chemical engineering research and design 8 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 585591

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering Research and Design

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

Liquid distribution and liquid hold-up in

modern high capacity packings
Pascal Alix a, , Ludovic Raynal b
a
b

Chemical Engineering, IFP Lyon, BP 3, Solaize 69360, France

Chemical Engineering, IFP, Solaize, France

a b s t r a c t
In order to model and optimise industrial gas/liquid contactors such as those used for distillation or for postcombustion capture of CO2 , liquid hold-up and liquid distribution have been measured for two modern high capacity
packings, a structured packing and a random packing. A gamma-ray tomographic system has been used to obtain
liquid ow maps over a cross section of a 400 mm internal diameter column from which liquid hold-up values can be
deduced. It is observed that the liquid ow is homogeneously distributed for both packings, the structured packing
giving better results. Correlations are proposed to estimate the liquid hold-up, the effect of the liquid owrate and
the liquid viscosity being taken into account. A non-negligible static liquid hold-up is considered for the structured
packing, which can be explained by the texture on the packing walls. As long as there is a little effect of the counter
current gas, then below the loading point, results can be extrapolated to larger columns.
2008 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Institution of Chemical Engineers.
Keywords: Liquid hold-up; Structured packing; Random packing

1.

Introduction

To reduce greenhouse gases emissions, the E.U. CASTOR

project1 has been set to develop the Carbon Capture and
Sequestration technology. For that purpose, the worlds largest
pilot plant for the capture of CO2 from a conventional coalred power station has been built in Denmark; it is under
operation since March 2006. The process selected for the pilot
is a 30 wt% MEA amine process using columns equipped with
the IMPT 50 random packing. The treatment of less than 1% of
the ue gas requires a 1.1 m diameter column. In order to treat
100% of power plant ue gases, one would thus have to consider very large size capture plants. The optimisation of such
high volume reactor design is thus of great importance to minimize investments. This calls for the development of reliable
models for pressure drop and mass transfer characteristics
determination.
Since capture process operates downstream the power
plant, it requires very low pressure drops (<100 mbar for the
absorber). To meet these requirements of size optimisation
and pressure drop limitation, efcient high capacity packings

are needed. The recent Sulzer Chemtech high capacity structured packing MellapakPlus 252.Y (Fig. 1a and b), and the Koch
Glitsch third generation random packing IMTP50 (Fig. 2a and
b), have been selected. These packings are essentially proposed for revamps of distillation columns and are much less
documented than more common packings proposed for grassroots columns. Then, to build-up models, tests are highly
needed to characterize these packings in terms of hydrodynamic and mass transfer.
The aim of the present study is to determine the liquid
hold-up and the liquid distribution for the selected packings.
The liquid hold-up is an important hydrodynamic parameter
for gas-liquid ow in packed beds. It enables the determination of the pressure drop and the uid effective velocity within
the packing (Iliuta and Larachi, 2001). The latter is further used
for the determination of the liquid-side mass transfer coefcient, kL , via the Higbie theory (Bravo et al., 1985). The liquid
hold-up is also used to design support devices for the column
since it gives the liquid weight in operation (Suess and Spiegel,
1992). The liquid distribution is also an important parameter. First, it is required to ensure that all geometric surface is

Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 4 78 02 21 82; fax: +33 4 78 02 20 08.

E-mail address: pascal.alix@ifp.fr (P. Alix).
Received 25 September 2007; Accepted 13 February 2008
1
www.co2-castor.com.
0263-8762/$ see front matter 2008 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Institution of Chemical Engineers.
doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2008.02.021

586

chemical engineering research and design 8 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 585591

Nomenclature
ag
B
C1
dp
D
h
hL
hLi
hLi ,av
hL0
hL,dyn
KP
QL
ReL
S
VSG
VSL

geometric area of the packing (m2 m3 )

channel base (m)
empirical constant (s m2 )
drip point density of the liquid distributor (m2 )
column inner diameter (m)
crimp height (m)
averaged liquid hold-up over 80% of the cross
section of the column (% vol/vol)
averaged liquid hold-up over zone i (% vol/vol)
averaged liquid hold-up over the ve dened
zones (% vol/vol)
static liquid hold-up (% vol/vol)
dynamic liquid hold-up (% vol/vol)
empirical constant (s m2 )
liquid load (m3 m2 s1 )
liquid Reynolds number
channel side (m)
supercial gas velocity (m s1 )
supercial liquid velocity (m s1 )

Greek symbols
i
mal-distribution parameter (%)

bed void fraction (% vol/vol)


linear liquid ow, based on
(kg s1 m1 )
L
liquid viscosity (Pa s)
water viscosity (Pa s)
w
P
packed bed density (kg m3 )
liquid density (kg m3 )
L

surface tension (N m1 )

perimeter

homogeneously fully wetted which further ensures high interfacial area, then high efciency. Second, it is required to ensure
that present results can be directly applied for larger columns
if wall effects are found to be negligible.
In this work, the inuence of the liquid load and liquid viscosity has been studied. In the following, the experimental
set-up is rst described. Second, results are shown and analysed. Last, results are discussed and correlations to predict
liquid hold-ups are proposed. The advantage of using such
packings for post-combustion CO2 capture is nally discussed.

2.

Methods and materials

2.1.

Operating conditions

A transparent column is used, the inner diameter, D, is close

to 400 mm. The pressure is close to the atmospheric pressure,
the temperature is the room temperature, the gas is air, and
the liquid is water or water with additives. By adding polyacrylamides (FA920) in water (0.1 wt%), the liquid viscosity, L , has
been varied from 1 to 2.5 cP, which covers the reference industrial operating conditions for MEA at 30% wt. It was checked
that the surface tension of these solutions, , were identical
(Sidi-Boumedine and Raynal, 2005). Thus, the surface tension
has no effect on the present results, the effect of viscosity only
being looked at.
Liquid load, QL , varies from 4 to 160 m3 m2 h1 . For a large
range of gas owrate, the effect of the counter current gas ow
can be neglected. Above a limit value of the gas owrate, which

Fig. 1 Zoom of channels for the metallic structured

packing MellapakPlus 252.Y, 400 mm diameter column. (a)
Top view. (b) Side view.
is called the loading point and is dependent on the liquid load,
the effect of the gas becomes non-negligible (Billet, 1995). This
work concerns operating conditions under the loading point,
then supercial gas velocity, VSG , can be xed to 0 m s1 . Gas
effect on the liquid ow has been partly studied and will be
discussed in further publication. The drip point density of the
liquid distributor, dp, which is the number of liquid injectors
by surface area, is higher than 347 dp m2 . According to Fair
and Bravo (1990) or Aroonwilas et al. (2001), it is high enough
to ensure that the distributor does not inuence the results.

2.2.

Beds characteristics

The bed height is close to 1.5 m for the two selected packings.
For the structured packing, the bed includes seven elements
turned by 90 relative to each other inside the column. The
geometric characteristics of the structured packing (h, S, B),
given in Table 1, are those used by Bravo et al. (1986).
For the random packing, the density of the bed has been
measured equal to 159 kg m3 . This value is close to the manufacturer one (IMTP Brochure, 2003) and to Esbjerg (DK) project
CASTOR pilot (D = 1.1 m, Knudsen et al., 2006) one, respectively
equals to 156 and 159 kg m3 . This means that a diameter of
400 mm is large enough to be representative of larger beds. The
geometric characteristics of the random packing are given in
Table 1.

2.3.

Tomographic measurements procedure

Measurements consist in mapping the liquid hold-up, or liquid

volume fraction, across the packed bed. This is done via a highresolution gamma-ray system developed at IFP, as described

chemical engineering research and design 8 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 585591

587

Table 1 Geometric characteristics of the structured

packings
Packing

MellapakPlus 252.Y

IMTP50

Crimp height, h;
channel side, S;
channel base, B
Characteristic sizes of
an element

11; 19; 30 mm

20 mm width

Geometric area, ag
Void fraction,
Bed density, p
Channel ow angle
from horizontal ( )
State of surface

250 m2 m3
0.98

45

110 m2 m3
0.98
159 kg m3

Perforated, texture
on the walls
Stainless steel 316 L

Smooth

40 mm large

Material

Fig. 3 Column cross section decomposition.

in details by Boyer and Fanget (2002). The radioactive source
(Cesium 137, 300 mCi) rotates all around the column, then a
local density map can be obtained from tomographic measurements, which is further converted into local liquid hold-up
values. The use of 32 BgO detectors enables to build 64 64 or
128 128 maps. For the present study 64 64 maps are used.
This allows for reducing time consumption and corresponds

to a spatial accuracy of 6 mm for a 400 mm diameter column,

which is considered to be sufcient. The absolute error on the
liquid hold-up is 0.6%. Measurements can be realised from
the level (+1), near the top of the bed, down to level (1) near
the bottom of the bed.
It has to be noticed that the spatial accuracy can be reduced
to 300 m by using X ray tomography (Marchot et al., 1999,
2001; Green et al., 2007). This enables to study the liquid ow
at a local scale. However, the X ray radioactive source must
be very powerful compared to the gamma ray one to make
measurements with metallic packings at a big scale. For example, Green et al. (2007) use a 6 MeV radioactive source for a
150 mm diameter column. Then, the corresponding plant is
built in a special building and the packed column rotates since
the radioactive source is xed. Gamma tomography is much
more convenient to use, then both methods looks to be very
complementary.
The goal of present experiments is to estimate the homogeneity of the liquid ow at a meso scale for metallic packings.
A 400 mm diameter column is used to extrapolate results to
industrial plants. Then, gamma-ray technique is rst more
adapted than X ray one. Second we dened the averaged liquid
hold-up over a 360 mm diameter circle, hL . This corresponds to
80% of the column cross section. Third we dened ve zones
(Fig. 3). For each zone, i, an averaged liquid hold-up, hLi , is calculated and a mal-distribution parameter, i , is calculated via
the following relation:

hL hLi ,av

i = i
100

hLi ,av


1
hLi
hLi ,av =

(1)

i = [1; 5]

Fig. 2 Single element and packed bed of stainless steel

random packing IMTP 50. (a) Single elements. (b) Packed
bed.

3.

Results and analyses

3.1.

Flow homogeneity, inuence of the axial position

Fig. 1a gives an upper view of an element of the structured packing, and Fig. 4a gives a tomographic picture of the
cross section at the bottom of the bed (level 1). First, the
structure of packing channels can be recognized on the tomographic picture. Second, one observes that some channels

588

chemical engineering research and design 8 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 585591

MellapakPlus 252.Y (Fig. 6a and b), the relative error for measurements is higher for the random packing and can penalize
IMTP50. Differences between hLi ,av and hL , and between hL
and the overall liquid hold-up are lower than 3%. Then, both
packings give good results even if the structured packing
seems to give better liquid distribution despite stronger wall
effects.

3.2.

Liquid hold-up

For the present study, the liquid ow is considered homogeneous for both packings. Then, the lower section (level 1)
averaged liquid hold-up, hL , can be used to estimate the overall liquid hold-up across the entire bed. Fig. 6a and b gives as
a function of QL , for MellapakPlus 252.Y and IMTP50. For the
latter, present experiments are compared to results of Linek
et al. (2001), obtained at 1 cP for RMSR50 packing which is similar to IMTP50. These authors use a 0.29 m diameter column
with a very elaborate liquid distributor (dp = 2500 dp m2 ), and
inject a liquid tracer (NaCl solution) to estimate the residence time which is further used to calculate the liquid
hold-up. For both packings, hL is proportional to QL . This
trend is similar to the one observed by Sidi-Boumedine and
Raynal (2005) for SMV structured packing, and present results
are in agreement with Linek et al. data. It indicates that
a plug liquid ow could be assumed for IMTP50, and conrms that the liquid distributor does not inuence present
results.

Fig. 4 Tomographic picture and local differences for

MellapakPlus 252.Y. QL = 120 m3 m2 h1 , L = 1 cP. (a)
Tomographic picture, level (1). (b) Local differences.
are almost empty while in some others the liquid volume
fraction can reach more than 20%. Fig. 4b gives the local
differences i (as given by relation 1) measured at the top
(level +1), at the middle (level 0) and at the bottom of the
bed (level 1) for the ve zones considered. It is seen that
i are less than 10%. It has to be noticed that hLi ,av and
hL are similar since differences between the two are lower
than 3%, which is comparable to the experimental error (0.6%
absolute). hL is systematically higher than the liquid hold-up
averaged for the overall section, however relative differences
are lower than 7%. Then, despite the local inhomogeneities
previously discussed at small scale, and despite a little wall
effect, the liquid ow can be considered homogeneous at
a scale signicantly larger than the geometric scale of the
packing. i values are measured to be in the same range at
the top and at the bottom of the packed bed, which means
that there is not a strong axial evolution in liquid distribution.
Fig. 5a gives a tomographic picture of the cross section
at the bottom of the bed for IMTP50 (level 1), and Fig. 5b
gives the corresponding local differences at different levels
of the bed. The liquid ow is homogeneous if one considered
the packed bed at a meso scale, but local inhomogeneities
must be taken into account if one considered the packed
bed at the geometric scale of a single element. i can reach
up to 20% for this random packing, and evolution of the
liquid ow distribution all along the bed is stronger than
for the structured packing (Fig. 4b). However, since the liquid hold-up is much lower for the IMTP50 than for the

Fig. 5 Tomographic picture and local differences for

IMTP50. QL = 120 m3 m2 h1 , L = 1 cP. (a) Tomographic
picture, level (1). (b) Local differences.

chemical engineering research and design 8 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 585591

589

For both packings, there is a little inuence of L , on the

liquid hold-up. A power law of 0.13 and 0.17 is followed for
the MellapakPlus 252.Y and the IMTP50 respectively. This is
in agreement with Sidi-Boumedine and Raynal (2005) and
Stichlmair et al. (1989) for L lower than 5 cP.

4.

Discussion

4.1.

Structured packing

For the MellapakPlus 252.Y structured packing, experiments

can be compared to SULPAK 3.0 manufacturer software calculations based on the correlation of Suess and Spiegel (1992),
and to correlations of Billet and Schultes (1999) and Stichlmair
et al. (1989) developed for Mellapak 250.Y structured packing. The latter is very similar to the tested structured packing
but at packing junctions: junctions of the high capacity version are smooth thanks to the metal sheets curvature (Sulzer
Chemtech Brochures). Results are also compared to a simple
1D model which assumes a fully wetted packing and a fully
developed laminar falling lm (Sidi-Boumedine and Raynal,
2005). No empirical constant is needed for the 1D model. In this
model, the liquid hold-up is a function of the packing geometry (Table 1), the lm thickness, e, and the operating conditions
only. According to the laminar lm theory, hL follows a power
law of 0.33 for L .
Fig. 7a and b compares experimental versus calculated values of hL for different liquid viscosities. For a viscosity of 1 cP,

Fig. 7 Liquid hold-up: model versus experiments,

MellapakPlus 252.Y, VSG = 0 m s1 . (a) L = 1 cP. (b) L = 2.5 cP.

Fig. 6 Liquid hold-up as a function of the liquid load for

VSG = 0 m s1 . (a) MellapakPlus 252.Y. (b) IMTP50.

calculations from Billet and Schultes (1999) correlation are a

little bit lower than those from Stichlmair et al. (1989) one, and
both correlations are in agreement with present data. These
differences can be partly explained by the fact that, for this
packing, hL is slightly higher than the one calculated for the
overall cross section as discussed in Section 3.1. SULPAK 3.0
and 1D model underestimate strongly measurements whatever the liquid load.
For a viscosity of 2.5 cP, correlations of Billet and Schultes
and Stichlmair et al. give similar calculated values. This is due
to the fact that, for the rst correlation, hL follows the laminar
lm theory for L , while for the second liquid viscosity effect
is neglected below 5 cP. Once again, these two correlations are
in agreement with present data. As for the liquid viscosity of
1 cP, SULPAK 3.0 and 1D model underestimate measurements
whatever the liquid load.
Correlations of Billet and Schultes and Stichlmair et al. can
be used to estimate hL , however they do not fully agree with
present results for the viscous term. This calls for new correlations for hL .
A linear t can be done to estimate hL (Fig. 6a). At
QL = 0 m3 m2 h1 , such relation leads to a non-negligible socalled static hold-up, hL0 . The latter can be explained by
texture on packing walls (Fig. 1b) which generate recirculation zones, as discussed by Raynal and Royon-Lebeaud
(2007). Above ReL = 800, recirculation zones ll up cavities
of the packing, and the static hold-up can be considered
constant. A non-negligible static hold-up can explain why

590

chemical engineering research and design 8 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 585591

1D model, which assumes smooth surface, underestimates

strongly experimental results. If it is assumed that hL0 is a
function of the geometry only, following relationships can be
rst proposed:

to similar relationships:

  1/3
L
P 

h
=
h
+
K

L
L
0

L w

1
 = L VSL

 
 L 1/3

hL = hL0 + KP

L w

1
 = L VSL

ag

P = 691 [s m2 ]

ag

KP = 164 [s m2 ]

hL0 = 3%

(2)

hL0 = 6.3%

Relation (2) is similar to the one of Sidi-Boumedine and

Raynal (2005) for SMV structured packings, and the viscous
term follows the laminar lm theory. From relation (2) one
can estimate the liquid residence time via the dynamic liquid hold-up (hL,dyn = hL hL0 ). Since at low liquid load hL
is close to hL0 , hL,dyn and the residence time tend to zero
which is not physical. Based on CFD calculations (Raynal
and Royon-Lebeaud, 2007), it is rst assumed that hL0 is a
function of the ReL , instead of being constant like for relation (2). Second, it is assumed that hL follows a power law
of 0.4 for the liquid load, which is comparable to results
obtained at low liquid load by Suess and Spiegel (1992). Then,
following relationships can be also proposed to estimate
hL :

 1/3
0.4 L

h
=
h
+
C


L
L
1
0

w

ReL = 4 = 4L VSL

L
ag L

2
C1 = 0.2683 [s m

40

ReL0 =
= 800

L

for ReL ReL0

hL0 = 0.032


0

hL0 = 0.032

(3)

for ReL > ReL0

As for relation (2), relation (3) is in agreement with laminar lm theory for the viscous term. At low liquid loads, hL0
becomes negligible according to relation (3). This means that
hL,dyn becomes similar to hL instead of becoming close to zero
with relation (2). Relation (3) seems to be more physical than
relation (2) since the residence time does not tend to zero at
low liquid load. But CFD calculations need further validation
to valid hL0 expression.
For the two proposals differences between calculated and
measured values are lower than 12%, that means that both
relations predict very well experimental data. According to
the selected relation, the calculated liquid residence time can
differ strongly. However this parameter is not critical for a
chemical system like CO2 /MEA since it leads to fast reaction
regime.

4.2.

(4)

Random packing

To our knowledge, there is no available correlation in the literature for the IMTP50. As for the structured packing, a linear t
(Fig. 6b) leads to a non-negligible so-called static hold-up and

Relation (4) is in agreement with the laminar lm theory for

the viscous term. The non-negligible static hold-up could be
explained by contact points between single elements of packing. However, as observed with MellapakPlus 252.Y, the problem is that hL0 is close to 0% for low liquid loads, which is not
physical. Then, hL0 is not a real static hold-up for the IMTP50.
Previous discussion leads to propose another correlation
for hL , similar to relation (5) for the structured packing.
Because the IMTP50 surface is metallic and smooth, it is
assumed that hL0 is negligible. Following relation can be
retained:

  0.17

hL = 0.119

w

 0.4

(5)

Relation (5) is not in agreement with the lm theory for the

viscous term. hL is proportional to the liquid viscosity with a
power law of 0.17 instead of 0.33. This is in contradiction with
results obtained on structured packing. These results could
be explained by at least three reasons. First, the assumption of
fully developed ow used in the 1D model is probably not valid
for a packing which has almost no plane walls. Second a nonnegligible fraction of the liquid ow can be made of droplets,
the size of droplets mainly depends on the surface tension and
not on the liquid viscosity. Third, hL0 can be non-negligible.
As for the structured packing, differences between calculated and measured values are lower than 10% for the two
proposals (relations (4) and (5)), that means that both relations
predict very well experimental data.
Future work is needed to improve the description of phenomena and conclude on these points, in particular by varying
the liquid surface tension.

5.

Conclusions

To reduce the size of future post-combustion capture plants

high capacity and low pressure drop packings are highly
needed. In this study, two high capacity packings had been
selected: a random packing (IMTP50) and a structured packing
(MellapakPlus 252.Y). The liquid distribution found to be good
for both packings, that means that there is no wall effect and
that experimental results can be extrapolated to large size
columns, and that these packings should be used at their
optimum.
Correlations are proposed to estimate the liquid hold-up
of the packed beds while there is no inuence of the counter
current gas ow. For the structured packing, texture on the
packing walls can increase the liquid amount in the bed, and
the viscous term is in agreement with the lm theory. For the
random packing, if a negligible static hold-up is assumed, the
viscous term is not in agreement with the lm theory.
Both packings seem to be well adapted for capture plants,
for which good liquid distribution is required to maximise contact between gas and liquid. This conclusion will be further
conrmed by measuring pressure drops and mass transfer
coefcients, and study the impact of the gas.

chemical engineering research and design 8 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 585591

Future work is needed to improve physical description of

phenomenon, in particular by varying liquid properties and
increasing supercial gas velocity.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the European Commission for
their nancial support.

References
Aroonwilas, A., Tontiwachwuthikul, P. and Chakma, A., 2001,
Effects of operating and design parameters on CO2 absorption
in columns with structured packings. Sep Purif Technol, 24:
403411.
Billet, R., (1995). Packed Towers in Processing and Environmental
Technology. (VCH, Weinheim).
Billet, R. and Schultes, M., 1999, Prediction of mass transfer
columns with dumped and arranged packings. Trans IChemE,
77(Part A): 498504.
Boyer, C. and Fanget, B., 2002, Measurement of liquid ow
distribution in trickle bed reactor of large diameter with a new
gamma ray tomographic system. Chem Eng Sci, 57: 10791089.
Bravo, L., Rocha, J.A. and Fair, J.R., 1985, Mass transfer in gauze
packings. Hydrocarbon Process, (January): 9195.
Bravo, L., Rocha, J.A. and Fair, J.R., 1986, Pressure drop in
structured packings. Hydrocarbon Process, (March): 4549.
Fair, J.R. and Bravo, J.L., 1990, Distillation columns containing
structured packing. Chem Eng Prog, 86(1): 1929.
Green, C.W., Farone, J., Briley, J.K., Eldridge, R.B., Ketcham, R.A.
and Nightingale, B., 2007, Novel application of X-ray
computed tomography: determination of gas/liquid contact
area and liquid hold-up in structured packing. Ind Eng Chem
Res, 46: 57345753.

591

Iliuta, I. and Larachi, F., 2001, Mechanistic model for structured

packing containing columns: irrigated pressure drop, liquid
hold-up, end packing fractional wetted area. Chem Eng Chem
Res, 40: 51405146.
IMTP Brochure, 2003, Koch Glitsch, Bulletin KGIMTP-I 2M0303B.
Knudsen, J.N., Vilhelmsen, P.J., Jensen, J.N. and Biede, O., 2006,
First year operation with 1t/h CO2 absorption pilot plant at
Esbjerg coal-red power plant, In VGB Conference, Chemie im
Kraftwerk
Linek, V., Moucha, T. and Rejl, F.J., 2001, Hydraulic and mass
transfer characteristics of packings for absorption and
distillation columns. Rauschert-Metall-Sattel-Rings. Trans
IChemE, 79(A): 725732.
Marchot, P., Toye, D., Crine, M., Pelsser, A.-M. and LHomme, G.,
1999, Investigation of liquid maldistribution in packed
columns by X-ray tomography. Trans IChemE, 77(Part A):
218511.
Marchot, P., Toye, D., Pelsser, A.-M., Crine, M., LHomme, G. and
Olujic, Z., 2001, Liquid distribution images on structured
packing by X-ray computed tomography. AICHE J, 47:
14711476.
Raynal, L. and Royon-Lebeaud, A., 2007, A multi-scale approach
for CFD calculations of gas-liquid ow within large size
column equipped with structured packing. Chem Eng Sci, 62:
71967204.
Sidi-Boumedine, R. and Raynal, L., 2005, Inuence of the viscosity
on the liquid hold-up in trickle bed reactors with structured
packings. Catal Today, 105: 673679.
Sulzer Chemtech Brochure, No. 22.09.06.40-X.99-50.
Sulzer Chemtech Brochure, Structured packings for distillation,
absorption and reactive distillation, 22.13.06.04-I 05.50.
Stichlmair, J., Bravo, J.L. and Fair, J.R., 1989, General model for
prediction of pressure drop and capacity of countercurrent
gas/liquid packed columns. Gas Sep Purif, 3: 1928.
Suess, P. and Spiegel, L., 1992, Hold-up of Mellapak structured
packings. Chem Eng Process, 31: 119124.