Hydrodynamics of Foaming Systems in Packed Towers

Thiele†,*, R.; Wiehler†, H.; Repke†, J.-U.; Thielert‡, H. and Wozny†, G.

†TechnicalUniversity of Berlin, Institute of Process and Plant Technology, Straße des 17. Juni
135 / KWT 9, 10623 Berlin, Germany, *robin.thiele@tu-berlin.de
‡ThyssenKruppUhde GmbH, Coke Plant Technologies, Friedrich-Uhde-Strasse 15, 44141
Dortmund, Germany

Abstract

Foaming can be a serious problem in the process industry. For

packed columns foaming is often reported for treatments of sour gases with
alkaline solutions (e.g. amine scrubbing), but also for distillation and
extractive distillation. Existing hydrodynamic prediction methods for
pressure drop and flood points, but also for mass transfer efficiencies, do not
consider foaminess. To build an experimental data base for modifications of
the above mentioned models, this work systematically conducts
experimental investigations on the influence of foaminess, geometry and
flow conditions on the hydrodynamic behavior in packed towers. The aim
of this study is to provide a database for the correlation of the foaminess of a
solution determined in a test cell to its hydrodynamic behavior in the
packed column with different geometries to enhance the predictivity of
hydrodynamic and mass-transfer models. The experimental results show that
existing empirical system factors developed for tray columns fail to predict
the decreased loading capacity of the packings for the model solution.
Whereas in non-foaming solutions flooding is especially sensitive to the gas
load, for foaming solutions the capacity is strongly decreased also at high
liquid loads. The influence of the geometry of the packing on the generation
of foam is substantial. The contribution shows novel experimental results of
foaming solutions in packed towers. These include the substantially by
foaminess altered loading diagrams and different phenomena in the column.
In addition different column internals are compared and design suggestions
are given.

1. Introduction

Foam can reduce throughput and separation performance or can even cause
contamination of products due to takeover of foam from other vessels. It can therefore be a
serious problem in the process industry. For packed columns foaming problems are often
reported in treatments of sour gases with alkaline solutions (e.g. amine scrubbing), but also in
distillation and extractive distillation [1], [2].

Whereas the reasons (Marangoni effect, mass-transfer-induced Marangoni effect,

Ross-type foaming) for increased foaminess of solutions are nearly completely understood, a
literature review revealed that the hydrodynamics of foaming solutions in packed towers and
the occurring phenomena are covered insufficiently. In industrial practice the foaming
problem is frequently suppressed using foaming inhibitors. However, the increase in costs,
product specifications or requirements of units downstream might prohibit the use of an
additional substance in the process. Avoiding foam inhibitors, dimensioning of packed towers
under foaming conditions is usually done using empirical system factors which are tabulated
for different services for tray columns and account for foaming [3]. These system factors are
mere safety factors to correlate premature flooding and cannot be derived from physical
properties. A prediction of the operating conditions (pressure drop, flood points, separation
efficiency) of the column using existing models is therefore not possible, since the foamability
caused by surface active components is unaccounted for in these models.

2. Theoretical Models

Models for foam drainage and foam stability are readily available in the literature,
however mechanisms in the geometry of a packing and the dynamics of the gas-liquid
interactions are complex and exhibit chaotic behavior. A theoretical investigation alone
would therefore not be target-oriented. To build an experimental data base for modifications
of the above mentioned models, this work systematically conducts experimental
investigations on the influence of foaminess, geometry and flow conditions on the
hydrodynamic behavior in packed towers. Therefore a model system water-butanol is chosen
that shows increasing foaminess close to the miscibility gap due to the so-called Ross-type
foaming [7].

The aim of this study is to allow the correlation of the foaminess of a solution to its
hydrodynamic behavior in the packed column with different geometries to enhance the
predictivity of hydrodynamic and mass-transfer models. The applicability of test cell
measurements for determining foaminess to predict the behavior in the packed column has to
be investigated.

Hydrodynamic models for the prediction of pressure drop and flood points have been
proposed by many authors. This study uses the models proposed by Mackoviak [4] and Engel
[5] as well as the commercial program of SULPAK 3.2 from SULZER. These models take into
account geometrical parameters of the packing and physical properties (density, surface
tension, viscosity) of the fluids. These properties, however, do not give information about
foaminess. These models can therefore not consider an increase in pressure drop and earlier
flooding under foaming conditions.

3. Test cell

The foaminess behavior is determined in a test cell by a dynamic method, where

nitrogen is bubbled in a cylinder through the solution of defined volume under similar
conditions to the pilot plant. The experimental setup of the test cell is shown in Figure 1.
 h0

Figure 1. Test cell for the determination of foaminess

By measuring the foam height the Bikerman Index (Σ) [6] can be calculated using
equation 1 with u0 the gas velocity for the empty tube and h0 the foam height as shown in
Figure 1.

V foam h
Σ= = 0 Eq. 1
V&nitrogen u 0

The results for different concentrations of water-butanol are shown in Figure 2.

Measured Bikerman indices are in the range of 7 to 18 s with a local maximum between 0.35
and 0.7 wt% which has been observed more pronounced also by Ross and Suzin [8].
Foaminess rises only slowly with further increasing butanol concentrations. In the two-phase
region, starting at 7.9 wt% 1-butanol, foaminess is suppressed completely due to the existence
of the second liquid phase (compare [7]).

20
18
16
14
12
Σ [s]

10
measurement
8 error, 6%
6
4
2 Bikerman index (T = 20°C)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1-Butanol [wt%]
Figure 2. Bikerman index for water-butanol
4. Pilot Plant

To conduct the experiments a packed column pilot plant of 300 mm (11") is used
(Figure 3). The pilot plant is equipped with controllers to feed a liquid and a gas stream with
defined properties (temperature, pressure, volumetric flow, humidity, concentration) to a
packed bed of 1 m height (3.3 ft). Pressure drop and flood point data can be determined for
different structured and random packings (Table 1, Figure 4) to gain knowledge about the
influence of the geometry on foam generation. For comparison trays (sieve and valve) can
also be investigated. Foamability is varied by changing the concentration of the solution.

Figure 3. Scheme of the pilot plant.

The design of liquid distributors is crucial for the performance of modern packings.
To determine the influence of the quality of the initial liquid distribution onto hydrodynamics,
two different liquid drip point densities can be realized (160 m-2 and 550 m-2). In additional
experiments liquid is maldistributed by blocking holes in the distributor to investigate foam
generation at irregular distributions.
 a. b.

c. d. e.

Figure 4. Packings used

Table 1. Data for the metal packings used

no. in area
packing ε [-]
Figure 4 [m2/m3]

a. SULZER Mellapak 350.Y 350 0.93 (est.)

b. KÜHNI Rombopak 9M 350 0.93 (est.)

c. RASCHIG Super-Ring #0.3 315 0.960

d. RASCHIG Super-Ring #1 160 0.980

e. RASCHIG Super-Ring #2 97.6 0.985

5. Experimental Results

Experiments were carried out using the five packings described in Table 1 in a wide
range of operating conditions with liquid loads B in the range of 7.5 … 30 m3/m2h
(3.1 … 12.3 gpm/ft2) and gas loads F in the range of 0.5 … 2.1 Pa½ (0.4 … 1.7 ft/s (lbs/ft3)½)
measuring the pressure drop over the height of the packing and determining the flood point.
In addition, maldistribution experiments are carried out by blocking a third of the drip points
over the cross-sectional area on one side of the distributor.
 ½
Figure 5. Flooded SULZER Mellapak 305.Y, B = 15 m3/m2h, F = 1,9 Pa

Figure 5 shows the flooded Mellapak 350.Y under high loading conditions. The
beginning of foam build-up starts with a few bubbles at points, where high local liquid fluxes
exist (compare [2]). There, bubbles accumulate blocking a part of the cross-sectional area,
leading to large gas velocities in the remaining part. With larger velocities the interaction
between both phases is intensified leading to large pressure drops and more foam build-up
until foam is observed around the entire circumference. It was observed that bubbles and
foam do not only accumulate at the collars but also within the packing over the entire cross-
sectional area.

Figure 6 shows pressure drops for this packing using different solutions with different
foamabilities. Whereas the pressure drop for the solution with a low foamability (Σ = 6 s) is
only slightly increased compared to that of water, the pressure drop for the stronger foaming
solution (Σ = 15 s) is greatly increased. The liquid load shows a strong influence on the
hydrodynamics. This leads to premature flooding as indicated in Figure 7. In comparison to
the flood point lines calculated by SULPAK and the model proposed by Mackowiak, the
maximum loads are reduced to almost a fifth for high liquid loads.

Using the System factor (SF) approach, developed for tray columns [3], the predicted
flooding line is still deviating from the real data to a large extent. Whereas for low liquid loads
the influence of foam would be overestimated, dimensioning for high liquid loads would fail
due to premature flooding.
 400
Σ=15s - B=10.0 m³/m² h Σ=6s - B=10.0 m³/m² h
Σ=15s - B=15.0 m³/m² h Σ=6s - B=20.0 m³/m² h
350 Σ=15s - B=20.0 m³/m² h Σ=6s - B=30.0 m³/m² h
Σ=15s - B=22.5 m³/m² h Wasser - B=10.0 m³/m² h
Σ=15s - B=25.0 m³/m² h Wasser - B=20.0 m³/m² h
300 Σ=15s - B=27.5 m³/m² h Wasser - B=30.0 m³/m² h
Σ=15s - B=30.0 m³/m² h
pressure drop ∆p/L [Pa/m]

250

200

150

100

50

0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
0.5
F-factor F [Pa ]

Figure 6. Pressure drop for SULZER Mellapak 350.Y for different foamabilities

4
exp. flooding line

3.5 Sulpak 3.2

Sulpak 3.2 (SF=0.5)

3 Mackowiak

unstable 0.70 wt%

2.5 unstable 1.95 wt%
F-factor [Pa0.5]

stable 0.70 wt%

2 stable 1.95 wt%

1.5

Σ =15 s
1

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
liquid load B [m3/m2h]

Figure 7. Loading diagram for SULZER Mellapak 350.Y

 2.5

F-factor [Pa0.5]
1.5

Mellapak 350.Y Σ=15.5 s

0.5 Rombopak 9M Σ=14.1s

Super-Ring #0.3 Σ=15.1s

0.7 wt% Butanol
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35

liquid load [m3/m2h]

Figure 8. Flood points for three investigated packings of similar specific area

Flood points for the three packings with a similar specific area are plotted in Figure 8.
The comparison of these packings showed various tendencies to promote foaming due to the
different geometries. A sheet-structure like the Mellapak seems to stabilize foam under high
liquid loads, whereas a packing with an open structure like the Rombopak 9M is under high
liquid loads less affected. Irregular packings like the RASCHIG Super-Ring #0.3 show a
surprisingly good performance under foaming conditions.

6. Conclusions

The experimental results show that the empirical system factors for the existing
models fail to predict the decreased loading capacity of the packings for the model solution.
Whereas in non-foaming solutions flooding is especially sensitive to the gas loading, for
foaming solutions the capacity is strongly decreased especially at high liquid loads (B >
25 m3/m2h, 10 gpm/ft2). In one case flooding occurred already for an F-factor of 0.5 Pa0.5
(0.4 ft/s (lbs/ft3)0.5) with 30 m3/m2h (12 gpm/ft2) liquid load.

The influence of the geometry of the packing on the generation of foam is substantial.
Designing a packed tower, this should also be taken into consideration by choosing the
appropriate packing regarding its tendency to promote foaming. Further research is required
on that matter. This includes validation of the results using different test solutions.

As mentioned above, foaminess has also an influence on mass transfer due to

induced convection and an increase in interfacial area [9]. Future experimental work will also
focus on experimental determination of the influence on mass transfer in foaming system.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank SULZER ChemTech Ltd, KÜHNI AG and RASCHIG
GmbH for supplying the packings to conduct the experiments.
References

[1] Kister, H.Z. What Caused Tower Malfunctions in the Last 50 Years? Chem. Eng. Res. Des.,
80 (1), pp. 5-26, 2003.

[2] Thiele, R.; Brettschneider, O.; Repke, J.-U.; Thielert, H.; Wozny, G. Experimental
Investigations of Foaming in a Packed Tower for Sour Water Stripping. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 7 (42), pp. 1426-1432, 2003.

[3] Lockett, M.J. Distillation Tray Fundamentals. University Press, Cambridge, 1986.

[4] Mackowiak, J. Fluiddynamik von Füllkörpern und Packungen – Fluiddynamics of

Random and Structured Packings . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2. Ed., 2003.

[5] Engel, V. Fluiddynamik in Packungskolonnen für Gas-Flüssigsysteme – Fluiddynamics in

Packed Towers for Gas-Liquid-Systems. Dissertation, TU München, VDI-Verlag,
Düsseldorf, 1999.

[6] Bikerman, J. J. Foams. Springer: New York, 1973.

[7] Ross, S.; Nishioka, G. Foaminess of Binary and Ternary Solutions. Journal of Physical
Chemistry, 79 (15), pp. 1561-1565, 1975.

[8] Ross, S.; Suzin, Y. Measurement of Dynamic Foam Stability. Langmuir, 1 (1), pp. 145-
149, 1985.

[9] Lu, H.; Yang, Y.-M.; Maa, J.-R. Effect of Artificially Provocted Marangoni Convection at a
Gas/Liquid Interface on Absorption. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 35, pp. 1921-1928, 1996.