1=

outlet SO2 composition of scrubbing liquid, 5.0849
Therefore the number of overall gas-phase transfer units is calculated as
Hence the overall gas-phase transfer units is 13.88

6.6.8 Mass-transfer Coefficients and effective wetted area of packing using Ondas
method
Effective interfacial area of packing per unit volume, m2/m3
28
(Sinnott et al. 2013d)

Where aw = effective interfacial area of packing per unit volume,
m2/m3 a = actual area of packing per unit volume,114.6 m 2/m3 dp =
packing size, m
c
= critical surface tension for the particular packing material, for ceramic
is
61mN/m (Sinnott et al. 2013) l = liquid surface tension, N/m at 20 , 72.75

(Sinnott et al. 2013)
kG
= gas film mass transfer coefficient, (kmol)/(m2)(s)(atm) or (kmol)/(m2)(s)(bar)
kl
= liquid film mass transfer coefficient (kmol)/(m2)(s)(kmol/m3) = m/s
RG
= 0.08206 (atm)(m3)/(kmol)(K) or 0.08314 (bar)(m3)/(kmol)(K)

= Density of liquid at 20 , 998 kg/m3
= Liquid viscosity at 20 , 1.002
kg/ms
= acceleration due to gravity, 9.81 m/s2
1.45
But a = 114.6 m2/m3
aw = 0.7769847a
aw = 89.042451 m2/m3
6.6.9 Liquid film mass transfer coefficient, kmol/m2s(kmol/m3) or m/s
kL
(Sinnott et al. 2013e)
Where DL and DV are diffusivities of SO2 in the liquid and gas phase respectively.
DL =
m2/s and DV = 1.45
m2/s
29
kL
kL = 0.0003277 m/s
Therefore the liquid film mass transfer coefficient kL = 0.0003277 m/s
6.6.10 Gas film mass transfer coefficient in kmol/m2s.atm
(Sinnott et al. 2013e)

Where k5 = 5.23 for packing sizes above15mm and 2.00 for sizes below 15mm (Sinnott
et al. 2013)
= gas mass flow rate per unit column cross sectional area kg/m2s
= viscosity of flue gas, assumed to be that of air, 1.825
kg/ms
kG = 0.0008138 kmol/s.m2atm
Therefore the gas film mass transfer coefficient kG = 0.0008138 kmol/s.m2atm
Let
Gm = molar gas flow rate per unit cross sectional area, kmol/m2s
Lm = molar liquid flow rate per unit cross-sectional area, kmol/m2s
Gm
Gm =
Gm = 0.0326088 kmol/m2s
Lm =
Lm =
30
Lm = 1.0818097 kmol/m2s
6.6.11 Film transfer unit heights
The film transfer unit heights are given as
HG
HL
(Sinnott et al, 2013f)
Where P is column operating pressure (1 atm)

CT is total concentration of solute (SO2)
Gm = molar gas flow rate per unit cross-sectional area kmol/m2s
Lm = molar liquid flow rate per unit cross-sectional area, kmol/m2s
Therefore
HG
HG
HG = 0.4500013 m
= 998 kg/m3 , Molecular weight of pure water = 18 kg/kg mol
CT
= 55.4 kmol/m3
HL
HL
HL = 0.6686736 m
HOG
HL
HOG = 0.4500013 + 0.9562(0.6686736)

HOG = 1.0898854 m
31
6.6.12 Sizing the packed column height of an absorber

Z = NOG
HOG
(Sinnott et al. 2013f)
Where
Z = Height of packed column
NOG = Number of overall gas-phase transfer unit, 13.88
HOG = Height of overall gas-phase transfer unit, = 1.0898854 m
Z = 13.88 1.0898854 m
Z = 15.129804 m
6.6.13 Column internals

This consists of packing support plate, hold down plates, liquid distributors and
redistributors
6.6.13.1 Packing support plate
The objective of the support plate is to carry the weight of the wet packing, while
allowing free passage of the gas and liquid. A poorly designed support will give a high
pressure drop and can cause local flooding. Simple grid and perforated plate supports
are used, but in these designs the liquid and gas have to compete for the same openings.
The best design of packing support is one in which in which gas inlets are provided
above the level where the liquid flows from the bed, such as the gas-injection type
shown below. These designs have a low pressure drop and no tendency to flooding.
32
They are available in a wide range of sizes and materials such as metals, ceramics and
plastics. (Sinnott et al. 2013h)
Figure 6.4 shows stacked packing used to support random packing. (Sinnott et al.
2013i)
Figure 6.5 shows the principle of the gas-injection packing support (Sinnott et al.
2013i)
33
6.6.13.2 Hold down plates

During high gas rates, or if surging occurs, the top layers of packing can be fluidized.
Under these conditions ceramic packing can break up and the pieces filter down the
column and plug the packing; metal and plastic packing can be blown out of the
column. Hold-down plates are used with ceramic packing to weigh down the top layers
and prevent fluidization.
(Sinnott et al. 2013j)
6.6.13.3 Liquid distributors

Adequate initial distribution of the liquid at the top of the packing is of utmost
importance. If this is not ensured, a significant portion of the packing near the top of the
tower will remain dry. Dry packing is completely ineffective for mass transfer and
various devices are used for liquid distribution.
6.6.14 Heat effects
Heat may be generated as a result of exothermal chemical reactions. Heat may also be
generated when large amounts of solute are absorbed into the liquid phase, due to the
heat of solution. The resulting change in temperature along the height of the absorber
column may damage equipment and reduce absorption efficiency. This problem can be
avoided by adding cooling coils to the column. However, in those systems where water
is the solvent, adiabatic saturation of the gas occurs during absorption due to solvent
evaporation. This causes a substantial cooling of the absorber that offsets the heat
generated by chemical reactions. Thus, cooling coils are rarely required with those
systems. In any event, packed towers may be designed assuming that isothermal
conditions exist throughout the column. (EPA/452/B-02-001)
Table 6.6 Summary of Chemical Engineering Design
Parameter
Value
34
Liquid, flow at the top of column kg mol/h
79866.5040
Gas at the bottom of column kg mol/h
2407.4052
Pressure drop per height /Z , Pa/m
197.425392
Diameter of column, m
5.1095
Height of packed bed,m
15.129804
Total height of column, m
17.63
Liquid redistributor position from the base, m
Wetting rate LW, m3/m2-s
0.000170258
Particle diameter (dp) m
0.00125m
Superficial gas velocity at 60% flooding, m/s
0.7842
Type of packing
50 mm Ceramic Super Intalox Saddles
Dry packing resistance coefficient
0.7307
6.7 Mechanical engineering design

The mechanical engineering parameters to be determined include;
(i) Material of construction
(ii) Insulation
(iii)
Head design
(iv)Weight of shell
(v) Dead weight stress
(vi)Bending stress
(vii)
Vessel support
Table 6.7 Packed Tower Design specification

Material of construction
stainless steel (18 Cr/ 8 Ni) type 304
Design temperature, K
293
35
Maximum allowable stress at 293 K,

N/mm2
143.41184
Design pressure of Column, N/mm2
0.1114575
Joint efficiency
Column internal diameter, m
5.109
Corrosion allowance, mm
Insulation
Mineral wool
Insulation thickness, mm
25
Density of mineral wool, kg/m3
130
Source : (Sinnott et al., 2013n)

Material of construction for the column is stainless steel (18 Cr/ 8 Ni) type 304. This is
due to the fact that the rate of corrosion is slower compared to other steels.
Design pressure, P, is taken as 10 % more than the working pressure of the column.
Thus,
1.1(101.325) = 111.46 kPa 0.111 N/mm2 The
design temperature is taken at 20 .
6.7.1 Column thickness

According to Sinnott et al (2013k) the minimum thickness of shell (column) required is
given by
Where S = Design stress of stainless steel type 304 at 20

et al 2013L)
E = joint efficiency= 1
36
= 143.41184 N/mm2 (Sinnott
P= column pressure = 0.1114575 N/ mm2

C= corrosion allowance= 2mm
Therefore the minimum thickness of shell is 3.986mm. However, 10mm thickness will
be used for further calculations.
6.7.2 Column head design (Dome head)
Standard torispherical heads (dished ends) are the most commonly used end closure for
vessels up to operating pressures of 15 bar. A torispherical shape is formed from part of
a torus and part of a sphere. The shape is close to that of an ellipse but is easier and
cheaper to fabricate. (
,2013 ). The operating pressure of the column is
111.46 kPa hence torispherical head is chosen as closure.

Pi
ed=
,(
,2013 )
2S 0.1P
Where,
J = joint efficiency
Taking J = 1
6.7.3 Weight loads

For a cylindrical steel vessel with uniform wall thickness, its approximate weight can be
estimated from the following equation:
Wv =
Cw m
0.8 m t
Sinnott et al (2013n)
Where t = wall thickness, 10 mm

37
Wv = Total weight of the shell, excluding internal fittings, such as plates

Cw = a factor to account for the weight of nozzles, manways, internal supports, which
can be taken as = 1.15 for absorption columns
Dm = mean diameter of vessel = (Di + t
), m
Hv = height, or length, between tangent lines (the length of the cylindrical section),
9.915m
Dm =
Wv =
10-3 = 5.119549 m
5.119
0.8 5.119
Wv = 306979.5699 N 306.9796 kN
Weight of shell =306.9796 kN

Height of packing = 15.13 m
Density of ceramic super intalox saddles = 609 kg/m3 (Sinnott et al. 2013)
Calculated Area of column = 20.5074 m2
Mass of packing = Density of packing x volume of packed bed
Mass of packing = 609 kg/m3 x 20.5074 m2 x 15.13 m = 220,179.14 kg
Therefore weight of packing = 220,179.14 kg x 9.81 m/s2 = 2,159.96 kN
6.7.4 Weight of Insulation

The material to be used for insulation is mineral wool. (Sinnott et al., 2013k)
The thickness of the material is taken as 25 mm.
Density of material is 130 kg/m3 (Sinnott et al., 2013n)
38
Volume of insulation =
t (Sinnott et al., 2013q)
i v i
Where
Di = internal diameter
Hv = height, or length, between tangent lines (the length of the cylindrical section),
9.915m ti = thickness of insulating
mineral wool
Approximate volume of insulation =
= 7.07581188 m3
Weight = Density
= 130
approximate volume acceleration due to gravity
7.0758
9.81
= 9014.58434 N
To allow for fittings Weight = 2
=2
calculated weight above

9014.58434
= 18.0291687 kN
Total weight of Absorption column = weight of insulating material + weight of packing
material + weight of shell
= 18.029 kN + 2,159.96 kN + 306.9796 kN
=
2,475.95 kN
6.7.5 Wind Loading

According to Sinnott et al (2013o) a wind speed of 160 km/h can be used for
preliminary design studies equivalent to a wind pressure of 1280 N/m2
39
Therefore taking the dynamic pressure of wind as 1280 N/m2

Mean diameter including insulation = Di +2(tins+t)
Where
Di = internal diameter tins = thickness of insulating
material (mineral wool) t = thickness of shell
Mean diameter including insulation = 5.1095 +2(25+
= 5.17954939 m
Loading (per linear meter), Fw = Mean diameter including insulation
dynamic wind
pressure
= 5.17954939 m 1280 N/m2
= 6629.82322 N/m
For a uniformly loaded cantilever, the bending moment at any plane is given by
w 2v
2
Bending moment at the bottom of the vessel
w 2v
Sinnott et al (2013n)
= 1030307.66 Nm
40
6.7.6 Analysis of stress

ongitudina stress, = P
4ti
Sinnott et al (2013p)
mm2
Pi
Circumferentia stress, h=
0.111 5.1095 10
h
2t
-3
= 28.4748801
mm2
2 10
ead weight stress,
Wt
w
i
tt
Where
Wt = Total weight of absorption column
= 15.3923248 mm2
Bending stress,
- 4i )
=(o
64
Iv = the secondary moment of area of the vessel about the plane of bending
41
Outer diameter of column, Do = 51095+2(10)

= 5129.54939 mm
=
(5129.54 5.10954)
64
Iv = 5.271011 mm4
= 5.01421653 N/mm2
The resultant longitudinal stress is calculated as

= w b
z up wind =
z
14.23744 15.3923248 5.01421653
up-wind = 3.85933175
mm2
down wind
=14.23744 15.3923248 5.01421653

(down-wind = -6.1691013 mm2
6.7.5 Check buckling stress

Evaluating critical buckling stress
c
Sinnott et al (2013q)
mm2
= 38.9897795 mm2
The maximum compressive stress will occur when the vessel is not under pressure =
42
mm2 , well below the critical buckling stress. So
15.3923248 5.01421653
the design is satisfactory.
6.7.6 Design of vessel support
A skirt support consists of a cylindrical or conical shell welded to the base of the vessel.
A flange at the bottom of the skirt transmits the load to the foundations.
The type of support to be used is the straight cylindrical skirt support, where the angle is
90 . This is because, skirt supports do not impose concentrated loads on the vessel shell.
They are suitable for tall columns subjected to wind load. The flush will be welded with
the shell. The material to be used is carbon steel. The skirt thickness should be such that
under the worst combination of wind and dead-weight loading the following design
criteria are met:
s ( tensile) less than fs J sin, s ( compressive) not greater than 0.125*E*(t/Ds) sin
Where; is the ang e of skirt, fs maximum allowable stress, J is the weld joint
efficiency.
Design stress = 89 N/mm2 at 20 K
Sinnott et al (2013s)
Youngs modu us = 200000 mm2 at 293 K
The maximum dead weight load on the skirt will occur when the vessel is fully filled
with water
6.7.6.1 Approximate weight
Approximate weight =
v water
Where
43
Vv = volume of vessel, m3 = Area of column height g

= acceleration due to gravity, m/s2
pproximate weight of water, W =

= 3,536,026.39 N 3536.03 kN
6.7.6.2 Total weight
Total weight = Weight of Absorption column + Weight of water in vessel
=
2,475.95 kN + 3536.03 kN
6,011.98 Kn
6.7.6.3 Bending Moments and Stresses

Taking the height of skirt to be 1 m (Sinnott et al., 2013s) Wind
loading = 6629.8 N/m (from previous calculation)
ending moment at the base of the skirt,

=
1km
Taking the thickness of the skirt as 10 mm (first trial)

4
bs
(Sinnott et al., 2013s)

( s ts) sts Where
bs=
bending stress in skirt, D s = diameter of skirt,
thickness of skirt
4(1150.51 103 103)
bs
(5109 10)(5109 10)
44
ts =
= 5.59922606 N/mm2
W ws test
=
( s ts)ts
= dead weight stress in skirt
ws
test =
ws
test =
ws
operating =
37.37484999 mm2
operating =15.39232483 mm2

maximum s compressive = 5.599 + 37.3748
ws
= 42.974 N/mm2
Maximum
(tensile) = 5.599 15.39 = -9.791 N/mm 2 (Sinnott et al., 2013s) Taking J =
0.85 (Sinnott et al. 2013s)

fsJsin
89 0.85 sin 90
=75.65 N/mm2
0.125
sin 90
s
= 48.93 N/mm2
Both of the above said conditions are satisfied so the thickness of the skirt = 10 mm,
allowing 2 mm for corrosion allowance.
45
The thickness of the skirt = 12 mm

6.7.6.4 Base ring and anchor bolt
Approximate pitch circle diameter = 5.4095 m
Circumference of bolt pitch = 54095
Taking the pitch to be 600 mm (Sinnott 2005)
Number of bolts required at minimum recommended bolt spacing =

= 28.328 bolts
Closest multiple of 4 = 32 bolts
Table 6.8 Summary of Mechanical Engineering Design

Parameter
Value
Material of construction
stainless steel (18 Cr/ 8 Ni) type 304
Insulation material
Mineral wool
Design pressure Pi N/mm2
0.111
Corrosion allowance, mm
2
10
Shell thickness, mm
Type of vessel head (closure)
Torispherical
3.4
Head thickness, mm
Weight of shell, kN
306.98
2159.96
Weight of packing, kN
9.01
Weight of insulation, kN
2475.95
Total weight of column, kN
46
6629.8
Loading per linear meter,N/m
1030307.66
Bending moment at bottom tangent line,Nm
15.39
Dead weight stress, N/mm
5.01
Bending stress, N/mm2
3.859
Upwind stress, N/mm
Downwind stress, N/mm2
-6.169
Type of support
Skirt support
Thickness of support, mm
10
Number of bolts
32
LIST OF REFERENCES
Benitez, J., Principles and Modern Applications of Mass Transfer Operations, (2000a)
Second Edition, pg(219), A John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Publication
Benitez, J., Principles and Modern Applications of Mass Transfer Operations, (2000b)
Second Edition, pg (220) ,A John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Publication
Benitez, J., Principles and Modern Applications of Mass Transfer Operations, (2000c)
Second Edition, pg (232), A John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Publication
Benitez, J., Principles and Modern Applications of Mass Transfer Operations, (2000d)
Benitez, J., Principles and Modern Applications of Mass Transfer Operations, (2000e)
Benitez, J., Principles and Modern Applications of Mass Transfer Operations, (2000f)
Benitez, J., Principles and Modern Applications of Mass Transfer Operations, (2000g)
Benitez, J., Principles and Modern Applications of Mass Transfer Operations, (2000)
47
Second Edition, pg (226),A John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Publication
C.C.Lee and Shun Dar Lin. (2007),Handbook Of Environmental Engineering
Calculations, McGraw-Hill, New York
Cheremisinoff P. N., Handbook of Chemical Processing Equipment, (2000a),pg. (244)
Butterworth-Heinemann Inc. Publication
Cheremisinoff P. N., Handbook of Chemical Processing Equipment, (2000b),pg. 245249, Butterworth-Heinemann Inc. Publication
McCabe L.W., Smith C.J., Harriott P., Unit
Operations
of
Chemical
Engineering,(1993c), fifth edition, pg (691), McGraw Hill Inc. Singapore

McCabe
L.W.,
Smith
C.J.,Harriott
P.,
Unit
Operations
of
Chemical
Engineering,(1993a), fifth edition, pg (686-687), McGraw Hill Inc. Singapore

McCabe
L.W.,
Smith
C.J.,Harriott
P.,
Unit
Operations
of
Chemical
Engineering,(1993b), fifth edition, pg (87-688), McGraw Hill Inc. Singapore

Perry, H.R. and Green, D.W., Perrys chemical Engineering Handbook,(2008a), 8th
Edition, pg 14-6, McGraw Hill Inc.
Perry, H.R. and Green, D.W., Perrys chemical Engineering Handbook,(2008b), 8th
Edition, pg 2-81, McGraw Hill Inc.
Seader ,J.D. and Henley ,J. E., Separation Process Principles, (2006a), Second edition,
pg (193) John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Seader ,J.D. and Henley ,J. E., Separation Process Principles, (2006b), Second edition,
pg (195), John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Sengers, J. V. and Watson J. T. R., Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data15
(1986), pp. 12911322
Sinnott R. and Towler G., Chemical Engineering Design, Principles, Practice and
Economics of plant and Process Design, (2013a),Second edition,pg. 887,
Butterworth-Heinemann
48
Economics
of
plant and
Process
Design,
(2013b),Second edition,pg891,Butterworth-Heinemann
Economics of plant and Process Design, (2013c),Second edition,pg 895,
Economics of plant and Process Design, (2013d),Second edition,pg 901,
Economics of plant and Process Design, (2013e),Second edition,pg 902,
Economics of plant and Process Design, (2013f),Second edition,pg 903,
Economics of plant and Process Design, (2013g),Second edition,pg 894,
Economics of plant and Process Design, (2013h),Second edition,pg 909,
Economics of plant and Process Design, (2013i),Second edition,pg 910,
Economics of plant and Process Design, (2013j),Second edition,pg 915,
Economics of plant and Process Design, (2013k),Second edition,pg 577 ,
49
Economics of plant and Process Design, (2013L),Second edition,pg 573,
Economics of plant and Process Design, (2013m),Second edition,pg 581,
Economics of plant and Process Design, (2013n),Second edition,pg 591,
Economics of plant and Process Design, (2013o),Second edition,pg 593,
Economics of plant and Process Design, (2013p),Second edition,pg 597,
Economics of plant and Process Design, (2013q),Second edition,pg 598,
Economics of plant and Process Design, (2013r),Second edition,pg 601,
Economics of plant and Process Design, (2013s), pg (604), Second edition,
Sinnott R.K, Chemical Engineering Design,(2005), Fourth edition, Volume 6,pg
851,Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann
Treybal R. E., Mass-Transfer Operations,(1980 b) pg (210-211) Third year, McGrawHill, Inc.
Treybal R. E., Mass-Transfer Operations,(1980a), pg (281,282),Third year, McGrawHill, Inc.
50

So2 Absorption

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

So2 Absorption

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DESIGN OF AN ABSORPTION PACKED COLUMN FOR ABSORPTION OF

Department of Chemical Engineering

6.6.13.2 Hold down plates...............................................................................................

6.0 DESIGN OF A SULPHUR (IV) OXIDE (SO2) GAS ABSORPTION COLUMN

Absorption may be either a physical or a chemical process. Physical absorption depends

CO2 and H2S

6.4.7 Trays Towers versus Packed Towers

Packings with a regular geometry (Structured packings), such as stacked rings,

Figure 6-2 Makeup of structured packing. Source: (Sinnott et al. 2013b)

6.5.3 Choice of packing material

0.3to 0.9 m (1 to 3 ft.)

Source: (Sinnott et al. 2013b)

6.6 Chemical engineering design of a packed column

(iv)Hold down plate

Determination of column diameter

Determination of column height

(xi)Determination of liquid hold up

= 8.314 (kPa) (m3)/ (kmol) (K)

Molar mass of inlet gas = 29.7045 kg/kg mol

Average density of gas, kg/m3

Source: (Perry et al. 1998b)

Moles of SO2 in solution

Mole fraction of SO2 in aqueous solution x,

Y, mole fraction of SO2 in gas phase

in gas and liquid phase, Equilibrium plot

Material balance around packed column (using 95% SO2 recovery)

Moles of SO2 out, kg mol/h

Mole fraction of SO2 out of packed column (y2)

2,407.4052 = 79866.5040 kg mol/h

Where Gm is 2,407.4052 kg mol/h

6.6.2 Superficial gas velocity

calculated density of flue gas at 293 K, 1.2356 kg/m 3

density of liquid absorbent (pure water) at 293 K, 998 kg/m3

Volumetric flow rate of inlet flue gas

Source: Benitez (2009e)

packing factor, 40 m2/m3

kg/ms Sengers et al (1986) FP =

Where VGF = the superficial gas velocity at flooding, m/s

(Benitez, 2009g) Where, VG = superficial gas

velocity, m/s f = a fraction of flooding and is usually 0.5-0.7

0.6 = 0.7842 m/s

Hence the superficial gas velocity VG = 0.7842 m/s

Where QG = volumetric flow rate of flue gas, 16.077 m3/s

Where, dp = the effective particle diameter, m a = specific surface

Where, = packing void fraction, 0.761 (Benitez, 2009h)

The Reynolds number of the inlet flue gas can be calculated as

Where, G = kinematic viscosity of the gas mixture, 1.825

kg/ms (Assuming the

kinematic viscosity of the gas mixture to be approximately equal to that of

The Reynolds number of the gas ReG = 2760.9127

Where, = the dry-packing resistance coefficient (a modified friction factor) C p =

The dry-packing resistance coefficient, = 0.7307

Where, Z = packing height, m

The liquid mass velocity can be calculated as

Hence the Reynolds number of the liquid ReL = 169.5787

Where, Ch is a (packing constants) characteristic of the particular type and size of

ah = hydraulic, or effective, specific area of packing, m2/m3

6.6.5 Specific liquid holdup

Where, hL, = specific liquid holdup, m3holdup/m3packed bed

0.1001 m3 hold up/ m3 packed

where, p = Actual pressure drop when the bed is irrigated, Pa

The actual pressure drop when the bed is irrigated is therefore

6.6.7 Number of overall gas-phase transfer units