Distillation

Realistically Predict
Capacity and Pressure Drop
for Packed Columns
Generalized pressure-drop correlation (GPDC)
charts have been the standard for predicting
Henry Z. Kister
Jeffrey Scherffius packing flood points and pressure drops.
Khashayar Afshar This article guides engineers on the correct
Emil Abkar
Fluor Corp. and incorrect uses of the GPDC interpolation
procedure, and updates the method for
today’s new state-of-the-art packings.

F
or several decades, the Sherwood-Eckert generalized
pressure-drop correlation (GPDC) chart has been the
standard for predicting flood points and pressure drops
in packed columns. This chart [initially developed by Sher-
wood, et al. (2) and later modified by Lobo, et al. (3)] con-
tained only a single curve that predicted packing flood points.
Leva added a new family of curves to the chart’s flood-point
curve to predict packing pressure drop (4). Eckert proposed
further modifications (5–7), the most recent of which omitted
the flood curve, retained only the pressure drop curves, and
incorporated several other minor modifications. Strigle
changed the scales of this latest Eckert version from log-log
to semi-log to make interpolation between adjacent pressure-
drop curves easier (8). Known as Strigle’s chart (Figure 1),
this is the “best and latest,” and preferred, version of the
GPDC, as discussed in current distillation texts (8–10).
Those versions of the GPDC are based on random pack-
ing only. For structured packings, Kister and Gill (11) devel-
oped a modified chart [GPDC(SP), where SP stands for
structured packings], Figure 2, that empirically was a better
fit to a large database of published structured-packing data.
The GPDC chart ordinate is the capacity parameter (CP),
given by:
CP = CSFP0.5ν0.05
This article is based on a paper presented at the 2007 AIChE Spring
Meeting (1). The full paper, including an appendix containing all of the
updated charts, is available at the CEP website, www.aiche.org/cep.
In Eq. 1, ν is the kinematic viscosity of the liquid. Note
that the kinematic viscosity (in centistokes) is obtained by
dividing the dynamic viscosity (in centipoises) by the liq-
uid density in g/cm3 — not by the liquid density in
English units.
FP is the packing factor, which is an empirical factor
characteristic of the packing size and shape. Packing fac-
tors for common packings are listed in most distillation
texts (8–10).
CS is known as the C-factor, which is the superficial gas
velocity (US) corrected for vapor and liquid densities (ρG
and ρL). It is given by:
CS = US[ρG/(ρL – ρG)]0.5 (2)
The C-factor describes the balance between the vapor mo-
mentum force, which acts to entrain swarms of liquid droplets,
and the gravity force, which resists the upward entrainment.
This closely resembles the force balance used by Souders and
Brown for entrainment flooding in tray columns (13).
The GPDC chart abscissa is the flow parameter, Flv,
given by:
Flv = (L/G)( ρG/ρL)0.5 (3)
(1)
This flow parameter represents the ratio of liquid kinetic
energy to vapor kinetic energy. High flow parameters are
typical of high liquid rates and high pressures. Conversely,

28 www.aiche.org/cep July 2007 CEP

 Nomenclature
low flow parameters are typical of vacuum and low-liquid- AT = tower cross-section area, ft2
rate operation. CS = C-factor based on tower superficial velocity,
defined by Eq. 2, ft/s
Removal of the flood curve from recent versions of the CP = capacity parameter, defined by Eq. 1
GPDC chart curtailed its ability to predict flood. This capa- Flv = flow parameter, defined by Eq. 3
bility was reinstated by a simple correlation (14): FP = packing factor, characteristic of packing geometry, ft–1
∆P = pressure drop, in. H2O/ft of packing
∆PFl = 0.12FP 0.7 (4) G = gas mass flowrate, lb/h
L = liquid mass flowrate, lb/h
US = superficial vapor velocity, ft/s
Equation 4 expresses the pressure drop at the flood
Greek Letters
point as a function of the packing factor alone. Once this ρ = density, lb/ft3
pressure drop is known, the flood velocity can be calculat- µL = liquid viscosity, cP
ed from the GPDC (or any other good pressure-drop pre- ν = kinematic viscosity, cSt
diction method). Equation 4 states that the pressure drop at Subscripts
the flood point decreases as the packing capacity increas- Fl = at flood
es, as observed earlier by others (15–17). The numerical G = gas
L = liquid
constant originally proposed by Kister and Gill was 0.115;
MOC = at maximum operational capacity
Strigle (8) endorsed Eq. 4, but with the coefficient round-
ed up to 0.12.
Predictions from the latest version of 2.4
∆P, in. H2O/ft
the GPDC (Figures 1 and 2) were com-
2.0 1.5
pared to thousands of packing pressure-
drop measurements (8, 11, 14). The
1.6 1.0
GPDC correlation gave good predictions
CSFP0.5ν0.05

for most pressure-drop data. It generally 0.5

1.2
works well for the air-water system with
flow parameters as low as 0.01 and as 0.25
0.8
high as 1 (8). For nonaqueous systems, it
0.10
works well for flow parameters from 0.4 0.05
0.03 to 0.3 (typical of atmospheric and
mild vacuum distillation). 0.0
The GPDC correlation was shown 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.50 1.0 5.0
(11, 14) to be optimistic for flow param- (L/G)(ρG/ρL)0.5
eters greater than 0.3 (typical of pres-

Figure 1. Strigle’s GPDC chart for random packings. (Reprinted from Ref. 8. Copyright ©
sure distillation and/or high-liquid-rate Gulf Publishing, Houston, TX (1994). Reprinted with permission from Elsevier.)
applications). These optimistic
predictions were attributed to 3.0
enhanced liquid frothiness at 2.8
2.6
higher pressures (8). The 2.4 ∆P, in. H2O/ft
GPDC correlation is also limit- 2.2 ∆P = 1.5
Capacity Parameter

ed at low liquid rates (flow 2.0

parameters < 0.03), where liq- 1.8 1.0
uid properties have much less 1.6
1.4 0.5
of an effect on pressure drop 1.2
than the GPDC predicts (18). 1.0 0.25
0.8
GPDC interpolation 0.6 0.10
Predictions from the GPDC 0.4
0.2
correlation are sensitive to the 0.0
packing factor. While most pack- 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.50 1.00 2.00
ing factors reported in the litera- Flow Parameter
ture are satisfactory (8, 11, 14), a
Figure 2. Kister and Gill’s GPDC(SP) chart for structured packing.

CEP July 2007 www.aiche.org/cep 29

Distillation

few are a poor fit to experimental pressure-drop data. In addi- an excellent fit to experimental data is insufficient to ren-
tion, for some packings, the dependence of pressure drop on der a packing pressure-drop correlation suitable for design.
vapor and liquid loads is not adequately predicted by the In addition, the correlation’s limitations must be fully
GPDC correlation. understood. This applies to other packing pressure-drop
The deviations from the correlation tend to be system- correlations as well.
atic rather than random (14). Furthermore, some regions These limitations are overcome by GPDC interpolation.
where the correlation provided poor pressure-drop predic- Superimposing experimental data points (for a specific
tions are those of great commercial interest. It follows that packing) on the curves of the GPDC chart converts the
GPDC into an interpolation
chart (for that packing).
3.0
2.8
Pressure drops are calculated
2.6 Legend for Data Points by interpolating the plotted
2.4 ∆P, in. H2O/ft ∆P = 1.5 in. H2O/ft pressure-drop data. The corre-
2.2 ∆P = 1.5 ∆P = 1.0 in. H2O/ft
lation curves merely help guide
Capacity Parameter

2.0 ∆P = 0.5 in. H2O/ft

∆P = 0.25 in. H2O/ft the interpolation. An atlas of
1.8 1.0
∆P = 0.10 in. H2O/ft interpolation charts and an
1.6
0.5 Flood MOC application procedure are avail-
1.4
1.2 able in Refs. 10 and 12.
1.0 0.25
For random and grid pack-
0.8
0.6 0.10 ings, the curves on the inter-
0.4 polation charts are those of the
0.2 Strigle version of the Eckert
0.0 GPDC, Figure 1 (8). For struc-
0.005 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.50 1.00 2.00
Flow Parameter
tured packings, the curves on
Basis: FP = 40 the interpolation charts are
NOTE: The GPDC curves are for guidance only. Interpolation of those of the Kister and Gill
the data points must be used to predict packing performance.
GPDC(SP), Figure 2 (11). For
all charts (random, structured

Figure 3. GPDC interpolation chart for Mellapak Plus 752Y with flood and pressure drop data.
or grid packings), the abscissa
is the flow parameter, given
3.0
by Eq. 3, and the ordinate is
2.8
2.6 Legend for Data Points the capacity parameter, given
2.4 ∆P, in. H2O/ft ∆P = 1.5 in. H2O/ft by Eq. 1.
2.2 ∆P = 1.5 ∆P = 1.0 in. H2O/ft Flood and maximum oper-
Capacity Parameter

∆P = 0.5 in. H2O/ft

2.0 ational capacity (MOC) data
∆P = 0.25 in. H2O/ft
1.8 1.0 ∆P = 0.10 in. H2O/ft are also plotted on the GPDC
1.6
1.4 0.5
Flood MOC interpolation charts, and the
1.2 charts are invaluable for inter-
1.0 0.25 polating these. The MOC (also
0.8 referred to as the maximum
0.6 0.10
efficient capacity) is defined
0.4
0.2 as the “maximum vapor rate
0.0 that provides normal efficien-
0.005 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.50 1.00 2.00 cy of a packing” (8). Where
Flow Parameter flood data are absent, Eqs. 4
Basis: FP = 12
and 5, respectively, can be
NOTE: The GPDC curves are for guidance only. Interpolation of
the data points must be used to predict packing performance. used for inferring flood points
and MOCs from pressure-drop

Figure 4. GPDC interpolation chart for Mellapak Plus 252Y with flood and pressure drop data, data on the charts.

In all GPDC interpolation charts (Figures 3–9), large symbols denote data for non-aqueous systems and US,MOC = 0.95US,Fl (5)
small symbols denote data for aqueous systems.

30 www.aiche.org/cep July 2007 CEP

 Flood-point predictions from Eq. 4 were compared to an Updates
extensive data bank for modern random and structured The last update of the GPDC interpolation procedure was
packings (11, 14). Pressure drops were calculated using the issued in 1995 (12). Much has happened in packing technolo-
GPDC interpolation charts. Equation 4 predicted all the gy since, and these developments are addressed in this article.
flood points in the data bank to within +15%, and most to Updated charts for 22 packings are presented in full in
within +10%. This procedure was also shown to be insensi- Ref. 1 (Figures 3–9 here are typical examples), along with a
tive to reasonable errors in packing factors (10). comprehensive table outlining the sources of the data shown
The suitability of the GPDC interpolation charts as a in the charts. The updates address the following:
basis for interpolation is not accidental. Packing pressure 1. A recent development followed the realization that liq-
drops correlate extremely well with GPDC coordinates, uid drainage in structured packings was restricted at the ele-
i.e., the flow parameter and the
capacity parameter. The depen- 3.0
dence does not always follow 2.8 Legend for Data Points
the correlation contours, but 2.6
∆P, in. H2O/ft ∆P = 1.5 in. H2O/ft
2.4 ∆P = 1.0 in. H2O/ft
always appears to exist. 2.2 ∆P = 1.5 ∆P = 0.5 in. H2O/ft
Capacity Parameter

Furthermore, the correlation 2.0 ∆P = 0.25 in. H2O/ft

coordinates are essentially a 1.8 1.0 ∆P = 0.10 in. H2O/ft
“performance diagram,” i.e., a 1.6 Flood MOC
plot of a vapor load against 1.4 0.5
1.2
liquid load, a tool commonly 1.0 0.25
used for charting column 0.8
hydraulic performance. 0.6 0.10
The conversion of the 0.4
GPDC into interpolation charts 0.2
0.0
overcomes a multitude of limi-
0.005 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.50 1.00 2.00
tations of the correlation. The
Flow Parameter
GPDC interpolation charts Basis: FP = 13
readily identify any regions NOTE: The GPDC curves are for guidance only. Interpolation of
where data veer off the correla- the data points must be used to predict packing performance.

tion curves, and give reliable

estimates (by data interpola-
Figure 5. GPDC interpolation chart for Flexipac HC 2Y with pressure drop data.
tion) in these regions.
It may be argued that the 3.0
interpolation procedure breaks 2.8 ∆P = 1.5 in. H2O/ft
down when data are absent. The 2.6 ∆P = 1.0 in. H2O/ft
2.4 ∆P, in. H O/ft
2 ∆P = 0.5 in. H2O/ft
counter-argument is that the 2.2 ∆P = 1.5 ∆P = 0.25 in. H2O/ft
Capacity Parameter

GPDC correlation curves are 2.0 ∆P = 0.10 in. H2O/ft

always there to fall back on and 1.8 1.0 Flood MOC
to get a prediction, but now 1.6 Small symbols = aqueous data
0.5 Large symbols = non-aqueous data
there is also a tool to warn that 1.4
1.2
there are no data in this region 1.0 0.25
and that uncertainty is involved. 0.8
A shortcoming of the 0.6 0.10
GPDC interpolation data chart 0.4
procedure is that it replaces a 0.2
0.0
single correlation chart by an 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.50 1.00 2.00
atlas. The interpolation charts Flow Parameter
Basis: FP = 13
consume more storage space in
NOTE: The GPDC curves are for guidance only. Interpolation of
the design manual or on the the data points must be used to predict packing performance.
computer and require more
updating effort.
Figure 6. GPDC interpolation chart for Montz B1-250M with flood and pressure data.

CEP July 2007 www.aiche.org/cep 31

Distillation

ment-to-element transition rather than inside elements. This
means that the liquid accumulation leading to flood initiates
at the element transition region. A fourth-generation of
structured packings evolved — in which the main body of
each element has layers inclined at 45 deg., but the top or
both ends of each element are rounded or vertical to pro-
mote drainage at this end region. These high-capacity struc-
tured packings offer more capacity than equivalent 45-deg.-
inclined packings; some (19–22) have the same efficiency,
3.0
2.8
2.6 Legend for Data Points
∆P, in. H2O/ft
2.4
2.2 ∆P = 1.5
Capacity Parameter
while others (23) have a slightly lower efficiency. These
packings are represented in Figures 3–6.
2. Inside each element of a structured packing, corrugat-
ed sheets are most commonly inclined at about 45 deg. to
the vertical (typically indicated by the letter “Y” following
the packing size). This angle is large enough for good liquid
drainage, avoiding stagnant pockets and regions of liquid
accumulation, and small enough to prevent gas from
bypassing the metal surfaces. In some packings, the inclina-
tion angle to the vertical is
steepened to 30 deg. (typically
indicated by the letter “X” fol-
lowing the packing size). This
∆P = 1.5 in. H2O/ft
improves drainage, and there-
∆P = 1.0 in. H2O/ft
fore capacity, but at the

∆P = 0.5 in. H2O/ft

2.0 expense of reduced gas-liquid
∆P = 0.25 in. H2O/ft
1.8 1.0 ∆P = 0.10 in. H2O/ft contact, and therefore, efficien-
1.6
Flood MOC cy. Many new X-type packings
1.4 0.5
1.2 have come on the market since
1.0 0.25 the previous update of the
0.8 charts. Figure 7 is a typical
0.6 0.10
0.4
chart for one of these packings.
0.2 3. For one line of popular
0.0 structured packing (Flexipac
0.005 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.50 1.00 2.00 1Y, 2Y, 3Y and 4Y), the origi-
Flow Parameter
Basis: FP = 5 nal GPDC interpolation charts
NOTE: The GPDC curves are for guidance only. Interpolation of (10) were based on pressure-
the data points must be used to predict packing performance. drop data measured in an exten-
sive air-water test program by

Figure 7. GPDC interpolation chart for Flexipac 3X with pressure drop data.
Koch Engineering in 1982 (24,
25). Recent publications by the
3.0
2.8 same company appear to have
∆P = 1.5 in. H2O/ft
2.6 ∆P = 1.0 in. H2O/ft
shifted support to new air-water
2.4 ∆P, in. H2O/ft ∆P = 0.5 in. H2O/ft data (21, 26) that measured sig-
2.2 ∆P = 1.5 ∆P = 0.25 in. H2O/ft nificantly larger pressure drops
Capacity Parameter

2.0 ∆P = 0.10 in. H2O/ft

under equivalent conditions.
1.8 1.0 Flood MOC
1.6 Small symbols = aqueous data (This is discussed further in the
1.4 0.5 Large symbols = non-aqueous data examples.) Figure 8 is an
1.2 example of a revised chart for
1.0 0.25 one of these packings based on
0.8 the vendor’s latest data.
0.6 0.10
0.4
4. The Raschig Super-Ring
0.2 high-capacity random packing
0.0 has become available and
0.005 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.50 1.00 2.00 gained popularity. Figure 9 is a
Flow Parameter new GPDC chart for one size
Basis: FP = 15
NOTE: The GPDC curves are for guidance only. Interpolation of of these packings.
the data points must be used to predict packing performance.
5. Data and GPDC charts

Figure 8. GPDC interpolation chart for Flexipac 2Y with flood and pressure drop data. for Hyperfil knitted-mesh
tower packing were recently
In all GPDC interpolation charts (Figures 3–9), large symbols denote data for non-aqueous systems and published (27).
small symbols denote data for aqueous systems.

32 www.aiche.org/cep July 2007 CEP

Use and misuse of the GPDC charts Thus, liquid density = ρL = 48/62.4 = 0.769 g/cm3 and
The following examples illustrating common misuses of kinematic viscosity = ν = 0.60/0.769 = 0.78 cSt.
the GPDC charts are based on actual experiences. Some 4. Calculate the capacity parameter. Figure 9 gives a
details may have been changed to make it difficult for read- packing factor of 18 for the #1.5(M) Raschig Super-Ring.
ers to recognize where the experience occurred. From Eq. 1, CP = 0.299 × 18 0.5 × 0.78 0.05 = 1.25.
5. Calculate the flood point. Figure 9 does not contain
Example 1: Typical flood and pressure-drop flood data, so Eq. 4 is used to give ∆PFl = 0.12 × 18 0.7 =
calculations for a possible retrofit 0.91 in. H2O/ft of packing. The flood capacity parameter
A 6-ft-dia. chemical vacuum tower contains a 20-ft bed is the ordinate at the flood pressure drop and at the flow
of #1.5 metal Raschig Super-Ring packing. The tower is to
be retrofitted for a vapor flowrate of G = 40,000 lb/h, vapor Table. Packings considered for retrofit in Example 1.
density of ρG = 0.036 lb/ft3, liquid flowrate of L = 32,000
lb/h, liquid density of ρL = 48 lb/ft3, and liquid viscosity of Flexipac HC 2Y Mellapak Plus 252Y
µL = 0.60 cP. Would the packing achieve these flowrates? If
FP (Figures 4 and 5) 13 12
the packing is to be replaced by Mellapak Plus 252Y or
Flexipac HC 2Y structured packing, can a pressure drop CP (Eq. 1) 1.065 1.023
reduction be achieved?
∆PFl (Eq. 4) 0.72 0.68
Solution. Figures 9, 4 and 5 are GPDC interpolation
charts for these packings. These charts are the basis for Flood CP
(from Flv and ∆PFl) 1.62† 1.57*
the calculations.
1. Calculate the flow parameter from Eq. 3. Flv = % Flood 66% 65%
(32,000/40,000)(0.036/48)0.5 = 0.022. Actual Pressure Drop
2. Calculate the C-factor from Eq. 2. The tower area = (from Flv, CP), in. H2O/ft 0.25† 0.22‡
AT = (π/4)62 = 28.27 ft2. The vapor velocity = US =
40,000/(3,600 × 0.036 × 28.27) = 10.9 ft/s. From Eq. 2, the Notes:
0.5 * There are actual flood data, so there is no need to use Eq. 4. The
C-factor = 10.9[0.036/(48 – 0.036)] = 0.299 ft/s. flood point is a direct interpolation of flood data, so it is predicted with
3. Calculate the kinematic viscosity in cSt. This is a high degree of confidence.
obtained by dividing the dynamic viscosity in cP (µL) by the † Limited extrapolation is needed, but it is quite straightforward and
involves low risk.
liquid density in g/cm3 (ρL). Centistokes, centipoises and
‡ The data permit a high degree of confidence in the pressure drop
g/cm3 are all units in the CGS system, and are consistent prediction.
units. An accurate estimate of
kinematic viscosity is obtained
by dividing the dynamic viscos- 3.0
ity by the specific gravity. 2.8
2.6 ∆P, in. H2O/ft Legend for Data Points
Misuse #1: Mixing units in
2.4 ∆P = 1.5 in. H O/ft
kinematic viscosity calculations ∆P = 1.5 2
∆P = 1.0 in. H O/ft
2.2 2
Capacity Parameter

has been the top cause of get- ∆P = 0.5 in. H O/ft

2.0 2

ting incorrect answers from the 1.0 ∆P = 0.25 in. H O/ft

1.8 2
∆P = 0.10 in. H O/ft
GPDC correlations. The kine- 1.6
Flood MOC
2

matic viscosity is raised to the 1.4 0.5

1.2
power of 0.05 in the calculation 1.0 0.25
(Eq. 1). The conversion factor 0.8
between the English units of 0.6 0.10
lb/ft3 and the CGS units of 0.4
g/cm3 is 62.4. When 62.4 is 0.2
0.0
raised to the 0.05 power, it pro- 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.50 1.00 5.00
duces an error of 23%. This Flow Parameter
makes a large difference in the Basis: FP = 18
final answer, yet the wrong NOTE: The GPDC curves are for guidance only. Interpolation of
the data points must be used to predict packing performance.
answer makes sense, so the
error is difficult to identify.
Figure 9. GPDC interpolation chart for #1.5(M) Raschig Super-Ring with pressure drop data.

CEP July 2007 www.aiche.org/cep 33

Distillation

parameter of 0.022, about 1.73. The percent of flood is
1.25 × 100/1.73 = 72%. Thus, the existing packing (#1.5
(M) Raschig Super-Ring) will comfortably achieve the
required retrofit flowrates.
6. Calculate the pressure drop. Locate a point on the chart
whose abscissa is the flow parameter (0.022) and whose ordi-
nate is the capacity parameter (1.25). At that point, the pres-
sure drop is about 0.35 in. H2O/ft of packing. For a 20-ft bed,
the total pressure drop is 0.35 × 20 = 7 in. H2O.
7. Evaluate the structured packing for the retrofit. For
this calculation, Steps 1–3 are the same as above. Steps 4–6
are repeated based on Figures 4 and 5. This produces the
results shown in the table on the previous page.
8. Compare the pressure drops in Steps 6 and 7. A pres-
sure drop reduction of 0.10–0.13 in. H2O/ft of packing
can be expected. This will save about 2–2.5 in. H2O over
the 20-ft bed.
This small pressure drop reduction is unlikely to be ben-
eficial enough to justify the cost of a structured packing
retrofit in this tower. However, if the structured packings
can also offer a significant efficiency improvement, such a
retrofit may be justified.
Example 2: How important is the packing factor?
Suppose that for Example 1 a grossly excessive packing
factor was used. Figure 10 shows an excessive packing fac-
tor of 27 for the same packing, #1.5(M) Raschig Super-
Ring (the correct chart has a packing factor of 18). What
impact would this have on the calculation?
Solution. Steps 1–3 are the same as in Example 1. The
3.0
2.8
2.6 ∆P, in. H2O/ft
2.4
∆P = 1.5
2.2
Capacity Parameter
remaining steps are different and are based on Figure 10.
4. Calculate the capacity parameter. Eq. 1 gives
CP = 0.299 × 27 0.5 × 0.78 0.05 = 1.53.
5. Calculate the flood point. Figure 10 does not contain
flood data, so Eq. 4 is used to obtain ∆PFl = 0.12 × 27 0.7 =
1.21 in. H2O/ft of packing. The flood capacity parameter is
the ordinate at this flood pressure drop and the flow param-
eter of 0.022, about 2.27. Therefore, the percent of flood is
1.53 × 100/2.27 = 67%.
So a packing factor increase of 50% changes the calcu-
lated flood point only by 7%. This change is entirely due to
the effect of packing factor on the flood point per Eq. 4.
The flood point would not have been impacted had flood
data been present on the chart.
6. Calculate the pressure drop. Locate a point on Figure
10 whose abscissa is the flow parameter (0.022) and whose
ordinate is the capacity parameter (1.53). At that point, the
pressure drop is about 0.35 in. H2O/ft of packing. For a 20-
ft bed, the total pressure drop is 0.35 × 20 = 7 in. H2O. This
is the same as the pressure drop calculated with the correct
packing factor of 18.
Misuse #2: Packing factors from different sources should
not be mixed. The GPDC interpolation charts are simple plots
of measured C-factors against flow parameters at constant
pressure drops. Due to the low power, the kinematic viscosity
has little impact. The packing factors play the sole role of
moving the data points up or down relative to the curves, but
the data, not the curves, are being interpolated. For a given
packing, the packing factor is simply a constant on the ordi-
nate. As long as the packing factor used in the calculation
is the same as that used in and
listed on the chart (as in Ex-
amples 1 and 2), it plays no role
Legend for Data Points
in the pressure drop calculation.
∆P = 1.5 in. H2O/ft
∆P = 1.0 in. H O/ft If Eq. 4 is used, the packing fac-
2

2.0 ∆P = 0.5 in. H2O/ft tor plays a small role in the

1.0 ∆P = 0.25 in. H2O/ft flood calculation.
1.8
∆P = 0.10 in. H2O/ft
1.6 In preparing the charts,
Flood MOC
1.4 0.5 packing factors were carefully
1.2
chosen to move the data closest
1.0 0.25
0.8 to the curves. This minimizes
0.6 0.10 errors in the use of Eq. 4. For
0.4 the pressure drop interpolation,
0.2 the closer the data match the
0.0
0.005 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.50 1.00 5.00
curves, the better the curves
Flow Parameter can guide the interpolation. For
Basis: FP = 27
the pressure drop interpolation,
NOTE: The GPDC curves are for guidance only. Interpolation of any packing factor (within rea-
the data points must be used to predict packing performance.
son) could have been picked
and the same pressure drop

Figure 10. GPDC chart for #1.5(M) Raschig Super-Ring with a grossly excessive packing factor. result obtained.

34 www.aiche.org/cep July 2007 CEP

Example 3: Pressure drop
calculation beyond flood
Misuse #3: Pressure drop calculation above the flood
point is invalid. The GPDC interpolation charts are excel-
lent predictors of pressure drop when the column is
unflooded. However, once flooded, the variation in pressure
drop becomes totally unpredictable. Often, flood is accom-
panied by a sharp rise in pressure drop, yet in other cases,
packing flood occurs with no sharp change in pressure drop
(28). So any attempt to predict pressure drop of a flooded
tower is wrong.
Figure 11, based on Ref. 29, is a classic example of this
misuse. For this packing (Flexipac 2Y), there were quite a
few flood data points plotted on the GPDC chart in the rele-
vant region (10), measured by the Separation Research
Program (SRP) at the Univ. of Texas in Austin (30).
Interpolation of these flood data would give a flood point
vapor rate 9.5% higher than the experimental flood point,
yet the calculation displayed on Figure 11 (27) extended to
more than 30% above the measured flood point! The por-
tion of the graph between 9.5% and 32% above the GPDC
flood point is totally invalid.
The difference between the valid portion of the calculat-
ed curve and the experimental curve in Figure 11 is
addressed in the next example.
test program published by Koch Engineering (24) in 1982
and used in its catalogs for over a decade (25). Recent Koch-
Glitsch publications (21, 26) substituted new data, some
from the same test unit, showing significantly higher pres-
sure drops for each packing from the same family.
Figures 12a and 12b illustrate the differences. It is not
clear why the pressure drop of this packing has risen in the
last decade or so. It is clear that charts based on the 1982 data
are too optimistic to predict the “best and latest” pressure-
drop measurements supported by the vendor. The existing
GPDC charts for the packing do not adequately reflect the
new data (29) because they are based on the old data. Thus,
Figure 8, as well as Charts 10.6102R1 through 10.6108R1 in
Ref. 1 (R1 stands for Revision 1), are revised charts for the
Flexipac 1Y, 2Y, 3Y and 4Y based on the new data.
Unlike the changed pressure-drop calculation, the flood
prediction of the superseded GPDC interpolation chart for
Flexipac 2Y is quite close to the measured flood point
(within 10%). This is because the flood point interpolation
is based on flood-point data measured by SRP (30) that
were not affected by the pressure-drop data substitution.
It is, therefore, most important to be alert to data changes
and reliability. Fortunately, data changes for a given packing
do not happen too often.

Example 4: GPDC interpolation 1.60

Pressure Drop, in. H2O/ft

McNulty and Hsieh (24)

can only be as good as its database McNulty and Sommerfeldt (21)
1.20
There is nothing magic about GPDC interpolation. As
stated earlier, the kinematic viscosity and packing factors 0.80
play minor, if any, roles. What is being interpolated is the
measured data. Therefore, if GPDC interpolation starts giv- 0.40
ing unsatisfactory predictions, reviewing the data should be
high on the troubleshooting list. 0.00
The lower curves on Figures 12a and 12b show samples 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Cs, ft/s
of the pressure drop data that were used to derive the GPDC
charts for two sizes of Flexipac Y packing. These data were
Figure 12a. Flexipac 1Y metal structured packing pressure drop
taken from the measurements obtained in a very extensive vs. C-factor (air-water, 10 gpm/ft2, Koch/Koch-Glitsch data).

1.60
Pressure Drop, in. H2O/ft

1.4 McNulty and Hsieh (24)

Pressure Drop, in. H2O/ft

GPDC KFP-5 (26)

1.2 Vendorʼs New Test Data 1.20
1
0.8 0.80
0.6 Misuse #3
0.40
0.4
GPDC
0.2 Flood Point 0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 Cs, ft/s
Fraction of Measured Flood

Figure 12b. Flexipac 2Y metal structured packing pressure drop

Figure 11. Incorrect application of GPDC beyond the flood point. vs. C-factor (air-water, 10 gpm/ft2, Koch/Koch-Glitsch data).

CEP July 2007 www.aiche.org/cep 35

Distillation

Example 5: Flood or no flood? Extrapolation is required, and uncertainty exists. It is

A refinery crude tower has a 14-ft i.d., but its packed
stripping section is contained in a 5-ft-i.d. cylinder (or
“can”). The packed bed is 10 ft tall. The plant is measuring
a pressure drop of 13–20 in. H2O across the bed. Evaluation
by others using proprietary software concluded that the bed
should be operating at 87% of flood with a pressure drop of
8 in. H2O. The vapor and liquid loading are highest at the
top of the bed, and gradually diminish moving downward.
At the bottom of the bed, the vapor loads are about half
those at the top. Operating conditions at the top of the bed
are: G = 77,000 lb/h, ρG = 0.45 lb/ft3, L = 580,000 lb/h,
ρL = 41 lb/ft3, and µL = 3 cP.
Solution. Figure 13 is the GPDC interpolation chart for
this packing and the basis for the calculation.
1. Calculate the flow parameter. From Eq. 3,
Flv = (580,000/77,000)(0.45/41)0.5 = 0.79.
2. Calculate the C-factor from Eq. 2. AT = (π/4)52 =
19.64 ft2. US = 77,000/(3,600 × 0.45 × 19.64) = 2.42 ft/s.
CS = 2.42[0.45/(41– 0.45)]0.5 = 0.255 ft/s.
3. Calculate the kinematic viscosity. ν = 3/(41/62.4)
= 4.57 cSt.
4. Calculate the capacity parameter. Based on a pack-
ing factor of 10 as shown in Figure 13, CP = 0.255 ×
4.570.05 × 100.5 = 0.87.
5. Plot the flow parameter on the abscissa and the capac-
ity parameter on the ordinate to identify the operating point
on Figure 13. This figure shows that the operating point in
this tower falls in a region where the flow parameter is high-
er than the range at which data are available for this packing.
quite possible that the vendor has little data in this zone,
and any proprietary predictions are likely to be uncertain.
The strength of the GPDC is that it does give this warning
to the user, whereas the proprietary program does not.
Fortunately, flood data (measured by the packing ven-
dor) are available all the way to a flow parameter of 0.56,
and from there to 0.79 the extrapolation only needs to
travel a short path. Also, the flood data appear to trend
well, and should give a reasonable prediction, despite the
uncertainty. The flood data extrapolate to a capacity
parameter of about 0.8 at a flow parameter of 0.79. From
this, the percent of flood = 100 × 0.87/0.8 = 109%.
Unlike the proprietary method, the GPDC interpola-
tion procedure predicted flooding at the operating condi-
tions. Considering that the high loads were only at the
top of the bed, the entire pressure drop of unflooded
packing in this service should have been less than 3–5 in.
H2O, as can be calculated from Figure 13 and integrated
over the bed. The actual measured pressure drop was
about four times higher.
In this case, the GPDC interpolation calculation also
invalidated a proposed revamp with a more open packing.
While it was estimated that the new packing would operate
at 88% of flood, the GPDC interpolation chart for the pro-
posed packing showed that although the more open pack-
ing would satisfactorily handle current conditions, it would
experience flooding at the revamp loads. On this basis, the
stripping section cylinder (can) was replaced with a larger
one, and trouble-free operation was achieved.

Example 6:
3.0 Extrapolating data
2.8
2.6 ∆P, in. H2O/ft Legend for Data Points Consider again Example 5.
2.4 ∆P = 1.5 in. H2O/ft Would a retrofit with Flexipac
∆P = 1.5 ∆P = 1.0 in. H2O/ft
Capacity Parameter

2.2 3X permit current operation

2.0 ∆P = 0.5 in. H2O/ft
1.8 1.0 ∆P = 0.25 in. H2O/ft without flooding?
∆P = 0.10 in. H2O/ft Solution. The GPDC inter-
1.6
Flood MOC
1.4 0.5 polation chart for Flexipac 3X
1.2 is shown in Figure 7 and is the
1.0 0.25 Operating Point basis for this calculation. Flv,
0.8
0.6 0.10
CS and ν are the same as in
0.4 Example 4. For Flexipac 3X,
0.2 the packing factor is much
0.0 lower, FP = 5, so the capacity
0.005 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.50 1.00 5.00
parameter is CP = 0.255 ×
Flow Parameter
Basis: FP = 10 4.57 0.05 × 5 0.5 = 0.615. The
NOTE: The GPDC curves are for guidance only. Interpolation of point (0.79, 0.615) can be
the data points must be used to predict packing performance. plotted on Figure 7. In the
absence of flood data, Eq. 4 is

Figure 13. GPDC interpolation chart for packing in tower stripping section, showing an operating used for the flood pressure
point above flood.

36 www.aiche.org/cep July 2007 CEP

drop ∆PFl = 0.12 × 50.7 = 0.37 in. H2O/ft of packing.
The closest data points for this pressure drop are at
flow parameters of 0.3–0.4, much lower than the 0.79 in
the tower. The operating point is well outside the available
data range for Flexipac 3X. This interpolation chart is
unable to tell where the flood point is at a flow parameter
of 0.79. Therefore, the interpolation chart cannot tell
whether Flexipac 3X will permit operation at the current
loads without flooding.
Misuse #4: Any extrapolation must be performed with
good engineering judgment. In Example 5, the extrapolation
was to a nearby region, there were well-defined flood data,
and the data trends were clear. Although there was some
uncertainty, extrapolation could be expected to yield a rea-
sonable estimate. In Example 6, however, there were no
flood data, the operating point was quite far from the pres-
sure-drop data points, and the data trends were not complete-
Literature Cited
1. Kister, H. Z., J. Scherffius, K. Afshar, and E. Abkar, “GPDC
Interpolation: Use, Misuse, and Updates,” in “Distillation 2007:
Continuing the Heritage of John Kunesh, Mich Sakata, Frits
Zuiderweg, Bill Bolles and Nick Chopey,” Proceedings of Topical
Conference, AIChE Spring Meeting, Houston, TX (Apr. 2007).
2. Sherwood, T. K., G. H. Shipley, and F. A. L. Holloway, “Flood-
ing Velocities in Packed Columns,” Ind. Eng. Chem., 30 (7),
pp. 765–769 (1938).
3. Lobo, W. E., L. Friend, H. Hashmall, and F. A. Zenz, “Limit-
ing Capacity of Dumped Tower Packings,” Trans. AIChE, 41,
pp. 693–710 (1945).
4. Leva, M., “Flow Through Irrigated Dumped Packings,” Chem. Eng.
Progress Symp. Ser., 50 (10), pp. 51–59 (1954).
5. Eckert, J. S., “Tower Packings … Comparative Performance,”
Chem. Eng. Progress, 59 (5), pp. 76–82 (May 1963).
6. Eckert, J. S., “Selecting the Proper Distillation Column Packing,”
Chem. Eng. Progress, 66 (3), pp. 39–44 (Mar. 1970).
7. Eckert, J. S., “How Tower Packings Behave,” Chem. Eng.,
pp. 70–76 (Apr. 14, 1975).
8. Strigle, R. F., Jr., “Packed Tower Design and Applications,” 2nd
ed., Gulf Publishing, Houston, TX (1994) (1st ed. was published
in 1987).
9. Perry, R. H., and D. Green, “Chemical Engineers’ Handbook,”
8th ed., McGraw-Hill, NY (to be published in 2007).
10. Kister, H. Z., “Distillation Design,” McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY (1992).
11. Kister, H. Z., and D. R. Gill, “Flooding and Pressure Drop
Prediction for Structured Packings,” IChemE Symp. Ser. 128, pp.
A109–A123 (1992).
12. Kister, H. Z., K. F. Larson. and D. R. Gill, “More Interpolation
Charts for Predicting Packing Flood and Pressure Drop,” presented
at the AIChE Spring National Meeting, Houston, TX (Mar. 1995).
13. Souders, M., Jr., and G. G. Brown, “Design of Fractionating
Columns,” Ind. Eng. Chem., 26 (1), pp. 98–103 (1934).
14. Kister, H. Z., and D. R. Gill, “Predict Flood Points and Pressure
Drop for Modern Random Packings,” Chem. Eng. Progress, 87 (2),
pp. 32–42 (Feb. 1991).
15. Zenz, F. A., “What Every Engineer Should Know About Packed
Tower Operation,” Chem. Eng., pp. 176–184, (Aug. 1953).
16. Strigle, R. F., Jr., and F. Rukovena, Jr., “Packed Distillation
Column Design,” Chem. Eng. Progress, 75 (3), pp. 86–91
(Mar. 1979).
ly clear at the higher flow parameter. Under such circum-
stances, extrapolation is unreliable and must be avoided.
Example 7: Unrealistic predictions
This example presents several experiences in which pre-
dictions for a packed tower by the vendor and by simulators
were optimistic. In each of these, Eq. 4 gave an excellent
prediction for the maximum capacity.
Tower A. This chemical tower, equipped with wire-mesh
structured packing with a packing factor of 21, ran com-
pletely smoothly until reaching a pressure drop of 1 in.
H2O/ft of packing. It would then rapidly lose efficiency,
exactly as predicted by Eq. 4. Simulation (both vendor-spe-
cific and general options) predicted a much higher capacity.
Tower B. This chemical tower, equipped with random
packing with a packing factor of 18, rapidly lost efficiency
when the pressure drop increased above 0.67 in. H2O/ft of
17. Mackowiak, J., Fluiddynamik von Kolonnen mit Modernen
Füllkörpern und Packungen für Gas/Flüssigkeitssysteme, Otto Salle
Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, und Verlag Sauerländer, Aarau,
Frankfurt am Main (1991).
18. Robbins, L. A., “Improve Pressure-Drop Prediction With a New
Correlation,” Chem. Eng. Progress, 87 (5), pp. 87–91 (May 1991).
19. Lockett, M. J., R. A. Victor, and J. F. Billingham, “Structured
Packing Flooding: Its Measurement and Prediction,” in “Distillation
and Absorption 2006,” IChemE Symp. Ser., 152, pp. 400–408 (2006).
20. Pilling, M., and L. Spiegel, “Design Characteristics and Test
Validation for High Performance Structured Packings,” paper pre-
sented at the John Kunesh Distillation Honors Session, AIChE
Annual Meeting, Reno, NV (Nov. 2001).
21. McNulty, K., and R. A. Sommerfeldt, “New Twist Adds Capacity
to Flexipac Structured Packings,” in “Distillation: Horizons for the
New Millennium,” Topical Conference Proceedings, pp. 89–101,
AIChE Spring Meeting, Houston, TX (Mar. 1999).
22. Schultes, M., and S. Chamber, “How to Surpass Conventional and
High Capacity Structured Packings with Raschig Super-Pak,”
Chem. Eng. Res. and Des., 85 (A1), pp. 118–129 (Jan. 2007).
23. Olujic, Z., A. F. Seibert, B. Kaibel, H. Jansen, T. Rietfort, and
E. Zich, “Performance Characteristics of a New High Capacity
Packing,” Chem. Eng. and Proc., 42, pp. 55–60 (2003).
24. McNulty, K., and C. L. Hsieh, “Hydraulic Performance and Efficien-
cy of Koch Flexipac Structured Packings,” paper presented at the
1982 Annual Meeting of the AIChE, Los Angeles, CA. (Nov. 1982).
25. Koch Engineering Co., “Flexipac Structured Packing,” Bulletin
KFP-3, Wichita, KS (1989).
26. Koch-Glitsch LP, “Flexipac Structured Packing,” Bulletin KFP-5,
Wichita, KS (1997).
27. Cooling, M., and M. Neuman, “Hyperfil Knitted Mesh Tower
Packing — A High-Efficiency Leader for the Future,” in
“Distillation 2005: Learning from the Past and Advancing the
Future,” Topical Conference Proceedings, pp. 389–399, AIChE
Spring Meeting, Atlanta, GA (Apr. 2005).
28. Kister, H. Z., “Distillation Troubleshooting” Wiley, Hoboken,
NJ (2006).
29. Koch-Glitsch LP, “KG-TOWER — Reliably Predicting Packed
Tower Pressure Capacity and Pressure Drop,” Koch Glitsch
Newsletter,Wichita, KS (4th Qtr, 2006).
30. Fair, J. R., and J. L. Bravo, “Distillation Columns Containing Struc-
tured Packings,” Chem. Eng. Progress, 86 (1), pp. 19–29 (Jan. 1990).
CEP July 2007 www.aiche.org/cep 37
Distillation
packing. This compares to a flood pressure drop of 0.9 from
Eq. 4. The measurement was slightly lower than the predic-
tion because the vapor load was high only near the top of
the packings, so much of the bed operated at a lower pres-
sure drop. Simulations (using various options) predicted a
much higher capacity. The plant initially theorized that the
shortfall in capacity was due to vapor maldistribution.
Tower C. This chemical absorber was equipped with ran-
dom packing with a packing factor of 18. The highest pres-
sure drop at which operation was stable was 0.8 in. H2O/ft
of packing. Above this, the pressure drop would rise rapidly.
This compares to a flood pressure drop of 0.9 from Eq. 4.
Simulation predictions (both vendor and general options)
were of a 20% higher capacity.
Tower D. Random packing installed in a chemical tower
fell short of achieving the design capacity. The vendor
method predicted flooding at a pressure drop of 1.5 in.
H2O/ft of packing. With a packing factor of 18, Eq. 4 pre-
dicted that the packing would flood significantly earlier, at a
pressure drop of 0.9 in. H2O/ft of packing. The packing
flooded exactly at that pressure drop. CEP
www.aiche.org/cep or Circle No.123
38 www.aiche.org/cep July 2007 CEP
HENRY Z. KISTER is a Fluor Corp. senior fellow and director of fractionation
technology at Fluor Corp. (3 Polaris Way, Aliso Viejo, CA 92698; Phone:
(949) 349-4679; E-mail: henry.kister@fluor.com). He has over 30 years of
experience in design, troubleshooting, revamping, field consulting, control
and startup of fractionation processes and equipment. He is the author of
three books and 80 articles, and has taught the IChemE-sponsored
“Practical Distillation Technology” course more than 300 times. A recipient
of several awards, Kister obtained his BE and ME degrees from the Univ. of
New South Wales in Australia. He is a Fellow of IChemE and AIChE, and
serves on the Fractionation Research Institute’s Technical Advisory and
Design Practices Committees.
JEFFREY SCHERFFIUS is a senior process engineer at Fluor. He has nine years
of experience with various gas-processing technologies, including
hydrogen manufacture, carbon dioxide recovery and sequestration, and
ammonia manufacture. He has also worked on several column
troubleshooting and debottlenecking projects. Scherffius received his BS
in chemical engineering from the Univ. of California, San Diego and is a
registered professional engineer in California.
KHASHAYAR (KASH) AFSHAR is an associate process engineer at Fluor. He
has one year of experience in carbon dioxide capture technology. He
received his BS in chemical engineering and materials science and
engineering from the Univ. of California, Berkeley and his MS in chemical
engineering from Stanford Univ.
EMIL ABKAR is an associate process engineer at Fluor. He has more than ten
years of engineering experience in oil and gas processing, petroleum
refining, heavy oil upgrading and petrochemical plants, with expertise in
linear alkyl benzene and hydrogen manufacture. Abkar holds a BSc from
Isfahan Univ. of Technology in Iran, and a Master’s from the Univ. of
Southern California, both in chemical engineering. He is a member of AIChE.