Investigation of the operation of absorption apparatus with a refluxed ball packing type of pseudoliquified layer

Gel'perin, N. I.; Grishko, V. Z.; Savchenko, V. I.; Shchedro, V. M.

doi:10.1007/bf01146012

Cited by 3 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Earlier investigations [5,12,15,18] showed that liquid holdup decreases with increasing packing diameter, in the present study, however, no significant change in liquid holdup was observed. Holdup using a smaller packing diameter is expected to be higher than with a larger one at lower gas velocities (where the bed is not fluidized) due to the high surface area of contact causing friction and low free area in the packing for gas flow.…”

Section: Effect Of Packing Diametercontrasting

confidence: 82%

“…Gel'perin et al [15] and Bruce et al [4] predicted no increase in liquid holdup with the increase in packing density. Vunjak-Novakovic [5] observed an increase in liquid holdup for Type 2 TCA operation while Kito et al [12] and Soundarajan and Krishnaiah [14] reported a significant increase in liquid holdup with the increase in packing density for both types of TCA operations.…”

Section: Effect Of Packing Densitymentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Liquid Holdup in a Pilot‐Scale Turbulent Contact Absorber – An Experimental and Comparative Study

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Liquid holdup in a turbulent contact absorber was determined experimentally. Experiments were performed in a 44.7 cm diameter Perspex column. Hollow spherical high-density polyethylene balls were used as packing. The effect of liquid and gas velocities, static bed height, diameter and density of packing on liquid holdup was investigated for the range of gas velocities greater than minimum fluidization velocities. Also, the effect of gas and liquid distributors on liquid holdup was studied. Correlations for liquid holdup were developed and compared with those in the literature. It was observed that liquid holdup increased with the increase in liquid velocity, packing density, and the decrease in static bed height. Liquid holdup also increased with gas velocity when the gas distributor section was included, while no effect was observed for the bed. Lack of information on the contribution of liquid and gas distributors seems to be the logical explanation for the wide variation in data reported in the literature.

show abstract

Section: Effect Of Packing Diametercontrasting

confidence: 82%

Section: Effect Of Packing Densitymentioning

confidence: 97%

Liquid Holdup in a Pilot‐Scale Turbulent Contact Absorber – An Experimental and Comparative Study

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been observed that the open area of the supporting grid strongly affects the hydrodynamics of the system (Gel'perin et al, 1968b;Kit0 et al, 1976aKit0 et al, ,d, 1978. The data on the hydrodynamics of the TCA, reported by Gel'perin et al (1966), Blyakher et al (19671, Aksel'rod et al (1969), and Balabekov et al (1969aBalabekov et al ( , 1969b, were obtained for grids with small open areas of 34.7-51.7%, 41%, 35.5-56.8% and 30-GO%, respectively. Wall effects may also be significant for small ratios of the column diameter to the packing diameter.…”

Section: Countercurrent Gas-liquid-solid Fluidizationmentioning

confidence: 94%

Fundamentals of gas‐liquid‐solid fluidization

1985

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

depend on the ability to accurately predict the fundamental properties of the system, specifically, the hydrodynamics, the mixing of individual phases, and the heat and mass transfer properties. Identification of the flow regimes under which the system operates is crucial to an understanding of both the variations of these properties and overall system performance. This timely, comprehensive review describes in a systematic manner the status of fundamental gas-liquid-solid fluidization behavior. This review also discusses the areas in which current knowledge is deficient and further research is needed. SCOPEGas-liquid-solid fluidization is defined as an operation in which a bed of solid particles is suspended in gas and liquid media due to the net drag force of the gas and/or liquid flowing opposite to the net gravitational force or buoyancy force on the particles. Such an operation generates considerable, intimate contact among the gas, liquid and solid particles in these systems and provides substantial advantages for applications in physical, chemical or biochemical processing involving gas, liquid and solid phases.Various modes are possible for gas-liquid-solid fluidized-bed operation. The gas-liquid-solid fluidized bed can be operated with a cocurrent or countercurrent flow of a gas and a liquid with gas as the continuous phase. It can also be operated with a cocurrent or countercurrent flow of a gas and a liquid with liquid as the continuous phase. The states of fluidization are altered when the fluidized bed is tapered, or an upper retaining grid or a draft tube is present in the bed.This review examines both the experimental and modeling studies of the fundamental characteristics of gas-liquid-solid fluidization. Specifically, a comprehensive review is made on the hydrodynamics, the mixing of individual phases, and the heat and mass transfer behavior of various modes and states of gas-liquid-solid fluidization. Industrial application of the gasliquid-solid fluidized bed is briefly described. CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCEGas-liquid-solid fluidization became a subject for fundamental research only about two decades ago. Considerable progress has been made with respect to an understanding of the phenomena of gas-liquid-solid fluidization since then. This review summarizes and analyzes the available information in the literature on this subject.Gas-liquid-solid fluidization can be classified mainly into four modes of operation. These modes are: cocurrent three-phase fluidization with liquid as the continuous phase (Mode 1-a); cocurrent three-phase fluidization with gas as the continuous phase (Mode 1-b); Inverse three-phase fluidization (Mode IJ-a); and fluidization represented by a turbulent contact absorber (TCA) (Mode II-b). Modes II-a and 11-b are achieved with a countercurrent flow of gas and liquid. Due to the complex nature of three-phase fluidization, however, various methods are K Muroyama is on leave from the Department of Environmental Chemistry and Technology, Tottori University, Tottori, 680, Japa...

show abstract

“…Besides, the minimum fluidisation velocity was found to be dependent on liquid flow rates and physical properties of packing . Alternatively, the minimum fluidisation velocity was reported not to depend on static bed heights and open grid area; however, this particular claim is in contrast with the result reported in . It is worth to mention that some of these investigations have developed and tested different empirical models to estimate minimum fluidisation velocity.…”

Section: Theoretical Background Of Tbcmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…The pressure drop across the bed, being an important parameter in TBC operation, helps to characterise the hydrodynamic behaviour of the TBC system and determine the energy consumption required during the column operation. Several researchers have observed that pressure losses due to the supporting grid are strongly affected by grid geometry which shape is usually designed to enhance mass transfer phenomenon. However, the wall effect is likely to be relatively small and can be neglected for large diameter columns.…”

Section: Theoretical Background Of Tbcmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hydrodynamics of turbulent bed contactor with non‐Newtonian liquids: Net pressure drop and minimum fluidisation velocity (part 2)

Abukhalifeh¹,

Fayed

Bhagat

et al. 2013

Can J Chem Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study investigates the hydrodynamic behaviour of non‐Newtonian liquids under different operating conditions in a turbulent bed contactor (TBC). Hollow plastic spheres were fluidised in an air stream flowing counter currently to an aqueous solution of carboxy methyl cellulose (CMC) of an apparent viscosity ranging from 5 to 25 mPa s. A set of experiments was carried out to investigate the net pressure drop and minimum fluidisation velocity of the process. The column was operated at different superficial gas velocities, liquid flow rates, CMC solution concentrations and static bed heights. Results show that the net pressure drop is independent of the superficial gas velocity, but it increases steadily with liquid flow rate and static bed height. However, it remains almost invariant with a relatively low CMC concentration (0.2–0.4 wt%), and it augments gradually as the CMC percent exceeds the threshold of 0.4 wt% which corresponds to a more viscous liquid solution. The minimum fluidisation velocity decreases with a CMC concentration lower than 0.5 wt% approximately, but increases as the CMC percent exceeds 0.5 wt%. The study presents a new insight on the behaviour of non‐Newtonian solutions in TBC columns.

show abstract

Investigation of the operation of absorption apparatus with a refluxed ball packing type of pseudoliquified layer

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Liquid Holdup in a Pilot‐Scale Turbulent Contact Absorber – An Experimental and Comparative Study

Liquid Holdup in a Pilot‐Scale Turbulent Contact Absorber – An Experimental and Comparative Study

Fundamentals of gas‐liquid‐solid fluidization

Hydrodynamics of turbulent bed contactor with non‐Newtonian liquids: Net pressure drop and minimum fluidisation velocity (part 2)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About