chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 19721985

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering Research and Design

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

Design and selection of sparger for bubble column reactor. Part I: Performance of different spargers
Anand V. Kulkarni, Jyeshtharaj B. Joshi
Department of Chemical Engineering, Institute of Chemical Technology, N.P. Marg, Matunga [E], Mumbai 400 019, India

a b s t r a c t
Bubble columns are widely used for conducting gasliquid and gasliquidsolid mass transfer/chemical reactions. Sparger is the most important accessory because it decides the bubble size/rise velocity distribution. These, in turn, govern the radial and axial hold-up proles, the liquid phase ow pattern and hence the performance of bubble columns. In particular, the sparger design is critical if the aspect ratio is low and the sparger design dominates the performance of the bubble column. However, systematic procedure for the selection of sparger design and type are not available in the published literature. This is the specic objective of the present work. In Part I, the performance of different spargers, including the newly developed wheel type of sparger is discussed. Thus the important considerations required for the sparger design are highlighted. The bubble column used in the manufacture of hydrogen peroxide has been considered as a case for illustration. 2011 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Bubble column; Sparger; Spider sparger; Multiple ring sparger; Sieve plate sparger; Radial sparger; Weeping; Gasliquid reactions; Gas distributor

1.

Introduction

Bubble column reactors are widely used for conducting a variety of two phase and three phase reactions. These are preferred reactors due to exibility in the residence time, excellent heat and mass transfer characteristics and the absence of any moving parts. Sparger is an important accessory for any bubble column, since it decides the bubble size/rise velocity distribution. It is also known that sparger design is the major concern when aspect ratio is low (Freedman and Davidson, 1969; Joshi and Sharma, 1976; Deckwer, 1992; Grevskott et al., 1996; Lin et al., 1998; Delnoij et al., 1999; Joshi, 2001; Kulkarni, 2010). Various design as well as operational problems may arise due to improper selection of the type and/or the design of sparger. Such problems are (1) weeping, which results in undesirable residence time distribution and hence poor selectivity. Weeping also induces non-uniformity in sparging and higher pressure drops. (2) weeping also results into plugging of some holes if solid phase is present either as a reactant or any product. (3) it is desirable to know the inherent non-uniformity in sparging since the consequences of non-uniform distribution are the forma-

tion of dead zones. This also lowers the values of interfacial area and the increased values of pressure drop, etc. (4) it is always desirable to have low pressure drop from operating cost point of view. However we need to ensure no weep conditions as well as the uniformity of sparging. Apart from these tribulations, there are always some practical concerns such as (a) maximum possible number of pipes which can be accommodated in the column. (b) provision of proper inlet for the sparger. (c) smooth inow/outow of the liquid phase depending upon the co-current/counter-current operation and (d) the location of sparger from the bottom of the reactor, with due considerations to the total height of the column. Various spargers are in commercial use such as sieve plate, radial, spider and multiple ring (Fig. 1). The design of sieve plate sparger involves the specications of the diameter, number and orientation of holes. It also involves the specication of chamber dimensions below the sieve plate (Fig. 2) and the specication of the gas inlet (size and location) to the gas chamber. In case of sieve plate sparger, under no weep conditions, the gas chamber contains only gas. The dimensions of the gas chamber and the location of gas inlet are selected in such a way that the gas gets uniformly supplied to all the holes

Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 22 24145696/25597625; fax: +91 22 24145614. E-mail addresses: jbj@udct.org, jbjoshi@gmail.com, jb.joshi@ictmumbai.edu.in (J.B. Joshi). Received 1 July 2010; Received in revised form 17 October 2010; Accepted 6 January 2011 0263-8762/$ see front matter 2011 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2011.01.004

chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 19721985

1973

Table 1 Sparger types under consideration. Nomenclature AW Bdo BW D DC dB dH do dp Fr f g Ga H HC HL L l N P ReO T VC VG VO VW t x PW constant in Eqs. (6) and (7) bond number based on orice diameter constant in Eq. (6) column diameter (m) chamber diameter (m) bubble diameter (m) header diameter (m) hole diameter (m) pipe diameter (m) Froude number allowable bending stress (N/mm2 ) acceleration due to gravity (m/s2 ) Galileo number column height (m) chamber height for sieve plate sparger (m) static liquid head (m) length of the sparging pipe/arm (m) dimension of single plate used for fabrication of sieve plate (mm) number of holes operating pressure (Pa) Reynolds number based on hole velocity operating temperature ( C) critical weep velocity (m/s) supercial gas velocity (m/s) hole velocity (m/s) critical weep velocity (m/s) thickness of sieve plate (m) distance between two holes (m) wet pressure drop (Pa) Sparger
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Sparger name
Multiple ring 1 Multiple ring 2 Multiple ring 3 Multiple ring 4 Spider sparger 1 Spider sparger 2 Spider sparger 3 Spider sparger 4 Spider sparger 5 Spider sparger 6 Radial sparger Wheel sparger Sieve plate sparger

Sparger details
Conventional multiple ring with side entry Conventional multiple ring with central entry Modied multiple ring with side entry Modied multiple ring with central entry Conventional spider with side entry Modied spider with side entry Conventional spider with central entry Modied spider with central entry Conventional spider with central entry Modied spider with both side entry Radial sparger Wheel type of sparger Sieve plate sparger

Greek symbols liquid density in Eq. (5) (kg/cm3 ) gas density (kg/m3 ) G liquid density (kg/m3 ) L expansion factor

of sparger together with detailed specications. For practicing engineers, worked examples have been given over a wide range of design and operating parameters. The entire work is divided into two parts so as to comprehend all the considerations needed for the sparger design. Part I of this work presents the importance of different considerations required for the selection of sparger design and type for a case of hydrogen peroxide manufacture. Thus Part I discusses the performance characteristics of different spargers. In Part II selection procedure has been described for the optimum sparger design and type for the same example and for the same range of operating and design characteristics of bubble column, i.e. range of supercial gas velocity, aspect ratio, column diameter and operating pressure.

2.

Design procedure for sparger

(this means that the radial pressure prole is practically uniform below the sieve plate and the velocity vectors are almost vertical below the plate) (Dhotre and Joshi, 2003, 2006). For the other spargers, we need to know the pipe diameter and the number of pipes/rings together with the diameter and number of holes. Gas is supplied to these spargers by a header which is expected to execute uniform supply to all the pipes (in radial pipe and spider sparger) and all the rings (in case of multiple ring spargers). For this purpose, we need to specify the header and pipe/arm dimensions. Fig. 3 shows the schematic representation of headers for the spider and ring spargers. The possibilities of connection between the gas supply and sparger are shown and these are: one side entry (Fig. 3A), two side entry (Fig. 3B) and the central entry (Fig. 3C). Fig. 3D shows radial sparger and Fig. 3E represents the wheel type of sparger, which is newly developed sparger (Kulkarni et al., 2009). All these combinations form the set of twelve spargers as listed in Table 1. The foregoing discussion brings out the importance of the sparger design. However, practically no information/guidelines are available in the published literature for the selection of type and/or the design of spargers. Therefore, it was thought desirable to provide rationale for the selection

The spargers for bubble column can be classied into two categories: (1) plate type of sparger (sieve plate) and (2) pipe type of sparger. The class of pipe type spargers include: radial, spider and multiple ring spargers. Major parameters for bubble column design are column diameter and column height, which are decided by the rates of mass transfer and/or chemical reaction, capacity, the required degree of conversion, operating pressure and temperature, supercial gas velocity and the physical properties of gas and liquid phases. Since weeping is undesirable phenomena, sparger should be operated above critical weep point velocity and the noweep condition should be satised for all the holes. The correlations for critical weep velocity have been reported in the literature for sieve plate (Thorat et al., 2001):
2 VC =

G )do g G

0.37 + 140HL

x do

1.6

t do

0.75

(1)

and for other sparger designs such as pipe, ring and spiders (Kulkarni et al., 2009):
2 = VC

0.44(

G )do g

L do

0.12

x do

0.145

HL do

0.67

(2)

1974

chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 19721985

Header diameter

Pipes/Arms

Rings

D
Fig. 1 Different types of spargers.

The operating hole velocity (VO ) is selected higher than the weep velocity (VW ) with some margin (say, 15%). On the basis of VO and the volumetric ow rate of gas, the free area of the sparger can be estimated. By selecting hole diameter (to be conrmed later), the number of holes are obtained. In the case of pipe spargers, one can estimate the total length of pipe by knowing the total number of holes required and the pitch of holes. Usually, for any bubble column reactor, the hole diameter of sparger is in the range of 0.56 mm. Also pitch ( x/do ) ranges from 3 to 50 for sieve plate and 215 for pipe spargers. In case of pipe spargers, it is desirable to have minimum non-uniformity in the header, since it reduces the overall non-uniformity. Maximum uniformity can be achieved if (a) the ratio of frictional pressure drop (in the header and the pipe put together) to that across the holes and (b) the ratio of the kinetic head at the pipe inlet to the pressure drop across the holes both are as low as possible. Usually, if column diameter is large (>1 m), then pipe spargers are preferred. This is because, the plate thickness (for sieve plate) increases with an increase in the pressure at the reactor bottom. However, in either case, it can be observed from the correlations for critical weep velocity that, the value of VC increases as the static liquid height (above the sparger) increases and as the pitch decreases. In the case of pipe/ring

type of spargers, the critical weep velocity decreases as length of the pipe increases. In case of multiple ring sprager, it was found that, the side entry with half way header as shown in Fig. 1D (or Fig. 3A) is not advisable. This is because, for any total pressure at the entrance of header, it may not be possible that the gas can be distributed in the entire sparger with sufcient uniformity. Further, there is always a maximum limit of length and the number of holes on the pipe beyond which it starves for gas for a certain total inlet pressure and the frictional pressure drop (Acrivos et al., 1959). Hence, in the case of multiple rings, either central entry (Fig. 3C) or entry from both ends (Fig. 3B) are advisable. The multiple ring sparger with entry from both ends is shown in Fig. 3B and F. The single entry (either side entry or central entry), does not alter the pressure drop and the nonuniformity for a specic hole diameter and pitch. However, if gas enters from both ends, then considerable reduction in both pressure drop and the non-uniformity can be achieved. The selection of hole diameter is the most crucial part in the entire design, because, hole diameter inuences all the design parameters either implicitly or explicitly. The implicit parameters are critical weep velocity hence pressure drop, average bubble size and bubble size distribution at the sparger and the number of pipes. The explicit effect is on the (a) non-

chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 19721985

1975

GAS OUT TOP GAS-DISPERSION INTERFACE PRESSURE EQUALIZATION LINE

LIQUID IN/OUT

LIQUID OUT (COUNTER-CURRENT)

LIQUID IN (CO-CURRENT) SIEVE PLATE SPARGER GAS CHAMBER

Fig. 2 Schematic of bubble column for design of sieve plate sparger.

GAS IN

uniformity. (b) liquid and gas phase ow patterns and hence on the column performance such as (i) axial mixing (Joshi and Sharma, 1978; Joshi, 1980, 1982; Joshi et al., 2002; Yang and Fan, 2003; Sokolichin et al., 2004). (ii) heat transfer (Joshi et al., 1980) and (iii) mass transfer (Pandit and Joshi, 1986; Gupta et al., 2009). In the case of pipe/ring spargers, the selection of design parameters can be classied into two stages. In the rst stage, header and pipe/arm diameter (shown in Fig. 1) is to be

3.

Manufacture of hydrogen peroxide

Hydrogen peroxide is manufactured using a two step reaction. In the rst step, alkyl anthraquinone is hydrogenated using hydrogen to give respective anthrahydroquinone, which is subsequently oxidized to give hydrogen peroxide and the anthraquinone (Kirk-Othmer, 2005). The anthraquinone is then recycled back for the hydrogenation.

C2H5

OH
Catalyst

C2H5

+ H2

OH OH

(3)

C2H5

C2H5

+ O2
(air)
OH

+ H 2O 2
(4)

selected, and later, based on these sizes, the second stage includes the selection of hole diameter (do ) and pitch. Usually, header diameter and pipe diameter are less sensitive for a specic hole diameter and pitch, however it may alter the range of operating map, i.e. the range of hole diameter and pitch which could be used for a specied case of header and pipe diameter.

The oxidation of alkyl hydroquinone is usually conducted in a bubble column reactor. The alkyl anthrahydroquinone and oxygen (usually air) are passed in co-current manner. The oxidation is exothermic reaction. It is reported that the reaction occurs in the liquid phase (Kirk-Othmer, 2005). The oxidation reaction is conducted at nearly atmospheric pressure and the operating temperature is typically 80 C.

1976

chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 19721985

GAS OUT

GAS OUT

GAS OUT

SPIDER OR MULTIPLE RING SPARGER

SPIDER OR MULTIPLE RING SPARGER

GAS IN

GAS IN

GAS IN

GAS HEADER A GAS OUT B C

GAS IN

GAS OUT

PIPE SPARGER AS SHOWN IN FIGURE 1 GAS IN

WHEEL SPARGER SPARGER ARMS GAS IN CHAMBER

GAS HEADER GAS IN D E

GAS

GAS

F
Fig. 3 Schematic of bubble column with radial, spider, multiple ring and wheel type of sparger, with type of gas entry. (A) Spider or multiple ring sparger with gas entry from one side. (B) Spider or multiple ring sparger with gas entry from both sides. (C) Spider or multiple ring sparger with gas entry from center. (D) Radial sparger. (E) Wheel type of sparger. (F) Multiple ring sparger with gas entry from both ends. Table 2 Physico-chemical properties of hydrogen peroxide (concentration by weight). Parameter 10%
Density at 20 C (kg/m3 ) Viscosity at 20 C (mPa s) Surface tension at 20 C (N/m) 1.034 1.01 0.0731

Concentration of hydrogen peroxide by weight 35%

1.113 1.11 0.0746

50%
1.195 1.17 0.0757

60%
1.2364

70%
1.288 1.24 0.0773

90%
1.387 1.26 0.0792

chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 19721985

1977

4. Performance evaluation for different spargers

As a typical case, it is assumed that the column diameter is 3 m, the supercial gas velocity is 0.03 m/s. The dispersed height is 16.5 m. Operating pressure is 0.05 MPa (gauge) at the top. The physico-chemical properties have been reported Kirk-Othmer (2005) and are reproduced in Table 2. First of all, we design the sieve plate sparger and then the twelve different designs of pipe sparger. In case of sieve plate sparger the important design parameters are diameter and number of holes, thickness of sieve plate, dimensions of gas chamber (Fig. 2) and the location of gas inlet. The thickness of sieve plate could be estimated from the following relationship (Ghadyalji, 2005): 1 10 3 Hl2 4f

t=

(5)

For a large column diameter, sieve plate is to be fabricated using multiple pieces. Supports are required to withstand the weight of gasliquid dispersion. Supports are also needed for the different pieces which together form the sieve plate sparger (Fig. 4). In the present case, column diameter is 3 m, hence diameter of sieve plate is also 3 m and we consider the pieces to be 100 mm squares. The plate thickness estimated by above equation was found to be 25 mm. The diameter of gas chamber is usually the same as the column diameter. Chamber height is to be selected based on the total pressure drop. Pressure drop across the plate could be estimated based on the following equation (Thorat et al., 2001): pW 2 (t/do ) 0.5
0.2

(HC D2 /Nd2 o t) x/do )

0.4

0.08

2( VO

AW + BW ReO

(6)

where BW is 0.14 and AW is given by: AW = 8.9 104 ( x/do )

1.4

(t/do )

1.6

HL + 1192 D

(7)

For a particular hole diameter, pressure drop increases with an increase in chamber height and it decreases as the pitch increases. Fig. 5 shows the pressure drop with respect to hole diameter (do ) for different chamber heights. The selection of hole diameter is always the process concern and hence is to be selected in conjunction of resultant average bubble size at the sparger. For the present problem, it is reported that the oxidation of ethyl anthrahydroquinone occurs in the liquid phase. Hence maximizing the interfacial area is desired. The dependency of hole velocity and hole diameter on average bubble size has been reviewed (Jamialhamadi et al., 2001). Jamialhamadi et al. (2001) have proposed the following unied correlation for the estimation of average bubble size: dB = do 5
.08 Bd1 O

9.261Fr0.36 + 2.147Fr0.51 Ga0.39

1/3

(8)

Eq. (8) was used for the estimation of average bubble size. For the present case, only the third term is signicant. It shows that average bubble size increases with 1/3rd power of the hole velocity and with 0.83 power of the hole diameter.

Fig. 5 shows the total pressure drop with respect to the do for sieve plate sparger. It can be seen that the lowest pressure drop is obtained for pitch 50 and do of 3 mm. However, average bubble size would be too large (0.019 m, according to Eq. (8)). It was thought appropriate (as a rst case) to set the values of do to be 1 mm, in order to reduce the average bubble size and maximize the interfacial area. The wet pressure drop (excluding the static liquid height), for this case was 2151.3 Pa and the average bubble size was found to be 9 mm. The chamber height was selected to be 1 m. The results for the specied case are shown in Table 3. It can be seen that a reduction in the pitch increases the pressure drop. For instance, for the case of do of 1 mm and pitch 50 the wet pressure drop across the sparger is 1522.4 Pa whereas for pitch 30 it is 2151.3 Pa. Same is applicable for hole diameter 3 mm. If do is increased from 1 mm to 3 mm and pitch 30, pressure drop reduces from 2151.3 Pa to 1855 Pa, respectively. However, this reduction is marginal. Increasing the do also increases the average bubble size. For sieve plate spargers the cost of drilling the holes is considerable and it increases with the plate thickness. Reducing the pitch reduces the number of holes. For sieve plate spargers if the number of holes are too high, as it is for do 1 mm and pitch 50 the number of holes are 15,323 and the cost of fabrication would also be high. Hence pitch was set to 30. The modest set of design parameters for the prescribed case is do 1 mm, pitch 30, number of holes are 10,207, chamber height 1 m. For such a set of parameters, the wet pressure drop works out to be 2151.3 Pa. It should be mentioned however that the sieve plate sparger may not be a good selection for the present case since column diameter is 3 m (readers can realize this point after the procedure for design of pipe spargers is discussed and the results are obtained). Fig. 6 shows the operating map for selection of header diameter and pipe diameter for conventional spider sparger with central entry (seventh sparger in Table 1). The operating map is used to select the set of header diameter and pipe diameter and not the number of pipes/rings. The ordinate for pressure drop ratio is on RHS and that for the pressure drop is on LHS. The general trends, which are applicable for all the cases of spiders and multiple rings are as follows: (1) the pressure drop decreases and pressure drop ratio increases as the number of pipes/rings increases. (2) as header diameter reduces and the pipe diameter increases, the non-uniformity increases. For the extreme case, i.e. minimum header diameter and maximum pipe diameter, dH 0.15 m and dp 0.05 m ( in Fig. 6, ordinate on RHS) it can be seen that the pressure drop ratio is high even for 10 pipes. On contrast, for the other extreme case, dH 0.35 m and dp 0.0254 m ( in Fig. 6, ordinate on RHS), the pressure drop ratio is minimum, hence the non-uniformity is minimum for any number of pipes. (3) for a specic pipe diameter, pressure drop ratio decreases as the header diameter increases. Whereas, pressure drop decreases with an increase in the header diameter. The later is more distinct if pipe diameter is high. (4) If both header diameter and pipe diameter are minimum among the list considered, dH 0.15 m and dp 0.0254 m, pressure drop is maximum for any number of pipes and vice-a-versa. It is mentioned above that the pressure drop ratio should be as low as possible. Hence, three choices (1) dH 0.35 m and dp 0.0254, (2) dH 0.35 m and dp 0.038 m and (3) dH 0.25 m and dp 0.0254 m could be explored. At this stage it is logical to state that the case 2, i.e. dH 0.35 m and dp 0.038 m would be costliest followed by case 1, dH 0.35 m and dp 0.0254 m and case 3, dH 0.25m and dp 0.0254 m would be the cheapest. Hence, as

1978

chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 19721985

PLAN : DOWNSTREAM OF SIEVE PLATE Single plate Rib support B SECTION OF SIEVE PLATE GAS CHAMBER PLAN : UPSTREAM OF SIEVE PLATE SUPPORTS FOR SIEVE PLATE C Perforations

GAS A

Fig. 4 Schematic representation of sieve plate sparger: (A) elevation, (B) plan: upstream and (C) plan: downstream.

10

Total pressure drop (Pa)

10

pitch/do 3 pitch/do 3 pitch/do 5 pitch/do 5 pitch/do 8 pitch/do 8 pitch/do 10 pitch/d o 10 pitch/do 15 pitch/d o 15 pitch/do pitch/do 20 20 pitch/do 25 pitch/d o 25 pitch/do pitch/d o 30 30 pitch/do pitch/d o 40 40 pitch/d pitch/do o 50 50 0.1D 0.1D 0.6D 0.6D 1.2D 1.2D

10

1.5

2.5

3 4 3.5 Hole diameter (mm)

4.5

5.5 x 10

-3

Fig. 5 Pressure drop characteristics for sieve plate sparger. a rst case, dH 0.25 m and dp 0.0254 m is considered. Fig. 7 is the operating map for design parameters. Since it is already mentioned earlier that operating map may change depending upon the parameters selected (dH and dp ). The number of set of dH and dp given in legends and that actually seen, i.e. number of corresponding lines in the gure may vary for each individual case. The general trends, which are applicable for all the pipe spargers, are as follows: (1) for any specic hole diameter, as the pitch increases, total pressure drop decreases and the number of pipes increases. (2) for any set of input parameters, operating map may have limitations. It means, in the present case, no curve for pressure drop for pitch higher than 8 is seen. This limitation arises from the operational point that it is not possible to accommodate more than 100 pipes in a

Table 3 Design parameters for sieve plate sparger. Parameter

Number of holes Plate thickness (mm) Chamber height (m) Dry pressure drop (Pa) Wet pressure drop (Pa) Critical weep velocity (m/s) Average bubble size (mm)

do 1 mm, x/do 30
10,207 25 1 642.1 2151.3 17.6 9

do 1 mm, x/do 50
15,323 25 1 339.5 1522.4 11.8 7

do 3 mm, x/do 10
411 25 1 4230 5996.8 48.7 30

do 3 mm, x/do 30
986 25 1 1064.1 1855 20.3 23

do 3 mm, x/do 50
1476 25 1 564.7 1161.8 13.6 19

chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 19721985

1979

20000 15000 10000 5000

0.2

0.1

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 100

Number of pipes (-)

Fig. 6 Pressure drop characteristics for selection of header and pipe diameter. given column geometry. Specically, if pitch is increased, in order to reduce the pressure drop, the number of pipes may be too high to accommodate these many pipes. For example, if hole diameter is set to be 2 mm then pitch cannot be set to 3 (o in Fig. 6) or even high (, + in Fig. 7). In the similar way it is not possible to set hole diameter 1 mm, since number of pipes are always higher than 100, i.e. this case is beyond the operating map. The same gure can also be considered for costing purpose, since pressure drop is associated with the operating cost and the number of pipes is associated with the xed cost. Once the operating range for selection of design parameters is known, the pressure drop dependencies, nonuniformity, number of pipes and average bubble size should be considered. Table 4 shows these details for this sparger, with the specied parameters. From Table 4 it can be seen that the critical weep velocity is lower than average hole velocity (8th row) in all the cases. If it is high, i.e. negative values, then safety margin should be increased. It can also be seen that, as the hole diameter increases, non-uniformity also increases. This is the usual case, however, in the specic example the deviation is marginal. Further, pressure drop also increases if the hole diameter is increased from 2 mm to 3 mm, for pitch 2. This increment is also marginal in this case. If the hole diameter and pitch, both are increased (do 2 mm, pitch 2 and do 3 mm, pitch 3) pressure drop increases by 10 per cent. The average bubble size also increases considerably and the deviation in the non-uniformity is marginal.

30000 25000 20000

Total pressure drop (Pa)

10000 40

20 5000 0 6

1.5

2.5

3 3.5 4 Hole diameter (mm)

4.5

5.5

Fig. 7 Pressure drop characteristics for selection of design parameters.

Number of pipes (-)

15000

pitch/do 2 pitch/do pitch/d 3o 2 pitch/do pitch/d 4o 3 pitch/do 4 pitch/do 5 5 + pitch/d o 6o 6 pitch/do pitch/d pitch/do 8o 8 pitch/d pitch/do pitch/d 10 o 10 pitch/d o 12 pitch/do 12 pitch/d o 15 pitch/do 15

100 pitch/do 2 pitch/do 3 pitch/do 4 pitch/do 5 80 pitch/do 6 pitch/do 8 pitch/do 10 pitch/do 12 60 pitch/do 15

Pressure drop ratio (-)

Pressure drop (Pa)

dH 0.15m;dH dp 0.0254m 0.15m;dp 0.025m dH 0.15m; dH dp 0.038m 0.15m;dp 0.038m dp 0.051m dH 0.15m; dH 0.15m;dp 0.051m + dH 0.25m; dH dp 0.0254m 0.25m;dp 0.025m dH 0.25m; dH dp 0.038m 0.25m;dp 0.038m dp 0.051m dH 0.25m;dH 0.25m;dp 0.051m 0.0254m 0.025m dH 0.35m;dH dp 0.35m;dp dH 0.35m;dH dp 0.35m;dp 0.038m 0.038m 0.051m 0.051m dH 0.35m;dH dp 0.35m;dp

0.5 0.15m;dp 0.025m 0.15m; dp 0.0254m dH dH 0.15m;dp 0.038m dH dH 0.15m; dp 0.038m dH dH 0.15m; dp 0.051m 0.15m;dp 0.051m dH dH 0.25m; dp 0.0254m 0.25m;dp 0.025m 0.25m; dp 0.038m dH dH 0.25m;dp 0.038m 0.4 dH dH 0.25m; d 0.051m p 0.25m;dp 0.051m 0.35m; dp 0.0254m dHdH 0.35m;dp 0.025m 0.35m; dp 0.038m dHdH 0.35m;dp 0.038m dHdH 0.35m; dp 0.051m 0.35m;dp 0.051m 0.3

1980

chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 19721985

Table 4 Design parameters for conventional spider with central entry. Parameter Set of hole diameter and pitch, header diameter 0.25 m and pipe diameter 0.0254 m do 2 mm,
Number of pipes Number of holes Total pressure drop Per cent non-uniformity Pitch on header (m) Average critical weep velocity (m/s) Average hole velocity (m/s) Per cent minimum critical weep velocity with respect to minimum hole velocity Average bubble size (mm) 8 2024 8364.6 76.7 0.38 21 34.2 +28.5 18

x/do 2

do 3 mm,
8 1348 8666.1 79.4 0.38 23 30 +9.7 24

x/do 2

do 3 mm,
8 900 9419.1 87.2 0.38 22.3 35.7 +24 25

x/do 3

At this stage it should be mentioned that if a sparger is to be designed to satisfy no-weep condition, the bubbling is usually in the jetting regime and the bubble size distribution is wide. Higher is the average bubble size, lesser is the interfacial area and lesser is the gas hold-up. In the present case, if the hole diameter is increased from 2 mm to 3 mm, then the average bubble size increases from 18 mm to 24 mm (according to Eq. (8)) and the corresponding increase in average hole velocity is nearly 10 per cent. In both situations, the non-uniformity is nearly same and increment in the total pressure drop is not signicant. It may be noted that, even if average bubble size increases nearly by 33 per cent, rise velocity dose not change signicantly. Hence, the fractional gas hold-up remains practically constant. Therefore, if the hole diameter of 2 mm is chosen, then the average bubble size would be 18 mm and the interfacial area in the sparger region would be high and pressure drop would also be less as compared with 3 mm holes. Under these circumstances, for conventional spider with central entry, it is advisable to set the hole diameter to be 2 mm and pitch 2. The above analysis was performed for dH 0.25 m and dp 0.025 m. At this stage it would be appropriate to check the effect of increasing the header diameter and pipe diameter. As mentioned previously, changing the header and pipe diameter may change the range of operating map. The case of do 2 mm and pitch 2 is not a feasible case if dH and/or dp is increased. Hence comparison is presented for do 3 mm in Table 5. It can be seen that increasing the header diameter has a little effect on the total pressure drop (rst two columns in Table 5). However, with an increase in the pipe diameter from 0.0254 m to

0.032 m, the reduction in the total pressure drop is even higher than 50 per cent and the number of pipes reduce by 50 per cent. On the other side, some holes may weep (8th row of rst two columns). Hence, safety margin needs to be increased. Increasing the safety margin certainly increases the total pressure drop and reduces the non-uniformity as can be seen from 3rd column in Table 5. Under these circumstances, it would be advisable to choose dH 0.25 m, dp 0.0254 m, do 2 mm and pitch 2. These are the optimized set of parameters for this type of sparger. After arriving at the specication of one sparger type, it is desirable to compare the different sparger types. Above mentioned case is the conventional spider and non-uniformity is considerably high. Similar trends can be observed in all the conventional spiders and multiple ring spargers, i.e. 1st, 2nd, 5th, 7th, and 9th case in Table 1. These cases therefore, will not be considered. Hence, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 11th, and 12th case in Table 1 are considered. It has been shown earlier that the effects of header diameter and pipe diameter are not signicant, however, for each sparger type it should be considered as a parameter. In the case of modied spider with single side entry, dH 0.25 m and dp 0.0254 m cannot be selected, because pressure drop ratio and hence non-uniformity is too high even for limited number of pipes. Under these circumstances, it is required to increase the header diameter. Hence, a comparison has been made for dH 0.35 m and 0.4 m. The pipe diameter was kept 0.0254 m. The results are shown in Table 6. It is worth to note that, a signicant reduction in the non-uniformity can be obtained for the modied case, which is maximum 3 per cent.

Table 5 Effect of header diameter and pipe diameter on design parameters for conventional spider with central entry. Parameter dH 0.25, dp 0.032, do 3 mm, pitch 2 Hole diameter 3 mm dH 0.3, dp 0.032, do 3 mm, pitch 2 dH 0.3, dp 0.032, do 3 mm, pitch 2 and safety margin 300 per cent
4 532 15360 51.9 0.76 23.3 61.4 +49 29

Number of pipes Number of holes Total pressure drop Per cent non-uniformity Pitch on header (m) Average critical weep velocity (m/s) Average hole velocity (m/s) Per cent minimum critical weep velocity with respect to minimum hole velocity Average bubble size (mm)

8 1348 3410 78.9 0.38 23 22 22.6 22

8 1348 3410.2 78.9 0.38 23 22 22.6 22

chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 19721985

1981

Table 6 Design parameters for modied spider with single side entry. Parameter Set of hole diameter and pitch, header diameter 0.35 m and pipe diameter 0.0254 m do 1 mm x/do 4
Number of pipes Number of holes Total pressure drop Per cent non-uniformity Pitch on header (m) Average critical weep velocity (m/s) Average hole velocity (m/s) Per cent minimum critical weep velocity with respect to minimum hole velocity Average bubble size (mm) 40 6522 3768.7 2.6 0.1 17 41.2 +57 10

do 1 mm x/do 8
84 6932 3206.9 1.3 0.05 16.1 38.8 +57.2 10

do 3 mm x/do 10
28 616 5155.6 1.8 0.15 20.3 48.7 +56.4 26.5

do 3 mm x/do 20
58 638 4601.8 1.3 0.073 19.3 47 +57.2 26

Increasing the hole diameter increases the total pressure drop and signicant reduction in the number of pipes can be seen (2nd column and last column in Table 6). Increasing the pitch, from 4 to 8 for hole diameter of 1 mm and pitch from 10 to 20 for hole diameter of 3 mm reduces the total pressure drop. However, this reduction can usually be ignored and the selection be based on the reduction in the number of pipes. As a result there is a reduction in xed cost and also the average bubble size. Changes in non-uniformity can also be neglected being nominal. Increasing the hole diameter to 4 mm or above is normally not benecial since it would increase the pressure drop as well as the average bubble size, though the number of pipes may reduce even further. Hence, for this case, the choice is to be made between the set of do 1 mm, x/do 4 and do 3 mm, x/do 10. The increase in the total pressure drop is nearly 40% (from 3768.7 Pa to 5155.6 Pa) and reduction in the number of pipes is also nearly 40% (from 40 to 28), respectively. However, an increase in the average bubble size is 2.6-fold. Under these circumstances it is advisable to choose do 1 mm and x/do 4. Because, even if increment in number of pipes is 40%, its contribution may not be signicant, unless very specic material of construction is required. For the present case, it is reported that stainless steel as the suitable material of construction. Yet another benet is the lower average bubble size. Further, the number of pipes may be reduced by reducing the pitch to 3 or even 2, without any signicant impact on the other parameters except total pressure drop. Hence for this specic sparger, set of design parameters are dH 0.35 m, dp 0.0254 m, do 1 mm and x/do 4. In the case of modied spider with central entry, results are shown in Table 7. The dH was 0.25 m and dp was 0.0254 m based

on earlier arguments. However, in this type of sparger it is possible to reduce the header diameter since the non-uniformity is signicantly less. Hence, the results are also shown for dH 0.15 m and dp 0.0254 m. In this case also hole diameter can be set to 1 mm based on earlier arguments. Increasing pitch, reduces the pressure drop considerably, from 3573 Pa for do 1 mm and x/do 4 to 2917 Pa for do 1 mm and x/do 12. Maximum non-uniformity is 5 per cent, hence can be assumed negligible. However reducing the pitch reduces the number of pipes signicantly, from 80 for pitch 12 to 28 for pitch 4, with modest increase in non-uniformity. If header diameter is reduced from 0.25 m to 0.15 m, pipe diameter is kept constant 25.4 mm, and do 1 mm and x/do 4, then total pressure drop across the sparger increases by 33 per cent, which may be acceptable with respect to dispersed height of 16.5 m. The number of pipes reduces to 24. Therefore for modied spider with central entry, the suitable design parameters are dH 0.15 m, dp 25.4 mm, do 1 mm and x/do 4. The results for modied spider with gas entry from both sides are presented in Table 8. The header diameter of 0.25 m and 0.15 m is considered. The pipe diameter was 25.4 mm. Since, hole diameter of 1 mm lies within the operating map and also suitable, results are presented for this case in Table 8. On the basis of earlier arguments, suitable design parameters are dH 0.15 m, dp 25.4 mm, do 1 mm, and pitch 6. The results for modied multiple ring sparger with central entry are shown in Table 9. The minimum ring diameter was set to be 1 m in all the cases. The header diameter of 0.25 m and 0.35 m was considered. Pipe diameter was 25.4 mm. It may be noted that an increase in pipe diameter directly affects the xed cost in the case of multiple ring sparger and a reduction

Table 7 Design parameters for modied spider with central entry. Parameter Set of dH 0.25 m, dp 0.0254 m do 1 mm x/do 4
Number of pipes Number of holes Total pressure drop Per cent non-uniformity Pitch on header (m) Average critical weep velocity (m/s) Average hole velocity (m/s) Per cent minimum critical weep velocity with respect to minimum hole velocity Average bubble size (mm) 28 7528 3573 7.3 0.11 17 35.9 +47 10

Set of dH 0.15 m, dp 0.0254 m do 3 mm do 1 mm x/do 20

36 648 4586.6 1 0.084 19.4 46.3 +55.1 26

x/do 8
52 7028 3176.3 1.9 0.06 16.2 38.2 +54.5 10

x/do 12
80 7280 2917.4 1.3 0.038 15.7 36.7 +54.5 10

x/do 10
20 720 5357 5 0.15 20.4 41.7 +46.1 25

x/do 4
24 6496 4747.6 8.1 0.13 17 41.4 +54 10

1982

chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 19721985

Table 8 Design parameters for modied spider with entry from both ends. Parameter Set of dH 0.25m, dp 0.0254 m do 1 mm
Number of pipes Number of holes Total pressure drop Per cent non-uniformity Pitch on header (m) Average critical weep velocity (m/s) Average hole velocity (m/s) Per cent minimum critical weep velocity with respect to minimum hole velocity Average bubble size (mm) 24 7428 2680 12.3 0.13 17 36.3 +49 10

Set of dH 0.15 m, dp 0.0254 m x/do 15 do 1 mm

32 7004 2153.9 4.3 0.1 16.5 37.2 +55.3 10

x/do 4

do 1 mm
84 7504 2125.5 1.1 0.043 15.4 34.7 +56.5 10

x/do 6

in the pressure drop is relatively less. From Table 9, it can be seen that minimum pressure drop is obtained for do 1 mm and pitch 20, and dH 0.35 m. However number of rings is very high, hence this set of parameters cannot be selected, since xed cost of sparger would be too high. If hole diameter is increased from 1 mm to 2 mm, total pressure drop increases marginally for both header diameters. The case of do 2 mm, pitch 5, would be optimum set, since both pressure drop and number of rings are less (3 rings), however non-uniformity is high, i.e. 15%. On contrary, if hole diameter is selected to be 1 mm, which is also desired for the process requirement, pitch of 5 is more optimum. For this case (1st row in Table 9) number of rings are 6, which are not too high and the non-uniformity is also low. Hence, for modied multiple ring sparger with central entry, dH 0.25 m, dp 25.4 mm, do 1 mm and pitch 5, are the modest design parameters. In the case of modied multiple ring sparger with gas entry from both ends (as shown in Fig. 4), the effect of design parameters is shown in Table 10. Header diameter was set to 0.25 m and pipe diameter 25.4 mm was considered. In this case again do 1 mm and pitch 5 are the most suitable design parameters, since pressure drop is less, non-uniformity is also less, number of rings are modest and average bubble diameter is also acceptable. Reducing the pitch below 5 is not advisable since, it increases the non-uniformity considerably and relative advantage in terms of number of rings is marginal. Hence, design parameters for this sparger are, dH 0.25 m, dp 25.4 mm, do 1 mm and pitch 5. In the case of radial sparger, the results are shown in Table 11. The diameter of outer ring was considered to be 1.25 times the column diameter, 3.75 m and length of single pipe was 80 per cent of column diameter, 1.2 m for the present case. In case of radial sparger the cost of header, i.e. outer ring is relatively high hence the diameter of ring pipe should be as low as possible. Further, in the case of high pressure reactors and also tall columns, i.e. the present case, mechanical constraints always limit the number of pipes, typically 48 are considered to be maximum. It is already, mentioned that for the present case, hole diameter of 1 mm along with minimum non-uniformity is suitable from process considerations. However increasing hole diameter decreases the number of pipes considerably, which is desired for radial sparger. Table 11 lists the results for do 1 mm, and 2 mm. Increasing the hole diameter increases the average bubble size and the total pressure drop. Increasing the pitch is not desirable for radial sparger, since it always increases the number of pipes. Reducing pitch increases the total pressure drop and non-uniformity. Hence, for header diameter of 0.25 m, do 1 mm and pitch 5 is suitable. Since, diameter of header should be minimum, the results for

dH 0.2 m and 0.15 m are also given in Table 11. It can be seen that, a reduction in dH dose not increase total pressure drop to any considerable extent, non-uniformity increases, however, still in an acceptable range. It was found that if dH is reduced further, 0.1 m, then total pressure drop and non-uniformity both increase considerably. Hence for radial sparger modest set of design parameters are dH 0.15 m, dp 25.4 mm, do 1 mm, and pitch 5. However, it should be mentioned that radial sparger cannot be used for the present case for the above mentioned reasons. In case of wheel sparger a chamber is placed at the center and pipes are placed along the periphery in the form of layers (Fig. 8). The chamber diameter is preferably maximum 30 per cent of column diameter and chamber height should be sufcient to accommodate the pipes. In the present case, chamber diameter is considered to be 0.6 m and height can be selected based on the number of pipes. Selection of pipe diameter is straightforward. Larger is the pipe diameter lesser is the pressure drop and higher is the xed cost. In the present case, dispersed height is 16.5 m hence if the increment in the total pressure drop is not signicant, it is preferable to choose lower pipe diameter. Table 12 shows the results for wheel type of sparger. Based on the earlier arguments it is appropriate

Fig. 8 Wheel type of sparger.

chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 19721985

1983

Table 9 Design parameters for modied multiple ring sparger with central entry. Parameter do 1 mm, x/do 5
Number of rings Number of holes Total pressure drop Per cent non-uniformity Pitch on header (m) Average critical weep velocity (m/s) Average hole velocity (m/s) Per cent minimum critical weep velocity with respect to minimum hole velocity Average bubble size (mm) 6 7915 3755.6 4.3 0.14 16.9 34.1 +46.6 10

Set of dH 0.25 m, dp 0.0254 do 1 mm, x/do 10

11 7269 3302 1.1 0.07 16.1 37 +53.3 10

Set of dH 0.35 m, dp 0.0254 m do 1 mm, x/do 20

22 7422 2181 1.44 0.033 15.3 35.8 +54.5 10

do 2 mm, x/do 5
3 1977 4007 16.2 0.35 19.8 34.1 +37.4 17

do 2 mm, x/do 10
5 1649 4100 4.9 0.175 18.8 40.7 +50.2 18

do 2 mm, x/do 5
3 1977 2572 15.4 0.35 19.8 34.1 +37.3 17

Table 10 Design parameters for modied multiple ring sparger with entry from both ends. Parameter do 1 mm, x/do 5
Number of rings Number of holes Total pressure drop Per cent non-uniformity Pitch on header (m) Average critical weep velocity (m/s) Average hole velocity (m/s) Per cent minimum critical weep velocity with respect to minimum hole velocity Average bubble size (m) 5 6606 2977 4 0.175 16.9 40.8 +55.4 10

Set of dH 0.25 m, dp 0.0254 m do 2 mm, x/do 5

3 1978 2569.8 15.4 0.35 19.8 34.1 +37.3 17

do 2 mm, x/do 10
5 1651 3012.5 4.7 0.175 18.8 40.7 +50.3 18

Table 11 Design parameters for radial sparger. Parameter Set of dH 0.25 m, dp 0.0254 m do 1 mm, x/do 5
Number of pipes Number of holes Total pressure drop Per cent non-uniformity Pitch on header (m) Average critical weep velocity (m/s) Average hole velocity (m/s) Per cent minimum critical weep velocity with respect to minimum hole velocity Average bubble size (mm) 22 5280 4920.7 5.5 0.54 51.2 50 +0.9 10

Set of dH 0.2 m, dp 0.0254 m do 1 mm, x/do 5

22 5280 5022.2 7.2 0.54 51.2 50 1.6 10

Set of dH 0.15 m, dp 0.0254 m do 1 mm, x/do 5

22 5280 5470.5 14.8 0.53 51.2 50.7 6.7 10

do 2 mm, x/do 8
16 1200 7108 4.4 0.74 56.3 56.3 2.5 20

do 2 mm, x/do 10
20 1200 5865.3 2.7 0.59 56.3 55.4 +0.2 20

do 2 mm, x/do 8
16 1200 7192.2 5.3 0.74 56.3 56.3 2.9 20

do 2 mm, x/do 8
16 1200 7549.2 9.3 0.74 56.3 56.3 4.9 20

Table 12 Design parameters for wheel type of sparger. Parameter do 1 mm, x/do 5
Number of pipes Number of holes Total pressure drop (Pa) Non-uniformity Average hole velocity (m/s) Critical weep velocity (m/s) Number of pipes in a single layer Number of layers Length of single pipe Average bubble size (mm) 16 3360 3294 2.5 80.4 80.2 16 1 1.05 12

Chamber diameter 0.6 m, chamber height 1 m and dp 0.0254 do 1 mm, x/do 20

71 3763 2829.2 0.03 71.8 72.6 25 2.8 1.05 12

do 1 mm, x/do 10
34 3570 3288.3 0.1 75.6 76.3 25 1.4 1.05 13

do 3 mm, x/do 20
18 324 4893.5 0.2 92.6 92.9 18 1 1.05 33

do 3 mm, x/do 10
9 315 6528.4 2.2 95.2 97.7 9 1 1.05 33

1984

chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 19721985

Table 13 Comparison of selected design parameters for all spargers. Sparger type and selected design parameter Sparger
Multiple ring 3 Multiple ring 4 Spider sparger 2 Spider sparger 4 Spider sparger 6 Wheel sparger

Total pressure drop (Pa)

Non-uniformity

Number of pipes/rings

Design parameters
dH 0.25 m, dp 0.0254 m, do 1 mm, x/do 5 dH 0.25 m, dp 0.0254 m, do 1 mm, x/do 5 dH 0.35 m, dp 0.0254 m, do 1 mm, x/do 4 dH 0.15 m, dp 0.0254 m, do 1 mm, x/do 4 dH 0.15 m, dp 0.0254 m, do 1 mm, x/do 6 DC 0.6 m, DL 1 m, dp 0.0254 m, do 1 mm, x/do 5 3755.7 2977 3768.7 4747.6 2153.9 3294 4.3 4 2.6 8.1 4.3 2.5 6 5 40 24 32 16

to select, dp 25.4 mm, do 1 mm and pitch 5. Because, increasing the hole diameter, increases the total pressure drop and reduction in number of pipes is not signicant. Reducing the pitch also increases the total pressure drop considerably and corresponding reduction in the number of pipes is also not signicant. Reducing the pipe diameter increases the pressure drop and the non-uniformity.

5.

Comparison of spargers

From the preceding discussion, the following points can be noted: (1) modied spiders and multiple ring spargers are attractive since these sparger types have low non-uniformity and also relatively low pressure drop. (2) The radial sparger and sieve plate sparger are comparatively unattractive for the present case because pressure drop is high (as compared to spider/multiple ring type of spargers) and the structural limitations do not permit to accommodate these many pipes radially inserted into the column (for radial sparger). In case of sieve plate sparger the support structure is unwieldy for the column of 3 m diameter. The modest set of design parameters has been isolated for the individual type of sparger. These sets are presented in Table 13. The hole diameter is already selected to be 1 mm with due considerations. In all the cases mentioned in Table 13, noweep condition has been satised. Further difference in the minimum hole velocity and the critical weep velocity is also sufciently high in all the cases. Selection of specic sparger, for the present case can now be done based on total pressure drop, non-uniformity and the number of pipes. From Table 13, it can be seen that (1) the difference between the maximum and the minimum pressure drop is 2600 Pa, i.e. 120 per cent. (2) The difference in maximum and minimum number of pipes is 24, which is also a large deviation. (3) The maximum non-uniformity is 8.1, which is reasonable. It can be seen that the pressure drop is minimum for spider sparger 6, i.e. modied spider with gas entrance from both ends. However, number of pipes for this case is relatively large, 40. Hence, xed cost would be high. The minimum nonuniformity was found to be 2.6 and 2.5 per cent for modied spider 2 and wheel type of sparger, respectively. The difference in the number of pipes is noticeable, i.e. 40 and 16 respectively. Hence among these, wheel type of sparger is more suitable. The pressure drop in the case of wheel type of sparger is 3294 Pa. Hence, comparison is required between wheel type sparger and multiple ring sparger. Among multiple ring sparg-

ers, difference in number of rings is negligible i.e. 5 and 6 for modied multiple ring 4 and modied multiple ring 3, respectively. The deviation in the pressure drop is merely 25 per cent, which can be ignored as compared to the static liquid height. Hence among multiple ring spargers, modied multiple ring 4 is suitable. The pressure drop, for this sparger is also minimum among multiple ring spargers. Hence, selection is to be made between the modied multiple ring 4 and wheel type of sparger. It can be seen that the difference in the pressure drop is negligible. However, the non-uniformity is low for wheel type of sparger. Hence, difference in the xed cost of wheel type of sparger and modied multiple ring 4 sparger is the only deciding parameter. It may be argued that the cost of wheel type of sparger would be less than the modied multiple ring 4 type of sparger. Hence wheel type of sparger is recommended for the present case.

6.

Conclusion

The present work provides the rationale for design of spargers and the criterion for the selection of a specic sparger for the specied case. The inuence of various parameters on the process considerations, operational considerations and the fabrication considerations are discussed in detail for the case of oxidation reaction in the manufacture of hydrogen peroxide. It has been shown that conventional spider and conventional multiple ring spargers are unsuitable since they provide unusually high non-uniformity. It was further shown that the wheel type of sparger is suitable for the range of operating parameters.

Acknowledgements
The project was supported by a grant from Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences (2006/34/24-BRNS/2803). Dr. Anand V. Kulkarni would like to acknowledge BRNS for their nancial assistance.

References
Acrivos, A., Babcock, B.D., Pigford, R.L., 1959. Flow distributions in manifolds. Chem. Eng. Sci. 10 (12), 112124. Deckwer, W.-D., 1992. Bubble Column Reactors. John Wiley, England. Delnoij, E., Kuipers, J.A.M., van Swaij, W.P.W., 1999. A three dimensional CFD model for gasliquid bubble column. Chem. Eng. Sci. 54, 22172226.

chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 19721985

1985

Dhotre, M.T., Joshi, J.B., 2003. CFD simulation of gas chamber for gas distributor design. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 81, 677683. Dhotre, M.T., Joshi, J.B., 2006. Design of a gas distributor: three-dimensional CFD simulation of a coupled system consisting of a gas chamber and a bubble column. Chem. Eng. J. 125, 149163. Freedman, W., Davidson, J.F., 1969. Hold-up and liquid circulation in bubble columns. Trans. IChemE. 47 (8), T251T262. Ghadyalji, K.H., 2005. Process Equipment Design and Drawing I. Nandu Printers and Publishers Pvt. Ltd., Chembur, India. Grevskott, S., Sannaes, B.H., Dudukovic, M.P., Hjarbo, K.W., Svendsen, H.F., 1996. Liquid circulation bubble size distribution, and solid movement in two and three phase bubble column. Chem. Eng. Sci. 51, 17031713. Gupta, P.P., Merchant, S.S., Bhat, A.U., Gandhi, A.B., Joshi, J.B., Bhagawat, S.S., Jayaraman, V.K., Kulkarni, B.D., 2009. Development of correlations for overall gas hold-up, volumetric mass transfer coefcient and effective interfacial area in bubble column reactors using hybrid genetic algorithm-support vector regression technique: viscous Newtonian and non-newtonian liquids. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48, 96319654. Jamialhamadi, M., Zehtaban, M.R., Muller-Steinhagen, H., Sarra, A., Smith, J.M., 2001. Study of bubble formation under constant ow conditions. Trans. IChemE. 79A, 523532. Joshi, J.B., Sharma, M.M., 1976. Mass transfer characteristics of horizontal spargerd contactors. Trans. IChemE. 54, 4253. Joshi, J.B., Sharma, M.M., 1978. Liquid phase back-mixing in sparged contactors. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 56, 116119. Joshi, J.B., 1980. Axial mixing in multiphase contactorsa unied correlation. Trans. IChemE. (U.K.) 58, 155165.

Joshi, J.B., Sharma, M.M., Shah, Y.T., Singh, C.P.P., Ally, M., Klinzing, G.E., 1980. Heat transfer in multiphase contactors. Chem. Eng. Commun. 6, 257271. Joshi, J.B., 1982. Gas phase dispersion in bubble columns. Chem. Eng. J. 24, 213216. Joshi, J.B., 2001. Computational ow modeling and design of bubble column reactors. Chem. Eng. Sci. 56, 58935933. Joshi, J.B., Vitankar, V.S., Kulkarni, A., Dhotre, M.T., Ekambara, K., 2002. Coherent ow structures in bubble column reactors. Chem. Eng. Sci. 57, 31573183. Kirk-Othmer, 2005. In: Seidel, Arza (Ed.), Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, vol. 14, 5th ed. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, pp. 3578. Kulkarni, A.V., 2010. Design of pipe/ring type of sparger for bubble column reactor. Chem. Eng. Technol. 33 (6), 10151022. Kulkarni, A.V., Badgandi, S.V., Joshi, J.B., 2009. Design of ring and spider type of spargers for bubble column reactor: experimental measurements and CFD simulation of ow and weeping. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 87 (12), 16121630. Lin, T-J., Tsuchiya, K., FanF L.S., 1998. Bubble ow characteristics in bubble column at elevated pressure and temperature. AIChE J. 44, 545. Pandit, A.B., Joshi, J.B., 1986. Mass and heat transfer characteristics of three phase sparged reactors. TransIChem Eng. (U.K.) A: Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 64, 125157. Sokolichin, A., Eigenberger, G., Lapin, A., 2004. Simulation of buoyancy driven bubbly ow: established simplications and open questions. AIChE J. 50 (1), 2445. Thorat, B.N., Kulkarni, A.V., Joshi, J.B., 2001. Design of sieve plate spargers for bubble column: role of weeping. Chem. Eng. Technol. 24 (8), 815828. Yang, G.Q., Fan, L.S., 2003. Axial liquid mixing in high-pressure bubble columns. AIChE J. 49 (8), 19952008.