Liquid holdup in turbulent bed contactor

Bruce, A.E.R.; Sai, P. S. T.; Krishnaiah, K.

doi:10.1016/j.cej.2003.10.004

Cited by 18 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The liquid holdup increases with an increase in the liquid velocity as more liquid is present in the column at higher liquid velocities for the entire range of gas velocities. Some investigators [4,5,12,18] reported no significant effect of gas velocity on liquid holdup while others [1,2,13,14,20,21] observed an increase in liquid holdup with gas velocity for the types of fluidization they studied. The type of fluidization can be evaluated from the range of variables given in Tab.…”

Section: Effect Of Liquid and Gas Velocitiesmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…The capital cost is low because of the small size of columns due to high gas and liquid flow rates. TCA finds its application in particulate removal, air cooling, humidification, dehumidification, absorption, desorption, distillation, flue gas desulfurization and fermentation [4]. There are also some disadvantages of TCA such as backmixing in the liquid phase, breakage of packing, and bed pulsations [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, Vunjak et al [5] and Kito et al [12] did not mention whether or not they excluded the liquid volume held in the liquid distributor. Other investigators [1,4,[13][14][15][16] who also measured liquid holdup by the quick closing valve technique did not mention the liquid volume held in the plenum or the liquid distributor with its pipe. The measurement of liquid holdup by the quick closing valve technique is more reliable than that by the residence time distribution technique (RTD) or the pressure drop method [4,17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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 Liquid and Gas Velocitiesmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

show abstract

“…Using residence time measurements, it was shown that no stagnant zones for liquid flow existed in the tested TLP packing. Bruce et al (2004) collected experimental data on liquid holdup over a wide range of variables in a turbulent bed contactor with a 3mm projection of a gasket to block the free area of the distributor plate near the wall so that the channeling of liquid along the wall was avoided. The variation in dynamic liquid holdup based on static bed height with gas velocity, liquid velocity, particle diameter and density, static bed height, free-open area of the distributor plate and dimension of downcomer were discussed.…”

Section: Brazilian Journal Of Chemical Engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are only few studies related to liquid holdup prediction theoretically, experimentally or numerically (Wang et al, 2006;Xio et al, 2000;De Andrade Lima, 2006;Yin et al, 2002;Muzen and Cassanello, 2005;Van Hasselt et al, 1999;Bruce et al, 2004;Inglezakis et al, 2001;Afreka et al, 2007;Gomez et al, 2000;Ayude et al, 2007;Iliuta et al, 2002;Lopes and Quinta-Ferreira, in press;Rathess and Kannan, 2004;Atta et al, 2007). Wang et al (2006) measured phase distribution of solid particles, and oil droplets were conducted in a lab-scale stirred tank by sample withdrawal under various operating conditions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Capillary holdup between vertical spheres

Heris¹,

Mosavian²,

White

2009

Braz. J. Chem. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-The maximum volume of liquid bridge left between two vertically mounted spherical particles has been theoretically determined and experimentally measured. As the gravitational effect has not been neglected in the theoretical model, the liquid interface profile is nonsymmetrical around the X-axis. Symmetry in the interface profile only occurs when either the particle size ratio or the gravitational force becomes zero. In this paper, some equations are derived as a function of the spheres' sizes, gap width, liquid density, surface tension and body force ( gravity/centrifugal) to estimate the maximum amount of liquid that can be held between the two solid spheres. Then a comparison is made between the result based on these equations and several experimental results.

show abstract

Hydrodynamics and flow regimes in turbulent bed contactor with non‐Newtonian liquids

et al. 2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The flow regimes normally encountered in a turbulent bed contactor (TBC) are static, partially fluidised, completely fluidised and flooding regimes. Experiments were conducted in a TBC operating in Type I mode to identify the flow regimes with non-Newtonian liquid. Flow regime transition velocities were obtained from the pressure drop and bed expansion measurements at various operating and geometric variables. The variables include apparent viscosity of the liquid, gas and liquid velocities, size and density of the particles, and static bed height. The effect of the above variables on delineation of flow regime transition was studied. Based on the experimental data, correlations were proposed for predicting the transition velocity from one regime to the other. The influence of the variables on regime transition velocities is more or less similar to that observed for Newtonian liquids.

show abstract

Liquid holdup in turbulent bed contactor

Cited by 18 publications

References 13 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

Capillary holdup between vertical spheres

Hydrodynamics and flow regimes in turbulent bed contactor with non‐Newtonian liquids

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About