Chemical Engineering Science 68 (2012) 624–639

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ces

Operation and dynamic behavior of wire mesh pads

A. Eddie Setekleiv, Hallvard F. Svendsen n
Department of Chemical Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Holdup distribution, pressure drop, separation efficiencies and droplet separation characteristics of six
Received 20 May 2011 different wire mesh pads were investigated experimentally. One of the mesh pads was tested with and
Received in revised form without a small gas bypass at the wall. The liquid holdup was recorded at minimum five locations
20 September 2011
inside the pads. The holdup distribution in the mesh pads were tested for time dependency. Separation
Accepted 12 October 2011
Available online 18 October 2011
efficiencies and droplet size distribution for the empty column was also investigated. The results show
variations in the holdup profile of the pads depending on running time, pad geometry, gas velocity and
Keywords: measuring position. A new equation was derived and a new parameter proposed to describe the
Multiphase flow characteristics of mesh pad operations.
Particle
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Droplet
Porous media
Mesh pad
Souders Brown equation

1. Introduction 2. Theory

Wire mesh pads are used in many chemical engineering and
oil production applications for removal of droplets. Increasing
capacity in a process plant or a gas/oil processing facility may
result in higher concentrations of droplets in a gas stream and
subsequently these droplets have to be removed. For downstream
equipment such as pumps and compressors, droplets in the gas
stream may result in poorer performance and possible breakdown
of the equipment. In other cases there is a desire to recover
precious products suspended in the gas stream. Mesh pads are
ideal for removal of fine mists and sprays.
Gas flows containing small fractions of liquid and with droplet
size distributions in the range of 52100 mm are considered
appropriate for wire mesh pad operation. Mesh pads are able to
separate droplets down to a cut size of 2210 mm depending on
the design of the mesh pad and operating conditions. A wire-
mesh can also be used as a coalescer and pre-conditioner for
down-stream equipment. Properties characterizing mesh pads are
low pressure drop, high porosity and long service life. An over-
view of mesh pad selection criteria is given by Fabian et al.
(1993a, 1993b) and Anonymous (2005). They examine droplet
capture, structure of the wire mesh packing, design equations and
industrial applications of wire mesh pads.
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ47 73 59 41 00; fax: þ47 73 59 40 80.
E-mail address: hallvard.svendsen@chemeng.ntnu.no (H.F. Svendsen).
The theoretical tools used when characterizing wire mesh pads
is the Stokes number and the Souders Brown equation. In the
following section a brief review of the Stokes number and the
Souders Brown equation are given. For a thorough examination of
the origin of these two variables see Setekleiv et al. (2010).
A more rigorous derivation of the parameters affecting mesh
pad operations is derived herein where the effect of surface
tension is emphasized. A presentation of the operating regimes
for wire mesh pads is also given.
2.1. Droplet capture
The main purpose of a wire mesh pad is to separate droplets
from gas flows. The gas stream moves freely through the pad, but
if the inertia of the droplets is sufficient they impact on the wires.
The main mechanisms as stated by Holmes and Chen (1984) are:
 inertial capture of droplets;
 direct interception.
Inertial capture, also called inertial impaction, is a process
whereby droplets leave the streamline around a target and impact
the target. Sufficient inertia is needed for inertial impaction to
occur. Inertial capture is the dominant mechanism for mesh pad
operation and is governed by the Stokes number:
2
ðrl rg ÞU g dp
Stk ¼ ð1Þ
18mg dw

0009-2509/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ces.2011.10.027
 A.E. Setekleiv, H.F. Svendsen / Chemical Engineering Science 68 (2012) 624–639
Fig. 1. Operational regimes in wire mesh pad operations. I. Gravitational settling
regime. II. Pre-flooding regime. III. Flooding regime. IV. Re-entrainment regime.
Here ðrl rg Þ has been included to account for the gas phase
influence on droplet separation (Hoffmann and Stein, 2002). The
target diameter is dw , dp is the droplet diameter, mg the gas
viscosity and U g is the gas phase velocity. Direct interception is a
mechanism that occurs when a droplet follows the streamline and
is collected when it sweeps close to the target.
The effect of direct interception is described by Lunde and
Lapple (1957);
dp
C¼
dw
where dp is the particle diameter and dw denotes the wire
diameter. Direct interception is not dependent on droplet velocity.
2.2. K-value
The concept of K-value was developed by Souders and Brown
(1934). In essence it is a force balance comprising the drag force
and the gravity force acting on a droplet suspended in a gas flow
field. Souders and Brown (1934) assumed that the K-value would
be scalable to different flow fields by assuming that some of the
values in the derivation were constant:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
4gdp rg
K¼ ¼ Ug ð3Þ
3C d rl rg
Here U g can be seen as the terminal velocity, i.e. the velocity
at which the drag force balance the gravity force. In this state a
given droplet would be suspended in the gas flow field. The
K-value is used to describe the different operational regimes of a
wire mesh pad. The characteristic regimes are:
 Gravitational settling.
 Pre-flooding.
 Flooding.
 Re-entrainment regime.
Fig. 1 gives the characteristic pressure drop profile and the
specific regions for the given regimes, see Setekleiv et al. (2010)
for details.
2.3. Effect of surface tension in mesh pads
York (1954) established the use of Souders–Brown equation
for wire mesh pad evaluation. He did not consider the effect of
surface tension on wire mesh demister design and this has not
received any special attention in the literature on wire mesh pads.
In order to analyze the effect of surface tension, a force balance on
an arbitrary liquid ligament suspended in a wire network was
considered, Fig. 2. The ligament is considered steady state. As in
the Souders–Brown equation the effect of gravity and the influ-
ence of the gas phase have to be considered. The wires are
625
Fσ,sl
Fτ,lg
Fσ,gl
FG
Fig. 2. Force balance on an arbitrary liquid ligament suspended in a network
of wires.
assumed to be perpendicular to the flow direction. Gravity, F G ,
and the drag experienced by the ligament, F t,gl , are opposing
forces. Gravity tugs at the ligament downwards while the shear
ð2Þ between the liquid and the gas results in an upward force. The
surface tension forces acting on the ligament oppose the external
forces on the drop and keep the droplet coherent. The surface
tension forces include the liquid gas inter-facial tension, F s,lg , and
the surface tension forces of the wire-liquid interface, F s,lg . de
Gennes et al. (2004) described interactions between a solid
substrate and a liquid film of thickness e, with a free surface
exposed to a gas, in terms of energy per unit surface area:
dE
¼ ssl þ slg þ PðeÞ ð4Þ
dA
where P(e) represents a function dependent on the thickness of
the liquid film. de Gennes et al. (2004) assumed that as the
thickness of the film increases, Pð1Þ converges to 0. Above a film
thickness of 100 nm the term is negligible and it is assumed that
Pð1Þ ¼ 0 at the surface of the liquid ligament. The surface forces
due to interfacial tension forces on the ligament then take the
form
F s,surface ¼ f ssl ksl @A þ slg klg @A ð5Þ
where f is a function dependent on the properties of the wires
embedded in the liquid ligament. At equilibrium we may write
F s,lg þ F s,sl þ F t,gl ¼ F G ð6Þ
Here the inter-facial tension forces oppose the external force. If
we consider a vertical up-flow separator operating in a regime
where gravity dominates and liquid drains from the wires the
inter-facial tension forces will act co-currently with the gas flow.
However if the gas–liquid shear dominates over gravity, the
surface tension will work in the direction of gravity, and the
surface tension forces will be opposite to the flow direction.
Taking the forces at the liquid solid interface into special con-
sideration:
F s,sl ¼ ssl ksl @Asl ð7Þ
In order to simplify Eq. (6) it would be convenient to deter-
mine the area of the liquid solid interface, @Asl , as a function of the
volume of the liquid ligament, @V lg . To facilitate this transforma-
tion in Eq. (7) a new parameter, pw , the wire packing density, was
specified. The wire packing density, pw , [m/m3], is the length of
wire divided by mesh pad volume. By implementing this para-
meter we can describe the area of the liquid solid interface
626 A.E. Setekleiv, H.F. Svendsen / Chemical Engineering Science 68 (2012) 624–639
in terms of ligament volume @V lg and circumference of the wires:
@Asl ¼ 2ppw r w @V lg
If we combine Eqs. (7) and (8) introducing the curvature of a
cylinder, ksl ¼ 1=r w , we obtain an expression for the forces at the
liquid solid interface:
F s,sl ¼ 2ppw ssl @V lg
If we combine this with Eq. (6) and introduce the more rigorous
implementation of the other forces we can write
slg klg @Alg þ 2ppw ssl @V lg þ 12C d rg U 2g @Alg ¼ Drg@V lg
where we for simplicity consider that the forces in Eq. (6) are in
equilibrium. By dividing by @V lg and introducing the geometric
definition of curvature:
@A 1 flanges and packings.
k¼ ¼ ð11Þ
@V @r
Eq. (10) simplifies to
slg k2lg þ 2ppw ssl þ 12C d rg U 2g klg ¼ Drg
Eq. (12) shows a more faceted and detailed picture of mesh pad
operation than the Souders Brown equation. It introduces surface
tension of the liquid gas interface which most certainly should
have an impact on mesh pad design. It also connects the effect of
gravity and shear forces between the gas liquid interface with the
effect of surface tension forces. The influence of the liquid solid
interface is shown and it introduces a new parameter, the wire
packing density. By introducing the wire packing density only one
curvature is needed, klg , which simplifies the equations. klg is
related to the volume of the liquid ligament and should be related
to the amount of liquid trapped inside a wire mesh pad. In Fig. 3
an evaluation has been performed showing how the gas velocity
and wire packing density affect the curvature at the gas liquid
interface. It should be noted that the curvature scales as  D2 =D3 ,
if we consider the ligament as a sphere. This implies that when
the curvature decreases the volume of a liquid ligament increases.
In Fig. 3(a) it is seen that when the gas velocity increases, the
curvature decreases and thus the gas flow should sustain larger
liquid ligaments. The same effect is seen in Fig. 3(b) as the wire
packing density increases, the curvature decreases and thus a
higher wire packing density is able to sustain larger liquid
ligaments. These qualitative predictions are thus able to indicate
how different parameters will affect wire mesh pad operations.
The dependency of these parameters on mesh pad design is
discussed in Section 5. If we divide Eq. (12) by k2lg we may write
360
355
Curvature, κlg [m−1]
350
345
340
335
330
0 0.03 0.06 0.09
K−value [m/s]
Fig. 3. The effect of varying velocity and the wire packing density upon curvature for an arbitrary liquid ligament suspended in a wire network. (a) shows the effect of
varying velocity when the wire packing density, pw , is 335 000 m/m3. (b) shows the effect of varying wire packing density when the K-value is 0.05 m/s.
the relation in terms of a characteristic length scale:
1 2 1
ð8Þ ð2ppw ssl DrgÞk2
lg þ 2C d rg U g klg þ slg ¼ 0 ð13Þ
Eq. (13) is similar to the capillary length as proposed by
Batchelor (1967) which relates the magnitude of gravity forces
to capillary forces. Capillary length has been used by Lorenceau
ð9Þ et al. (2006) to normalize the size of droplets draining from a wire
in a gravitational field. Similarly Eq. (13) may be used to normal-
ize quantities such as flooding point and size of draining droplets.
ð10Þ 3. Experimental apparatus
The mesh pads were mounted in a column with an inner
diameter of 102.5 mm in a vertical position, a typical scrubber
configuration. The column was made of seven parts connected by
The gas was fed through a horizontal pipe mounted 901 on the
column and liquid was fed through a pneumatic nozzle above the
inlet and centered in the middle of the pipe, see Fig. 4. The flow
ð12Þ was measured by a volume flow transmitter, Flowtech DMV 6331.
Liquid entering the column was pumped by a ABVS 2-130
centrifugal pump and fed through a Lechler pneumatic nozzle.
The gas pressure to the nozzle was kept constant at a gas pressure
of 2.5 bar. The gas used to atomize the liquid was measured using
a direct mass flow meter, a Kobold WFM-22064M120, with an
accuracy of 3% ð 7 6 N l=minÞ of full scale and the pressure was
measured with a Fuji pressure transmitter, FCX-C, with an
accuracy 0.1% of full scale. The flow of liquid was measured with
a rotating flow meter, DPM-1507N22343, with an accuracy of 1%
of full scale.
The mesh pads were all mounted inside a section of transpar-
ent PMMA, with a diameter of 100 mm, to allow visual inspection
of pad operation. Four rods around the section served to hold the
weight exerted by the top part of the column. The rods also served
as mounting for a gamma densitometer, see Fig. 8. The liquid that
penetrated the mesh was collected by a separator, and by turning
a valve downstream of the separator the liquid could be collected
in a basin for measuring the total amount of liquid penetrating the
mesh pad. The liquid moving downwards inside the column was
collected in a tank and recycled to the nozzle. For a full overview
of the system see Fig. 4. The pressure drop over the wire mesh was
measured using a differential pressure transmitter from Fuji, FCX-C
with an accuracy of 0.1% of the total span ð 7 3:4 PaÞ.
A total of six different mesh pads were tested, Fig. 5. They were
all located 112 cm above the air inlet. The geometric properties of
the pads are given in Table 1. The pads were all made of stainless
370
Curvature, κlg [m−1]
355
340
325
310
0.12 0.15 0 3 6 9 12
Wire packing density [m/m3] x 105
 A.E. Setekleiv, H.F. Svendsen / Chemical Engineering Science 68 (2012) 624–639 627

Fig. 4. Layout of the experimental apparatus.

Fig. 5. Five of the wire mesh pads investigated. From rear left: LPB10, LPC10, LPA15, LPA5 and LPA7.

Table 1
Geometrical properties of six wire mesh pads.

Mesh (–) Height (mm) Dmesh (mm) dw (mm) rmesh (kg/m3) a

rmesh (kg/m3) Smesh (kg/m3) a
Smesh (kg/m3) E (%) Ea (%) pw (kg/m3)

LPA05 50 100 0.27 186.66 158 344.37 267 97.68 98.0 405.99
LPA07 70 100 0.27 162.96 158 300.64 267 97.97 98.0 354.44
LPA10 100 100 0.27 153.30 158 282.82 267 98.09 98.0 333.43
LPA15 150 100 0.27 154.05 158 284.22 267 98.08 98.0 335.07
LPB10 100 100 0.15 178.50 145 592.76 542 97.78 98.0 1257.88
LPC10 100 100 0.15 87.20 80 289.59 271 98.91 99.0 614.54

a
Values given by the manufacturer.

steel wire and were of a rolled configuration. They ranged in metal rods situated closest to the knitting, see Fig. 6. The purpose
porosities from 97.64% to 98.9%, and the range of heights was of using different mesh pads was to investigate how their
from 50 mm to 150 mm. Wire mesh pad height was fixed by different characteristics affected separation performance.
628 A.E. Setekleiv, H.F. Svendsen / Chemical Engineering Science 68 (2012) 624–639

All mesh pads were made by Costacurta S.p.A Vico. The mesh
pads were weighed and surface areas, porosities and densities
were calculated and compared with the specifications given by
the vendor, see Table 1. The parameters specified by the manu-
facturer may differ somewhat from the real geometric parameters
of the mesh pads, as discussed by Helsør and Svendsen (2007) and
shown in Table 1.
3.1. Laser diffraction particle sizer
A laser diffraction particle sizer was used to characterize the
ability of the mesh pads to separate droplets from the gas stream.
Diffraction particle sizing is used in a wide range to give accurate
measurements of particle sizes in many applications. The method
is usually applicable for a particle range from 0.1 to 3000 mm
depending on the setup of the system (Merkus, 2009). A particle
loading from 0.001 to 1.0 vol% is appropriate. The laser diffraction
technique applied is based on Mie scattering developed by Mie
(1908) as a particular solution to the Maxwell (1861, 1873)
equations. In order to solve for a spherical particle (Mie, 1908)
Fig. 6. The effective height of the wire mesh pads.
Fig. 7. Setup of the laser diffraction instrument. The test column is depicted in the
middle with window access port for the laser.
assumed that the particle had to be uniform and that the waves of
the incident light were of constant frequency, amplitude and
parallel. The intensity of the scattered light may then be seen as a
function of the wavelength, l, particle size dp and the relative
index of refraction n of a particle in a medium:
Iscattered ¼ Iincomming ðy, l,dp ,nÞ ð14Þ
When a particle is illuminated by a monochromatic source, e.g.
a He–Ne laser, a diffraction pattern is created. The angle of the
diffracted light wave depends on the particle size. The bigger the
particle, the lower the angle of the scattered light and vice versa
for smaller particles. By using an appropriate Fourier lens and a
detector, the angle of the scattered light can be measured and a
size for a specific particle can be given. When measuring on
multiple particles the solution of the Mie equation will often lead
to some smoothing of the results (Merkus, 2009). A rough sketch
of the mounting of the laser diffraction instrument is seen in
Fig. 7.
3.2. Gamma densitometry
To measure the holdup, or liquid fraction, inside the wire mesh
pads, a gamma densitometer was utilized. The apparatus con-
sisted of a Cs-137 source encapsulated by a 110 kg steel container
and a cylindrical detector containing a scintillation crystal, photo
multiplier tube and necessary hardware. The scintillation crystal
had a diameter of 32 mm which is reflected in the ranges of
positions given in Table 2. The principle operation of the gamma
densitometer is to measure the attenuation of gamma rays
produced by a radiation source, in this case Cs-137. Gamma rays
passing through a medium, e.g. water, steel, etc. are attenuated by
the media. By using a photo multiplier and scintillation crystal the
photon flux can be measured, and by using appropriate reference
counts, the density can be calculated. In this case a 0% liquid
reference count was done on all mesh pads with air at ambient
conditions. This was done for all measuring positions. The same
procedure was done for the 100% reference count, but now the
mesh pads were immersed in water at ambient conditions. This
gives a relationship between the attenuation of the two phases
(Linga, 1991):
Ig
¼ expðmi,g þ mi,l Þl ð15Þ
Il
In order to make a more accurate measurement the gamma
densitometer software corrected for temperature and background
radiation. The flux of gamma radiation from the source is a
random process so in order to reduce the random noise the signal
is smoothed using a rolling average with a specified time constant,
xi þ 1 Ai
Ai þ 1 ¼ Ai þ ð16Þ
t
where Ai þ 1 is the new rolling average, Ai is the previous rolling
average and xi þ 1 is the new measured value. For all the experi-
ments a time constant of 240 s was used. This was done to ensure
a low signal to noise error. The holdups of liquid in the mesh pads

Table 2
Measuring positions in different wire mesh pads, where 0 mm is the bottom of the pads.

Style mesh [–] LPA05 LPA07 LPA10 LPA15 LPB10 LPC10

Mesh height (mm) 50 70 100 150 100 100
Range position 1 (mm)  15–17  15–17  15–17  15–17  15–17  15–17
Range position 2 (mm)  10–22  5–27 5–37 5–37 5–37 5–37
Range position 3 (mm)  2.5–29.5 5–37 25-57 35–67 25–57 25–57
Range position 4 (mm) 5–37 20–52 45–77 65–97 45–77 45–77
Range position 5 (mm) 15–47 35–67 65–97 95–127 65–97 65–97
Range position 6 (mm) – – – 115–147 – –
 A.E. Setekleiv, H.F. Svendsen / Chemical Engineering Science 68 (2012) 624–639 629

were recorded for selected K-values and at least at five different
positions, as given in Table 1.
4. Uncertainty analysis of the gamma densitometry method
To establish the validity of using a gamma densitometer to
measure liquid holdup in wire mesh pads, a test of the repeat-
ability of the method was conducted. Mesh pad LPB10 was
mounted in the test column and the liquid fraction was recorded
at positions 1 and 2, the K-value was kept constant at 0.05 m/s and
the volume fraction of liquid in gas was 0.02 vol%. The first run
was done with the mesh pad out of the box and mounted in the
test column. In the second run the mesh pad was taken out of the
test column and left to dry in a drying cabinet overnight. The mesh
was then again mounted in the test column in the same position
and was kept running until the holdup stabilized. In the third run
the mesh pad was in a pre-wetted condition and was allowed to
run overnight. Table 3 shows the results of the repeatability tests.
It shows a very good repeatability of the method.
An analysis of standard deviation was performed on all the
holdup measurements to estimate the total dynamic error result-
ing from averaging time dependent quantities, as seen in Table 4.
It must be said that Table 4 has a bias towards measurements
made in the pre-flooding regime and especially towards measure-
ments taken just below the flooding point. Just below the flooding
point the flow is highly unstable and thus large fluctuations in
holdup are seen. The most extreme case being LPA15 which had a
standard deviation of 28.6% for position 6 at a K-value of 0.12 m/s.
A general observation from the results in Table 4 is that overall the
highest uncertainties are found in the top position in the pads. In
the re-entrainment regime the standard deviations are much
lower, in the range of 0.1–1%. Overall the dynamic uncertainty is
2.4%. Combining both the repeatability error and the dynamic
error gives a total uncertainty of 4.6% which is deemed acceptable.
5. Results and discussion
All experiments were conducted at 1 bar with air and water.
The fraction of liquid in the gas flow was kept constant at
0.02 vol%. Gas velocities in the range of K-values from 0.04 m/s
Table 3
Test of repeatability in LPB10. Liquid fraction measured for several runs.
Run Position 1 Position 2
Liq. fraction (–) Liq. fraction (–)
1 0.3057 0.5011
2 0.3239 0.5111
3 0.3233 0.5018
to 0.20 m/s were investigated. Most mesh pads were investigated
at K-values of 0.05, 0.08, 0.10, 0.15, 0.17 and at K-values of 0.13
and 0.20 m/s carryover and pressure drop were also recorded.
This was done in order to allow direct comparison of the result.
Most pads were also investigated at the flooding point, Table 7,
and at a K-value 0.005 m/s below the flooding point. The measur-
ing positions of the gamma densitometer, Table 2, were also
chosen to allow direct comparisons of liquid fraction for some of
the measuring positions. Position 1 and the positions with range
from 5 to 37 mm were the same for all pads investigated, see
Table 2.
5.1. Characterization of column with no internals
In order to better evaluate the separation characteristics of the
mesh pads, an evaluation of the characteristic properties of the
test column was performed with no internals present, only the
inlet tube. Droplet size measurements were done at two posi-
tions, 112 cm above the inlet and 156 cm above the inlet. The
lowest position corresponded to the droplet size distribution
entering the mesh pad, position 1. The characterization of posi-
tion 2 was done to see if the column itself was able to separate
droplets. Also a study of the efficiency of the column was carried
out. To evaluate the performance of the nozzle, a study of the
droplet size distribution at two nozzle pressures was tested. An
analysis of the effect of reducing the measurement length of the
laser diffraction unit was performed by using two different
inserts.
5.1.1. Droplet size distribution below mesh pad
The droplet size distribution at position 1, just below the mesh
pad, was recorded for several K-values as given in Table 5.
In Table 5 dv,x signifies that x vol% of the droplets are below this
diameter, d32 is the Sauter mean diameter and d43 is the Herdan
mean. For a description of these characteristic droplet sizes and
derivations see Liu (2000). The droplet size measurements had a
duration of 5 min for each velocity. Fig. 9 gives an overview of
how the droplet size distribution changed with K-value. From a
K-value of 0.04 m/s up to 0.10 m/s the droplet size distribution
had only one peak. At a K-value of 0.10 m/s, bigger droplets were
also created giving a bimodal distribution. When the K-value was
increased the volume frequency of the smaller peak decreased
and the peak attributed to the larger droplets became more
prominent. The larger droplets were created by the nozzle as
discussed in Section 5.1.3. It should be noted that when the laser
diffraction instrument records droplets over dv,50 ¼ 1000 mm in
size the instrument is operating close to the upper detection limit
and may not be accurate if droplets of greater size passes the laser

Total repeatability 2.2%

Table 4
Averaging uncertainty in different wire mesh pads varying with position.

Position LPA10 LPB10 LPC10 LPA05 LPA07 LPA15

Uncertainty (%)
1 1.83 1.94 2.02 1.98 2.90 2.05
2 1.16 0.71 1.58 0.35 0.67 0.59
3 1.82 1.82 2.50 0.61 1.12 3.42
4 1.32 0.54 2.76 1.35 1.64 6.25
5 7.66 3.14 2.94 3.14 2.95 3.88
6 – – – – – 8.84

Dynamic uncertainty 2.4%

Fig. 8. Mounting of gamma densitometer in LP-rig.
630 A.E. Setekleiv, H.F. Svendsen / Chemical Engineering Science 68 (2012) 624–639

Table 5 Separation efficiency of empty column

The characteristics of the droplet size distribution at recorded K-values. The dv,5 , 100
dv,50 and dv,95 show how many droplets by volume % are below the specific
number. d32 shows the typical diameter of a droplet and d43 is also shown.

K-value (m/s) dv,5 ðmmÞ dv,50 ðmmÞ dv,95 ðmmÞ d32 ðmmÞ d43 ðmmÞ 80

0.04 5.01 33.00 120.22 10.28 51.61

Carryover [%]
0.05 7.20 47.41 147.96 13.89 67.10
0.08 16.73 64.92 141.66 25.71 76.36 60
0.10 30.66 170.46 609.09 45.87 288.76
0.11 67.54 1077.72 1610.25 134.31 936.58
0.12 54.95 1108.15 1661.01 98.70 882.20
40
0.125 54.47 1041.77 1645.36 94.11 839.91
0.13 53.37 856.65 1613.64 92.99 776.40
0.14 67.99 801.50 1544.79 133.39 780.53
0.15 221.87 940.98 1550.48 336.18 926.15 20
0.17 241.74 946.02 1547.38 282.46 928.56

0
Droplet size distribution empty column 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
K−value [m/s]
20
K=0.04 m/s
Fig. 10. Efficiency of column with no mesh pad.
K=0.10 m/s
10 Table 6
Volume frequency [%]

The characteristics of the droplet size distribution at recorded K-values, at

position 2.
0
K-value (m/s) dv,5 ðmmÞ dv,50 ðmmÞ dv,95 ðmmÞ d32 ðmmÞ d43 ðmmÞ
100 101 102 103
0.05 6.63 46.73 166.97 13.15 71.58
20 0.10 27.41 102.02 873.58 40.71 292.36
K=0.11 m/s
0.12 50.67 824.52 1541.57 80.43 738.60
K= =0.17 m/s 0.15 283.20 1016.93 1570.69 349.31 983.88
10
Comparison of pos.1 and 2 at K=0.05 m/s

0 20 Pos. 1
100 101 102 103
Pos. 2
Droplet size [μm] 10
Volume frequency [%]

Fig. 9. Droplet size distribution in empty column, position 1, at K-value of 0.04,

0.10, 0.11 and 0.17 m/s. 0
100 101 102 103
beam. If the droplets are of greater size than the detection limit Comparison of pos.1 and 2 at K=0.10 m/s
they will be recorded as droplets of smaller size. However, these
20 Pos. 1
droplets will be separated by the mesh pad because of their
big size, in effect having a high Stokes number. Pos. 2
10

5.1.2. Position 2
In order to test the empty column ability to separate droplets,
measurements were also made at position 2, 156 mm above the
inlet. The droplet size distribution was taken at K-values of 0.05,
0.10, 0.12 and 0.15 m/s, as given in Table 6. Fig. 11 shows a
comparison of positions 1 and 2 at a K-value of 0.05 and 0.10 m/s.
At a K-value of 0.05 no separation of droplets due to height can be
seen, this trend is also apparent at a K-value of 0.10 m/s. By doing
a comparison of Tables 6 and 5 we also see that this prevails at
higher velocities. This might indicate that the speed of the big
droplets out from the nozzle is higher than the surrounding gas
velocity and that a height of 156 mm is not sufficient for the
droplet velocity of the big droplets to be harmonized with the gas
velocity. For large droplets as a consequence of size the stopping
distance will be long due to increased momentum. The maximum
droplet size at K¼ 0.10 m/s was calculated to be approximately
700 mm when using the drag relation of Khan and Richardson
(1987) for solid particles and rearranging the Souders–Brown
equation to calculate the terminal velocity. This could indicate
0
100 101 102 103
Droplet size [μm]
Fig. 11. Droplet size distribution compared, positions 1 and 2.
that the big droplets does not have the same velocity as the
surrounding gas velocity. The stopping distance was calculated to
20 m for a 1.5 mm droplet and thus the bigger droplets seen in
Fig. 11 is a result of the droplets not being harmonized with the
gas flow. Another possibility is that the laser diffraction instru-
ment smoothes the data so that the dv,95 cut off is set too high
compared with the actual values.
5.1.3. Test of nozzle pressure and inserts
To investigate the creation of the big droplets seen in
Figs. 9 and 11, Tables 5 and 6, a test of the effect of nozzle
pressure on the droplet size distribution was made. The test was
 A.E. Setekleiv, H.F. Svendsen / Chemical Engineering Science 68 (2012) 624–639
performed at a nozzle pressure of 2.5 bar, which was the recom-
mended value from the vendor, and at 4 bar. Fig. 12 shows the
results. We can clearly see that the reason for the big droplets
seen in the previous experiments is due to the lower pressure of
2.5 bar. There is not sufficient pressure and to much liquid in the
nozzle line to create a uniform distribution of droplets with a
single peak in the droplet size distribution. In effect the nozzle is
not able to atomize the liquid sufficiently at the recommended
specifications. This test was also performed at a K-value of
0.10 m/s with the same result.
Signal saturation of the laser diffraction instrument due to too
many droplets in the gas stream was also a possible problem. To
safeguard against this problem a set of inserts was made reducing
the measurement length from 90 mm 70 to mm. To test the effect
of using inserts, measurements were done at a K-values of 0.05,
0.10, 0.12 and 0.15 m/s. Running the experiments at K-value
of 0.05 and 0.15 m/s gave comparable results to Table 5. For a
K-value of 0.10, Fig. 11, and a K-value of 0.12 the large diameter
peak shifted to lower values. For K-value 0.10 m/s the shift was
from 1500 mm to 750 mm and for a K-value of 0.12 the shift was
from 1500 mm to 850 mm. This shows that the nozzle propels the
bigger droplets so that they approach the wall and are carried
away by the gas flow, this effect was also observed visually
through the PMMA transparent section of the column.
5.2. Time dependence
During preliminary studies of mesh pad operation discrepan-
cies in the holdup measurements were found. An investigation of
a possible time dependent mesh pad operation was executed. This
was done by first ensuring that mesh pad LPB10 was completely
dry, in effect putting the pad in a drying cabinet overnight. The
wire-mesh pad was then mounted in the test column and the gas
flow was set to a K-value of 0.04 m/s and the liquid/gas ratio of
0.02 vol%. The liquid holdup was recorded by the gamma densit-
ometer at position 5. The mesh pad was allowed to run until it
reached a more or less stable state, Fig. 14. It can be clearly seen
in Fig. 14 that the liquid holdup in LPB10 continually increased for
110 h before reaching steady state operation. The enlarged view
shows a typical profile for pads having reached a more or less
stable regime of operation. This clearly shows that mesh pad
operation may need a very long running time to reach steady
state conditions when starting from dry conditions. Fig. 13 shows
Test of Nozzle pressure at K=0.12 [m/s]
20
2.5 bar
10 4 bar
Volume frequency [%]
0 rolling average so that it could be compared with the gamma
100 101 102
Test of inserts at K=0.10 [m/s]
20
No inserts
10 Inserts
0 5.3. The effect of gas-bypass at the wall
100 101 102
Droplet size [μm]
Fig. 12. Test of nozzle pressure and inserts.
631
Stabilized
0.6 Not−Stabilized
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Height [mm]
Fig. 13. The effect of not having long enough time to stabilize the holdup in the
wire mesh, mesh LPB10 K ¼0.05 m/s.
this situation more clearly. The result of not having long enough
time to stabilize the holdup leads to a difference at the three
positions furthest from the gas inlet. The difference between a
stabilized mesh and a non-stabilized mesh is a holdup measure-
ment that has an error of several hundred percent. This very long
running time needed to reach steady state operation is probably
due to the fact that the mesh pad separates most of the liquid in
the bottom part of the mesh and that this causes a much smaller
amount of liquid to enter the upper parts of the mesh pad. In turn
this leads to a very long stabilization time. This tendency is also
clear in Fig. 16 where LPA10 and LPC10 at a K-value of 0.08 m/s
was pre-wetted and the liquid holdup was recorded for positions
1 and 5 in both pads. The pre-wetting ensured that a stable
operation of the pads was reached in a much shorter amount of
time. However, it is evident that position 1 reaches a steady state
much faster than position 5. Steady state operations is almost
instantaneous at position 1 compared to position 5 for both pads.
A typical evolution of liquid holdup in position 5 is also seen in
Fig. 16. The liquid fraction steadily increases and the gradient
flattens before the liquid fraction reaches a peak and settles at a
mean value lower than the peak within a duration of a few hours.
Using this as a measure for how long mesh LPA10 and LPC10
needed to stabilize we see that mesh LPA10 needs about 3.5 h and
mesh LPC10 needs 5.7 h. Considering that mesh LPC10 starts at a
higher liquid fraction than LPA10 we see that mesh LPC10 needs a
longer stabilization time than LPA10. The longer stabilization
time may be due to the higher final liquid holdup reached in mesh
LPC10. These measurements show how important it is to reach a
real steady state when measuring holdup in wire mesh pads.
To clarify the effect of liquid buildup inside the mesh pad on
the pressure drop, a measurement was conducted on LPB10 at
position 1, Fig. 15, where the pressure drop was calculated with a
103 densitometer measurements. The experiment had a K-value of
0.05 m/s and the mesh was completely dry at the start of the
measurement. Fig. 15 shows a clear relationship for the 1 h of
measurement. The liquid holdup inside the mesh increases and so
does the pressure drop. The variation produced from the 2 h until
the end of the experiment is due to small velocity changes in the gas
flow and this of course effects the pressure drop over the mesh.
103
Mesh pad LPA15 was installed in two configurations. In one
configuration the wire mesh pad did not pack fully against the
wall of the column. For about 2/3 of the length of the pad, from
632 A.E. Setekleiv, H.F. Svendsen / Chemical Engineering Science 68 (2012) 624–639

0.18
0.172
0.16 0.17
0.168
0.166
0.14 0.164
113 113.5 114 114.5 115 115.5 116 116.5
0.12
Time [h]
Liquid fraction [−]

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time [h]

Fig. 14. The time evolution of liquid holdup in LPB10 when the mesh was made completely dry, K¼ 0.04 m/s.

0.7 1000 LPA10 K−Value: 0.08 [m/s]

0.15
0.6
800
0.1
0.5
Liquid fraction [−]

Pressure [Pa]

600 0.05
0.4 Position 1 Position 5
Liq. fraction [−]

0.3 0
400 0 1 2 3 4 5
0.2 LPC10 K−Value: 0.08 [m/s]
0.15
200
0.1
0.1
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0.05
Time [h] Position 1 Position 5
Fig. 15. Plot showing the dependence of liquid holdup upon pressure drop in wire 0
mesh LPB10, K¼0.04 m/s. 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time [h]

top to bottom, a gap of radius 1.5 cm, centered at the wall,
extended through the pad. The gamma densitometer did not
measure directly on the gap but was centered in the middle of the
mesh pad. In the other configuration care was taken to ensure
that the pad was fitted against the wall. These two configurations
show differences both in holdup and efficiency. Fig. 17 shows a
comparison of liquid holdup in the mesh with bypass and without
bypass. The bypass in the wire mesh pad was not directly
measured by the gamma densitometer as the measurement path
did not go through that part of the wire mesh pad. Below the
flooding point at a K-value of 0.08 m/s, the most significant
difference is in the holdup profile at measuring position 6, from
115 mm to 147 mm. LPA15 with bypass showed a significant
decrease in holdup compared to the configuration with no bypass.
Measurements of holdup at a K-value of 0.05 and 0.10 m/s were
performed as well and the same phenomenon prevailed. When
the gas flow is increased to just below the flooding point,
K ¼0.12 m/s, and at the flooding point this pattern changes.
Throughout the pad with bypass we see a higher holdup for all
Fig. 16. Liquid holdup versus time for LPA10 and LPC10 for positions 1 and 5,
K-value ¼ 0.08 m/s.
positions. This is also seen at a K-value of 0.17 m/s. The most
significant change is that also at position 6 the holdup is higher
for the pad with bypass. The bypass configuration also show
higher separation efficiencies, as seen in Fig. 18. The differences in
holdup for LPA15 is in likelihood due to a different gas lift in the
two configurations. If we compare the configuration of the two
pads the gas flow in the configuration with no bypass will be
more or less uniform entrapping liquid in the wires across the
whole cross section. This will result in a higher holdup since
entrapping liquid leads to a higher gas velocity, i.e. decreasing the
porosity. Comparing this situation with the configuration with
bypass, which has a small gap which does not entrap liquid, this
leads to a lower overall gas velocity in the upper layers of the pad
due to the absence of liquid ligaments sustaining a decrease in
actual porosity. The fact that the wires stabilize liquid holdup in
wire mesh pads was shown in Eq. (12). The configuration with
 A.E. Setekleiv, H.F. Svendsen / Chemical Engineering Science 68 (2012) 624–639 633

bypass will let some of the gas go unhindered through the gap
between the wall and the pad. This will reduce the gas lift and as
such we see a lower holdup at low velocities. This will reduce the
gas lift in the pad and as such we see a lower holdup at low
velocities. Above flooding the bypass results in lower effective
velocities in the mesh and thereby lower entrainment rates. This
is reflected in the higher holdup of the configuration with bypass
compared with the configuration with no bypass. This has a
positive side effect when moving above the flooding point, the
separation efficiencies increase for the configuration with bypass.

5.4. Flooding point

A normal method to evaluate the flooding point in mesh pad

operations is to say that once liquid is observed over the pad,
flooding has been achieved. However this method creates pro-
blems in terms of repeatability when observing flooding in
different pads. When conducting experiments some isolated
drops were observed above some pads as low as K ¼0.10 m/s.
However the separation efficiency was 100%. It should be noted
that the pads were mounted in a transparent PMMA section
which allowed for a detailed inspection of the operation of the
pad. Visual observation above the pad showed, together with
efficiency measurements, that these droplets were not carried
away with the gas flow. They traveled a couple of centimeters at
most and then settled down on the pad again. In order to have a
well defined reference determining the flooding point the flood-
ing point was defined as the moment liquid started pulsing out of
the pad, see Fig. 19. The pulsing was produced by very big
droplets which were thrown out of the pad and carried away
with the gas. These droplets could be of millimeter size. Also the
experiments were allowed to run overnight to establish that the
Fig. 17. Comparison of holdup in LPA15 for two configurations, with bypass at the
wall and no bypass at the wall.
flooding point was reached. LPA10 did showed early flooding
characteristics at a K-value of 0.12 m/s, but when the experiment
was allowed to run overnight no flooding behavior was seen. Thus
Efficiency of LPA15 another criterion for determining that the flooding point is
100 reached could be that the pulsing behavior should be sustained
LPA15 w/bypass for several hours. This new definition of flooding point corre-
LPA15 no bypass sponds to a change in the liquid holdup distribution in the pad.
80 A large increase in pressure drop was also seen, as shown in
Fig. 24. Fig. 22 shows that at the flooding point, the overall holdup
Carryover [%]

60 Before flooding At flooding

LPA10
Liquid fraction [−]

0.6 LPB10
40 LPC10
0.4

20 0.2

0 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 100
0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 Height [mm]
K−value [m/s]
Fig. 20. Liquid fraction of 100 mm mesh pads before and at flooding. LPA10 at
Fig. 18. Comparison of efficiency of mesh pad and pipe below in LPA15 for two K-value of 0.12 m/s (BF) and 0.125 m/s (AF). LPB10 at K-value of 0.04 m/s (BF) and
configurations, with bypass at the wall and no bypass at the wall. 0.05 m/s (AF). LPC10 at K-value of 0.12 m/s (BF) and 0.125 m/s (AF).

Fig. 19. Mesh pad LPC10 at flooding. The pictures describe the pulsing action of liquid at the flooding point. On the left the buildup of the pulse is seen, the rightmost
picture show the behavior between pulses. The pictures have been taken by high speed camera, 1000 fps.
634 A.E. Setekleiv, H.F. Svendsen / Chemical Engineering Science 68 (2012) 624–639

Before flooding At flooding Mesh pads with different heights were also investigated. From
0.25 Table 7 we see that increasing height from 100 mm to 150 mm
LPA15 has no effect on the flooding point. LPA10 and LPA15 have
Liquid fraction [−]

0.2 LPA10 according geometrical properties, only height differs. LPA7 have
LPA7 almost the same properties as LPA10 and LPA15 but the reduced
0.15
LPA5 height results in a flooding point occurring at a higher K-value.
0.1 This may be due to the shorter path the liquid has to drain. LPA05
shows a flooding point that occurs at an even lower K-value than
0.05 LPA7. This is probably due to the lower porosity which also
results in a higher wire packing density, see Table 1, compared
0 30 60 90 120 0 30 60 90 120 150 with the other LPA mesh pads. The porosity is around 0.4% lower
Height [mm] than LPA10 and LPA15. It is also 0.3% lower than LPA07. This
change in porosity is significant as shown by Helsør (2006).
Fig. 21. Liquid fraction of type A mesh pads with differing heights before and at
flooding. LPA15 at K-value of 0.12 m/s (BF) and 0.125 m/s (AF). LPA10 at K-value of
0.12 m/s (BF) and 0.125 m/s (AF). LPA7 at K-value of 0.13 m/s (BF) and 0.135 m/s 5.5. Liquid holdup
(AF). LPA5 at K-value of 0.11 m/s (BF) and 0.115 m/s (AF).

Holdup in all wire mesh pads was investigated at five different

positions and apart from the thickest mesh which was measured
Table 7 at six positions. An overview of the measuring range for each
K-value at flooding point for different mesh pads air/water 1 bar.
position is given in Table 2. Figs. 22, 23, 20 and 21 give an
Demister E (%) Smesh (m2/m3) pw (km/m3) K-value at overview of the results. Fig. 22 shows the results in terms of liquid
flooding point fraction versus K-value. Figs. 23, 20 and 21 show the liquid
fraction profile against measuring position. The measuring points
LPA05 97.64 344.37 405.99 0.115
shown in Figs. 23, 20 and 21 are the averages of the measuring
LPA07 97.94 300.64 354.44 0.135
LPA10 98.06 282.82 333.43 0.125 range at the selected positions, Table 2, and the designated
LPA15 98.05 284.22 335.07 0.125 velocities are the same as the velocities shown in Fig. 22. In order
LPB10 97.74 592.76 1257.88 0.05 to systematize the data obtained for liquid fraction in the various
LPC10 98.90 289.59 614.54 0.125 mesh pads it is necessary to study the holdup profiles below, at
and after the flooding point as the profiles are distinctly different.

in the wire mesh pads increase. This is also apparent in Figs. 20
and 21. The flooding point corresponds to a change of operating
conditions in the pads.
The flooding point is understood as the moment the gas lift in
the wire mesh pads becomes sufficient for re-entraining liquid
from the pad. To understand what affects the flooding point
equation (12) gives a good representation of flooding mechanics.
Considering that the experiments are conducted with one fluid
configuration and only steel wires, there are three variables that
could affect the flooding point, wire packing density, gas velocity
and the curvature of the gas liquid interface. The curvature of the
gas liquid interface should change to some degree with the
holdup of liquid present in the mesh pads as a consequence of
varying wire packing density and gas velocity, see Fig. 3. Increas-
ing the wire packing density should lower the flooding point as
the liquid solid surface tension force, F s,sl , should increase with
higher wire packing density, as shown in Fig. 3 and Eq. (11). As
the curvature decreases, the holdup in the pad should increase.
Table 7 shows that this is the case for LPB10, with its higher wire
packing density, and from Fig. 22 we see that the holdup in LPB10
is much larger than in the other pads investigated. The large
holdup also results in a substantial increase in gas velocity inside
the pad which compels re-entrainment of liquid in the pad and
thus the flooding point is reached at a much lower K-value than
the other pads. This trend is also seen in LPC10. Helsør (2006)
showed that as the mesh pad porosities increased, the flooding
point occurred at a higher K-value. Calculations show that this
also corresponds to a lower wire packing density. Mesh LPC10 has
a higher packing density compared to the highest porosity mesh
investigated by Helsør (2006). The higher wire packing density
leads to a higher holdup compared to LPA10, which has a lower
porosity, and thus a lower flooding point than shown by Helsør
(2006). Needless to say the velocity in the pad also increases as a
result of higher holdup and re-entrainment follows, Fig. 22 shows
the holdup behavior.
5.5.1. Liquid holdup before flooding
Evaluating the holdup profile of mesh LPC10, LPA15, LPA10
and LPA7 in Fig. 23 we observe a similar trend at a K-values of
0.05, 0.08 and 0.10 m/s. For all the mesh pads and K-values
mentioned the highest liquid fraction is recorded in position 1,
which is the same position for all pads, the profiles dip until a
minimum is reached and then the holdup increases and reaches a
maximum in the position furthest up in the pad, see Fig. 23. The
higher liquid fraction in position 1 is probably due to the fact that
most of the liquid that hits the pad is separated out in the bottom
part of the pad. Also, any liquid that is separated further up in the
pad also needs to drain and this will also create an effect of
increased liquid fraction at positions lower down in the pads.
Position 1 is also situated in the bottom support grid, see Fig. 6.
This grid will slightly increase the velocity inside the mesh pad
which again will affect the holdup as the gas lift will be higher.
The support grid also affects the holdup in position furthest up
the pad resulting in a higher holdup, this again is because of the
added gas lift caused by the constriction of the metal bars, see
Fig. 6. Another trend apparent in Fig. 22 is that for most
measuring positions an increase in gas velocity leads to a higher
liquid holdup below flooding. The LPA7 profile deviates from
mesh LPC10, LPA15 and LPA10 at a K-value of 0.10 m/s in that at
position 1 it shows a lower liquid fraction than in position 2. This
may be a result of the reduced height compared to the other three
mesh pads as this is the most prominent geometric feature that
distinguishes LPA7 from LPC10, LPA15 and LPA10. If we focus our
attention on LPA5 we see that before flooding, at K¼ 0.05–0.10 m/s,
the holdup profile is not at all similar to the other mesh pads
previously discussed. In the velocity range K ¼0.05 to 0.10 m/s the
holdup increases, when going up in the pad, to a maximum and
then decreases. The opposite effect is seen in LPC10, LPA15, LPA10
and LPA7. This is probably due to the lower mesh pad height of
LPA5 which would give liquid separated in the top part of the pad
a shorter distance to drain and this may affect holdup.
 A.E. Setekleiv, H.F. Svendsen / Chemical Engineering Science 68 (2012) 624–639 635

LPA5 LPA7
0.2 0.2

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

0 0

LPA10 LPA15
0.2 0.2
Liquid fraction [−]

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

0 0

LPC10
0.6 LPB10 0.2

0.15
0.4

0.1

0.2
0.05

0 0
0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2
K−value [m/s]

Position 1 Position 2 Position 3

Position 4 Position 5 Position 6

Fig. 22. Holdup versus K-value for all mesh pads, showing the selected positions inside the pads.

5.5.2. Liquid holdup at flooding and above
At the flooding point and above, the liquid holdup profiles
become more uniform for all pads, see Figs. 20, 21 and 6. They
start at a minimum in position 1 and increase to a maximum at a
height between 14.75 and 21.00 mm (midpoint of range) depend-
ing on the pad. The profiles then decrease further up in the pad.
For LPB10 position 1 remains at a maximum until reaching a
K-value of 0.10 m/s, see Fig. 22. This is likely due to the lower gas
velocity in the column, there is not enough gas lift to affect the
holdup in the bottom part of the mesh. LPA15 also shows
deviating behavior at position 6 furthest up in the pad compared
with the other mesh pads except LPA5. At the flooding point the
effect of the supporting grid may be seen at position 6. Looking at
Figs. 20 and 21 we recognize a significant effect corresponding
with the flooding point. For most positions investigated in the
various mesh pads we see an increase in liquid holdup as
mentioned in Section 5.4. The increased velocity together with
an increase in liquid fraction in the pads result in a stronger gas
lift which can sustain a higher liquid holdup. Above the flooding
point we see a general decrease in holdup as the gas velocity is
increased, Fig. 22, for all positions. This corresponds with the re-
entrainment regime and lower separation efficiencies of the wire
mesh pads are seen, as discussed in Section 5.7. The gas velocity
inside the mesh pads is now sufficient to re-entrain liquid from
the wires in the pads and this results in a lower holdup inside
the pads.
5.6. Pressure drop
All the examined wire mesh pads follow the typical pressure
drop pattern, as given in Fig. 1. LPB10 measurements started close
to flooding and so only a part of the typical s-shaped pressure
drop profile is seen, see Fig. 24. The profile of LPB10 exhibits
characteristics of regimes III and IV in Fig. 1. Looking at the results
for the other mesh pads we clearly observe the pressure drop
evolution characteristic of regimes II–IV in Fig. 1. At low K-values
the pressure drop is slowly increasing. At and just below
the flooding point, see Table 7, the pressure drop increases at a
636 A.E. Setekleiv, H.F. Svendsen / Chemical Engineering Science 68 (2012) 624–639

0.2

K= 0.05 [m/s] K= 0.08 [m/s]

0.15

Liquid fraction [−] 0.1

0.05

0.2

K= 0.10 [m/s] K= 0.15 [m/s]

0.15

0.1

0.05

0 30 60 90 120 0 30 60 90 120 150

Height [mm]
0.25

K= 0.17 [m/s]
0.2 LPA15
Liquid fraction [−]

LPA10
0.15
LPA7

0.1 LPA5

LPC10
0.05

0 30 60 90 120 150
Height [mm]

Fig. 23. Holdup versus height for all mesh pads at given K-values.

Pressure drop vs. K−value, all mesh pads

higher rate. This is termed the flooding regime. Moving to higher
1600
LPA5 K-values, above flooding, the pressure drop increases more
slowly. From Fig. 24 we observe that the pressure drop is
1400 LPA7
dependent on pad geometry and liquid holdup. LPB10 has the
LPA10 largest pressure drop of all the pads. This is due to the higher
1200 LPA15 holdup of liquid in the pad, see Fig. 22, which is a result of the
LPB10 higher surface area, Smesh , and probably due to the high wire
1000
LPC10 packing density, pw , of the pad, see Table 1. Subsequently LPA15
Δ P [Pa]

follows with the second largest pressure drop which is the result
800
of the added height compared to the other pads. Surprisingly
mesh LPC10 follows with a higher pressure drop that LPA10. From
600
Fig. 23 we see that LPC10 has a larger holdup than LPA10. If we
compare the geometric properties of the pads, see Table 1, we see
400
that the surface areas are almost equal, the porosity differs by 1%
and the wire packing density of LPC10 is almost twice that of
200
LPA10. This difference in properties is a result of the lower wire
0 diameter of LPC10. Taking into account the results from LPB10
0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 which has a slightly lower porosity than LPA10 but a much higher
K−Value [m/s] pressure drop, it is not likely that the porosity is the determining
factor. Results described by Setekleiv et al. (2010) showed that
Fig. 24. Pressure drop against K-value for all the tested wire mesh pads. increasing porosity should result in lower pressure drop. They did
 A.E. Setekleiv, H.F. Svendsen / Chemical Engineering Science 68 (2012) 624–639 637

however not test for wire packing density, which is the most Efficiency of mesh pads and pipe below
likely factor producing the higher pressure drop of LPC10 com- 100
pared to LPA10. A higher wire packing density results in a higher
holdup of liquid inside the pad and the actual porosity decreases,
thus increasing the gas velocity inside the pad which in turn leads 80
to a higher pressure drop. The pressure drop of LPA7 is lower than
LPA10 most likely due to the lower height of LPA7. Decreasing the
height has the effect of reducing the total amount of wires and

Carryover [%]
60
thus the total holdup of liquid. This leads to a reduction of the
total liquid/gas surface area and wire/gas surface area which
should give a lower pressure drop compared to LPA10. One would LPA5
expect that the lower height of LPA5 would also result in a lower 40
LPA7
pressure drop compared to LPA7. However LPA5 has a signifi-
LPA10
cantly lower porosity and also a higher surface area per cubic
meter and higher packing density than LPA7, see Table 1. The 20 LPA15
flooding point is also lower. The lower porosity leads to a overall LPB10
higher holdup and thus a larger actual porosity and this leads to a LPC10
pressure drop that is higher than LPA7 in the pre-flooding regime. 0
At higher K-values, above K ¼0.15 m/s, the holdup in LPA5 is 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
lower than LPA7 and because of the smaller height of LPA5 the K−Value [m/s]
pressure drop is lower.
Fig. 25. Efficiency of mesh pad and pipe below for all wire mesh pads.

5.7. Efficiency of mesh pads and pipe below

Mesh pad droplet size distribution
30
The efficiency of all the mesh pads in Table 1 was investigated,
K=0.05 [m/s]
Fig. 25. It was not possible to collect and measure any liquid 20
carryover up to the flooding point, Table 7, but as discussed in
Section 5.8 not all droplets are separated by the wire mesh. The 10
droplets are too small for the separator in the rig, Fig. 4, to separate 0
them from the main gas flow. When the mesh pads reach the 100 101
Volume frequency [%]

flooding point the efficiency of separation decreases, most rapidly 30

for LPA7. For the other mesh pads the decrease in efficiency is more K=0.08 [m/s]
gradual. LPB10 show the slowest reduction in efficiency and this is 20
a result of the very low flooding point of K¼0.05 m/s. LPA15 and
10
LPA10 do not show a big difference in efficiency indicating that
increasing the mesh pad height does not affect the efficiency to a 0
large degree. LPC10 has a lower efficiency than LPA10 but also has 100 101
a large increase in efficiency from a K-value 0.13 to 0.15 m/s. This 30
trend is contrary to the evolution of the efficiency profiles of the K=0.10 [m/s]
other pads, which are decreasing after reaching the flooding point. 20
It is not clear why this behavior is seen, but it corresponds with a 10
jump in holdup at position 5, top position in pad, in Fig. 22 at a K-
value of 0.13 m/s which decreases at a K-value of 0.15 m/s. When 0
the K-value is increased from 0.17 m/s to 0.20 m/s all mesh pads 100 101
exhibit an almost uniform efficiency, the efficiencies being around Droplet size [μm]
8.5%. In Fig. 10 we observe that at K¼0.17 m/s the empty column
LPA5 LPA7 LPA10 LPA15 LPC10
had an efficiency of 11%. At this velocity the empty column has a
better efficiency than the mesh pads investigated. If we compare Fig. 26. Droplet size distribution upstream of the mesh pads at a K-value of 0.05,
Fig. 10 with the performance of LPB10 we clearly see that above a 0.08 and 0.10 m/s.
K-value of 0.08 m/s this mesh pad has a larger carryover than an
empty column. If we look at Fig. 25 selecting mesh pad LPA10 or all other parameters are constant, will increase with increasing
LPA15 would give the best separation efficiencies. velocity. Increasing the Stokes number results in a higher prob-
ability for a droplet to impact a target. This trend has also been
5.8. Droplet separation shown by Brunazzi and Paglianti (1998). If we compare LPA10 and
LPC10 we also see a difference in the recorded data. LPC10 gives
In order to evaluate the ability of the mesh pads to separate complete separation at K¼0.08 m/s while LPA10 does not. This is
droplets, droplet size measurements were made above the pads most likely the result of the reduced wire diameter of LPC10,
with a laser diffraction instrument, see Fig. 26. The results are Table 1, which increases the Stokes number, see Eq. (1). There is
summarized in Table 8. All mesh pads, except LPB10, were tested also a trend that accompanies the increase in height. As the height
at K-values of 0.05, 0.08 and 0.10 m/s. At some of the velocities is increased from LPA5 to LPA15 the droplet cut size decreases,
studied no droplets were detected. We clearly see from Table 8 Fig. 26, and complete separation is evident for LPA10, at
and Fig. 26 that when the gas velocity is increased for LPA5 and K¼0.10 m/s, and for LPA15, at K¼0.08 m/s and K¼0.10 m/s. The
LPA7 and LPA10 the Sauter mean diameter, d32 , and volume increased height will result in a larger amount of wires available
median diameter, dv,50 , decrease and for LPA10 this results in no for direct interception. This trend is also seen if we compare LPC10
droplets recorded above the mesh at a K-value of 0.10 m/s. The and LPB10. They have the same wire diameter, dw , but the packing
trend is a result of increasing Stokes number, Eq. (1), which when density of wires, pw , for LPB10 is almost twice that of LPC10.
638 A.E. Setekleiv, H.F. Svendsen / Chemical Engineering Science 68 (2012) 624–639

Table 8 size distribution. The droplet-size distribution after the liquid had
The characteristics of the droplet size distribution at recorded K-values above the been separated by mesh pads were also investigated. The droplet-
mesh pads. For LPA15 and LPC10 the droplet size distribution was also recorded at
size cut off showed a dependency on mesh pad height, wire
K¼ 0.08 m/s and K¼0.10 m/s but no droplets were detected.
diameter and gas velocity. In effect this showed that the droplet
Wire mesh pad K-value (m/s) dv,50 ðmmÞ d32 ðmmÞ cut size is dependent on Stokes number and direct interception.

LPA5 0.058 5.02 4.73

LPA5 0.081 4.97 4.54
Nomenclature
LPA5 0.101 4.50 3.94
LPA7 0.050 4.52 4.29
LPA7 0.081 3.87 3.58 Ai rolling average (–)
LPA7 0.100 3.57 3.22 Asl area of solid liquid interface (m2)
LPA10 0.052 3.89 3.66 Cd drag coefficient (–)
LPA10 0.081 2.13 1.68
Dmesh diameter of mesh pad (m)
LPA10 0.101 – –
LPA15 0.052 3.41 3.11 dv,5 5 vol% of the droplets are below this diameter ðmmÞ
LPC10 0.052 3.84 3.73 dv,50 50 vol% of the droplets are below this diameter ðmmÞ
LPB10 0.041 – – dv,95 95 vol% of the droplets are below this diameter ðmmÞ
d32 Sauter mean diameter, characteristic droplet size
ðmmÞ
This will also result in a larger amount of wires available for direct d43 Herdan mean ðmmÞ
interception. LPB10 has complete separation of droplets at K¼0.04 dp particle diameter (m)
and LPC10 is not able to separate all droplets at a K¼0.05 m/s. It is dw wire diameter (m)
also possible that the amount of liquid in the pad affects the FG gravity force (kg m/s2)
probability of interception since liquid holdup increases with F s,lg liquid gas interfacial tension force (N)
velocity at least up to the flooding point. F s,sg solid liquid interfacial tension force (N)
F t,gl shear force between gas and liquid (N)
g acceleration of gravity (m/s2)
6. Conclusion l length between gamma source and detector (m)
Ig intensity of incoming light (1/ms)
It was shown that wire mesh pads may need a long running Iincomming photon flux gas phase (1/ms)
time to reach steady state operation. Pre-wetting the wire mesh Il photon flux liquid phase (1/ms)
pads led to a faster attainment of stable operating conditions. The Iscattered intensity of scattered light (1/ms)
position in the pad closest to the inlet in the column showed a n refraction index (–)
fast response in reaching a stable state while the position that pw wire packing density (m/m3)
was closest to the outlet needed a long running time for reaching rw wire radius (m)
stable operation. Smesh surface area of mesh per volume (m2/m3)
The configuration with gas-bypass and without bypass showed Stk 2
Stk ¼ DrU g dp =18mg dcyl (–)
differences in operation. The gas-bypass affected holdup in the
wire mesh pad, but not the flooding point. The configuration with t time constant (s)
bypass had a lower carryover than the pad with no bypass. Ug velocity of gas phase (m/s)
A new equation was developed to describe the mechanisms xi þ 1 liquid fraction (–)
present in mesh pads. This equation showed that mesh pad design @A differential area (m2)
should be characterized with a new parameter, the wire packing @V differential volume (m3)
density. The equation also showed that gas velocity, gravity, surface Dr Dr ¼ rl rg (kg/m3)
tension between the liquid and gas and interfacial tension between E porosity of mesh pad (–)
liquid and solid affected mesh pad performance. The equation y angle of diffracted light (–)
showed that the curvature of the liquid gas interface should klg curvature of the liquid ligament at gas liquid
decrease when gas velocity was increased. The equation also interface (1/m)
showed that when the wire packing density was increased the ksl curvature of the liquid ligament at solid liquid
curvature of the gas liquid decreased. Decreasing curvature implies a interface (1/m)
larger gas liquid interface. These trends were also seen in the mg viscosity gas phase (kg/ms)
experimental data gathered. For a given pad increasing the gas l wavelength (m)
velocity resulted in higher holdup before the flooding point. This mi,g attenuation coefficient gas phase (–)
corresponds with a larger gas liquid interface and thus a lower mi,l attenuation coefficient liquid phase (–)
curvature. The wire packing density also affected mesh pad perfor- rg density of gas phase (kg/m3)
mance. When the wire packing density was increased the holdup in
rmesh density of mesh pad (kg/m3)
the pads increased and thus a larger gas liquid interface was created.
rl density of liquid phase (kg/m3)
This results in a lower curvature for a liquid ligament suspended in
slg surface tension at gas liquid interface (N/m)
the wire mesh pad and thus a larger gas liquid interface.
ssl surface tension at solid liquid interface (N/m)
The separation efficiency of the mesh pads and pipe below
were shown to be comparable or lower than the separation
efficiency of a column with no mesh pad. After the flooding point
the separation efficiencies decreased and above a K-value of
References
0.17 m/s the mesh pads exhibited an almost uniform separation
efficiency of 8.5%.
Anonymous, 2005. The engineered mist eliminator. Chem. Eng. Progr. 101(6), B1.
Droplet size distributions were recorded at two locations in the Batchelor, G., 1967. An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics. Cambridge University
empty column 44 cm apart. The distributions had the same droplet Press ISBN 0-89573-879-1.
 A.E. Setekleiv, H.F. Svendsen / Chemical Engineering Science 68 (2012) 624–639
Brunazzi, E., Paglianti, A., 1998. Design of wire mesh mist eliminators. AIChE J.
44 (3), 505–512.
de Gennes, P.-G., Brochard-Wyart, F., Quere, D., 2004. Capillarity and Wetting
Phenomena: Drops, Bubbles, Pearls, Waves. Springer ISBN 3-540-43326-0.
Fabian, P., Hennesey, P., Neuman, N., 1993a. Demystifying the selection of mist
eliminators, Part 1: the basics. Chem. Eng. 100 (11), 148–156.
Fabian, P., Hennesey, P., Neuman, N., 1993b. Demystifying the selection of mist
eliminators, Part 2: the applications. Chem. Eng. 100 (12), 106–111.
Helsør, T., 2006. Experimental Characterization of Wire Mesh Demisters. Ph.D.
Thesis. NTNU.
Helsør, T., Svendsen, H.F., 2007. Experimental characterization of pressure drop in dry
demisters at low and elevated pressures. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 85 (3), 377–385.
Hoffmann, A.C., Stein, L.E., 2002. Gas Cyclones and Swirl Tubes. Springer, New York
ISBN 3-540-43326-0.
Holmes, T.L., Chen, G.K., 1984. Design and selection of spray/mist elimination
equipment. Chem. Eng. 91 (21), 82–89.
Khan, A.R., Richardson, J.F., 1987. The resistance to motion of a solid sphere in a
fluid. Chem. Eng. Commun. 62 (1–6), 135–150.
Linga, H., 1991. Measurements of Two-phase Flow Details: Non-intrusive Methods
Applied to Slug and Dispersed Flows. Ph.D. Thesis. Norwegian University of
Science and Technology. ISBN 82-7119-301-5.
639
Liu, H., 2000. Science and Engineering of Droplets: Fundamentals and Applications,
1st ed. William Andrew ISBN 978-0815514367.
Lorenceau, E., Senden, T., Quéré, D., 2006. Wetting of fibres. In: Weiss, R.G., Terech, P.
(Eds.), Molecular Gels, Materials with Self-Assembled Fibrillar Networks1st ed. ,
Springer ISBN 1-0-1-4020-3352-4.
Lunde, K.E., Lapple, C.E., 1957. Dust and mist collection. Chem. Eng. Progr. 53 (8),
385–391.
Maxwell, J.C., 1861. On physical lines of force. Philos. Mag. 21 (4), 75–161.
Maxwell, J.C., 1873. A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetisms, 1st ed. Clarendon
Press, Oxford.
Merkus, H.G., 2009. Particle Size Measurements, Fundamentals, Practice, Quality.
1st ed. Springer Science þBusiness Media, ISBN 978-1-4020-9015-8.
Mie, G., 1908. Beiträge zur optik trüber medien speziell kolloidaler goldlösungens.
Ann. Phys. 25, 377–445.
Setekleiv, A.E., Helsør, T., Svendsen, H.F., 2010. Liquid holdup in wire-mesh
demisters. Chem. Res. Des. 88 (11), 1523–1531.
Souders, M., Brown, G., 1934. Design of fractionating columns. i. Entrainment and
capacity. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2, 98–103.
York, O.H., 1954. Performance of wire-mesh demisters. Chem. Eng. Progr. 50 (8),
421–424.