CHEMICAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND DESIGN 87 ( a 00 9 ) 1612-1630

ELSEVIFR
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Chemical Engineering Research and Design
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/tocate/cherd
Design of ring and spider type spargers for bubble column
reactor: Experimental measurements and CFD simulation
of flow and weeping
Anand V. Kulkarni, Shrikant V. Badgandi, Jyeshtharaj B. Joshi*
Institute of chemical Tcchnoiogy, Matunga, Mumbai 400019, India
A B S T R A C T
In case of low H/D ratio bubble columns, sparger design governs the performance of bubble column reactors, There-
fore, a comprehensive study was undertaken for single ring spargers, multiple ring spargers and spiders covering
a wide range of hole diameters (2-6 mm), ring diameter (0.4-1 m), number of holes (19-90), number of rings (1-4),
number of arms (3-5) and arm length (0.4-1 m). The now distribution and critical weep point velocity was related to
geometric and operating parameters. CFD simulations (ANSYS CFX-1.0) have been performed for all these cases and
very good agreement was observed between the CFD predictions and experimental values of pressure, hole velocity
and the critica] weep point velocity. A step-wise design procedure for all types of sparger is presented along with a
worked example. Further a new sparger (Wheel type) is proposed which would be superior to the existing spargers.
2009 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. Alt rights reserved.
Keyiuords: Single ring sparger; Multiple ring sparger; Spider; Uniformity; Hole velocity; Critical weep point velocity;
Bubble column; Sparger design
1. Introduction
The sparger design is critical over the entire range of super-
ficial gas velocity in bubble columns having low H/D ratio
(Haque et al., 1986). In particular, in the range of 1 < HL/D < 5,
the internal liquid circulation is under development and
hence sparger design governs the flow pattern and hence
the performance of the bubble column. The various spargers
commerciaity available can be broadly classified into two cat-
egories; plate and pipe type spargers. Under the category of
plate spargers, sieve plate spargers are widely used. While in
pipe type spargers, straight pipe, single ring spargers, multi-
ple ring spargers and spiders are used. Plate type spargers are
used for small diameter bubble columns and pipe type sparg-
ers are used for large diameter bubble columns. The typical
sparger designs are shown in Fig. 1.
In terms of fixed cost sparger may contribute a little as
compared to the cost of bubble column however, perfor-
mance of bubble column is largely governed by sparger design
when aspect ratio is low (typically less than five Joshi and
Sharma, 1976; Ranade and Joshi, 1987; Joshi, 2001). Unifor-
mity in sparging results in increased fractional gas hold-up,
effective interfacial area, mixing time, and volumetric mass
transfer coefficient. On the other hand, non-uniformity results
in higher pressure drop, introduces the possibility of clogging
some holes and may result in weeping. Weeping is one such
phenomena, which results in non-uniform product distribu-
tion. Weeping in pipe type spargers primarily occurs when
kinetic energy of gas/vapor through the holes is insufficient
to support the liquid head above the sparger holes which
can happen because of non-uniformity of sparging. Weep-
ing, an undesirable phenomenon becomes important when
stable performance is desired. This is particularly true when
the bubble column reactor is to be operated in homogeneous
regime. Akagi et al. (1987) has done excellent work on weep-
ing from single orifice as well as from multiple orifices. It was
observed that ejection of gas is a cyclic phenomenon consists
of bubble formation, bubble detachment and liquid weeping.
In case of bubbling from single orifice weeping occurs immedi-
ately after the detachment of a bubble. The entire phenomena
have been presented (Akagi et al., 1987) by measurement of
pressure profile during the entire cycle along with the high
Corresponding author. Tel.: -h91 22 24140865; fax: +91 22 24145614.
E-mail address: jbj@udct.org (I.B. Joshi).
Received 2 January 2009; Received in revised form 7 May 2009; Accepted 1 June 2009
0263-8762/$ - see front matter 2009 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2009.06.003
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND DESIGN 87 ( 2OO9) 1612-1630 1613
Nomenclature
C
^ring
C,,
Cl
C2
o^
ou
D
DR
dn
d,
ew
Eu
/
FA,
FAL,
g
G
H
Hi.
1;
k'
L,
Lii
1.
"Li
"loi
NL
Np
NR
P
.iP
APj
K
pO
P,.,
APL
\ p
\ p
Poul
Pop
Q
R
Ra
R,
Re
t
u
U
Vo
Vol
orifice discharge coefficient
orifice discharge coefficient for ring sparger
constant in K-r model
model parameter in turbulent dissipation
energy equation
model parameter in turbulent dissipation
energy equation
hole diameter on the ith ring (m)
diameter of holes in ith arm (m)
bubbie column diameter (m)
diameter of ring (m)
hole diameter (m)
diameter of pipe (m)
clearance on header from wall (m)
Euler number
fanning friction factor
free area of a ith ring
free area of ith arm
Froude number at critical weep point
gravitational constant (m/s')
generation term (W/m^)
height of bubble column (m)
height of liquid in the bubble column (m)
turbulent kinetic energy per unit mass (m^/s^)
momentum recovery factor
length of ith arm (m)
total length of pipe sparger (m)
number of holes on ith ring
number of holes in the ith arm
total number of holes required
number of arms
number of pipes
number of rings
pressure (Pa)
pressure change along the sparger (Pa)
pressure change between ith and (i + l)th hole
in the sparger (Pa)
pressure just upstream of ith hole (Pa)
pressure just downstream of hole (Pa)
pressure at the start of the sparger (Pa)
pressure drop across the first hole from the
entrance (Pa)
pressure change across the hole (Pa)
pressure change across the first hole from the
entrance (Pa)
pressure outside the sparger holes (Pa)
pressure at which the reactor is operated (Pa)
volumetric flow rate (mVs)
diameter of the ring (m)
radius of a circle in which all arms of spider
could be inscribed (m)
ring diameter of ith ring (m)
Reynolds number
time (s)
velocity vector (m/s)
dimensionless velocity in the pipe
hole velocity (m/s)
velocity from the first hole (m/s)
VON
Vo.crit
v,'
K
V,,
AX
AXH
velocity from the last hole (m/s)
critical weep point velocity (m/s)
velocity just upstream of the ith hole (m/s)
velocity just downstream of the ith hole (m/s)
velocity at the inlet of the header (m/s)
velocity in the pipe (m/s)
pitch (m)
pitch on the header (m)
Greek symbols
O
F
II
I'tff
/' T
/'G
PI
< Tlt
i l .
T
free area of pipe sparger
turbulent energy dissipation rate per unit mass
viscosity of the fluid (Pa s)
effective fluid viscosity (Pas)
turbulent viscosity (Pa s)
density of the gas (kg/m^)
density of the liquid (kg/m^)
prandtl number for turbulent kinetic energy
prandtl number for turbulent energy dissipa-
tion rate
shear stress (Pa)
speed photography. These experiments reveal weeping both
qualitatively and quantitatively. In case of spargers the flow
pattern immediate downstream to the sparger additionally
contributes weeping as observed by Thorat et al. (2001). Thus,
liquid weeping is an important design parameter and also
undesired phenomena for bubble column reactors.
Non-uniformity in sparging through pipe type spargers
results due to the following reasons: (a) the friction of the fluid
against the internal surface of the pipe makes the pressure fall
in the direction of flow and (b) the momentum of gas decreases
due to deceleration of the fluid, as the fluid escapes out of
the holes, In order to obtain uniform flow rates through the
individual sparger holes, a proper balance between pressure
recovery and friction effects has to be achieved. However, the
flow inside the sparger is quite complex, and is highly depen-
dent on the sparger geometry and the inlet kinetic energy.
Information pertaining to flow distribution, pressure distribu-
tion and weeping in pipe type spargers is scantily available.
In order to address the above problem areas, a systematic
study has been undertaken to measure and predict the flow
and pressure distribution over a wide range of geometric and
operating conditions. It was also thought desirable to sim-
ulate the weeping conditions using CFD and compare the
predictions with the experimental values of weep poirit veloc-
ity.
2.
Literature review
The distribution of gas through the holes of sparger deperids
upon the kinetic energy of gas at the inlet (pressure and
kinetic), frictional losses along the straight pipe and the geom-
etry of holes (size, number, location, pitch, etc). Experiments
have been performed by Senecal (1957) and based on their
experimental observations, the following empirical criteria
have been proposed in terms of ratios of (a) the kinetic energy
per unit mass at the inlet to the pressure drop across the
sparger hole and (b) the pressure drop (frictional) along the
1614 C H E M I C A L E N G I N E E R I N G R E S E A R C H A N D D E S I G N 8 7 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 6 1 2 - 1 6 3 0
Gas
(D)
Fig. 1 - Different sparger designs for bubble column reactor: (A) sieve plate sparger, (B) multiple ring spacers, (C) spider, and
(D) pipe sparger.
straight pipe to that across the hole:
and
A P
(1)
(2)
Accordingly, if friction is dominant (i.e., very long pipe or large
ring diameter or very low velocity at the inlet), the first few
holes near the entrance of sparger discharge more compared
to the last few holes. On the contrary, if the kinetic energy
at the inlet is much higher than the frictional pressure drop
along the pipe the holes near the rear end discharge more
than the first few holes near the gas entrance. Eqs. (1) and
(2), however, do not provide clear recommendations for the
demarcation between 'friction dominant' and 'kinetic energy
dominant' conditions, in terms of inlet velocity, pipe diameter
or the ratio of hole diameter to pipe diameter. Further, no pro-
cedure has been suggested for the selection of hole diameter,
pitch, number of holes, pipe diameter, and pipe length.
Extensive experimental studies have been performed on
straight pipe spargers by Acrivos et al. (1959). They have estab-
lished the following one dimensional momentum balance for
the straight pipe sparger by including frictional pressure drop
and the pressure recovery:
Thus, the flow through the holes is a function of the
local pressure drop across each of the holes. The differential
momentum balance equation was solved for a set of known
conditions of inlet pressure, velocity, hole diameter, pitch and
friction factor. They have considered the variation of Fo as
a function of velocity along the length of the straight pipe
sparger. The proposed model is most generalized, but requires
the experimental values of momentum recovery factor (fe'),
orifice discharge coefficient (C) and friction factor i f ) .
Greskovich and O'Bara (1968) have obtained the pressure
profile using summation technique rather than the integral
approach used by Acrivos et al. (1959). However, they have
assumed equal velocity of gas flowingout through all the holes
and have obtained the pressure variation given by
- 4 . V
(5)
)
/' /total
where n is the number of sections into which straight pipe is
divided and i denotes the ith section. If n is large, then first
term reduces to an asymptotic value of 0.33 (typically n>12).
Hence, Eq. (5) reduces to the following form:
- fe'v.
total
(6)
Vdy
u r^
(3}
where
y =
This model is a simplified version of the model proposed by
Acrivos et al. (1959), but it does not offer any advantages over
the former model. In addition, the assumption of the uniform
flow rate through all the holes is a major limitation.
Knaebel (1981) has suggested a critical hole diameter for
95% uniformity in gas distribution from the orifice equation
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING RESEAKCH AND DESIGN 87 {2OO9) 1612-1630 1615
Table 1 - Design details of single ring sparger with
Dp =: 0.012 m.
(A)
Single ring
sparger
SRI
SR2
SR3
SR4
SR5
Ring diameter
R(m)
O.S
0.8
1.0
1.0
LO
do (m)
0.002
0.004
0.002
0.004
0.006
No. of
holes
19
19
19
19
19
FA
0.53
2.11
0.S3
2.11
4.75
and obtained the following expression:
. , 0.7Dp
(0.27
,0.25
Usually, the number of holes n is large. Therefore, Eq. (7)
reduces to
0.7Dp
(8)
Further, by assuming a frictional loss in the straight pipe
to be approximately one velocity head per 150 straight pipe
diameters Knaebel (1981) obtained the following equation for
hole diameter:
(9)
,0.35
The assumption of friction loss of one velocity head per
150 pipe diameter is prohibitive since the friction loss for
pipe spargers is a function of pipe sparger geometry. Also,
the applicability of only Fanning equation is questionable as it
considers pipe friction excluding pressure rise due to out flow
of fluid through the holes.
Akagi et al. (1987) has done excellent work on weeping from
single orifice as well as from multiple orifices. It was observed
that the ejection of gas is a cyclic phenomena and it consists
of bubble formation, bubble detachment and liquid weeping.
In case of bubbling from single orifice weeping occurs immedi-
ately after the detachment of a bubble. The entire phenomena
have been lucidly presented by Akagi et al. (1987) by measure-
ment of pressure profile during the entire cycle along with the
high speed photography. These experiments reveal weeping
both qualitatively and quantitatively. In case of spargers the
flow pattern immediate down-stream to the sparger addition-
ally contributes weeping as observed by Thorat et al. (2001).
Kulkarni et al. (2007) have performed an extensive
experimental and CFD investigations on flow and pressure dis-
tribution in straight pipe and single ring spargers for a wide
range of hole diameters, number of holes, pitch and ring diam-
eter. The authors observed good agreement between the CFD
predictions and the experimental observations. In particular,
it was shown that the CFD simulation does not need prior
knowledge of k' and C. The authors have suggested that the
CFD model can be used to design the straight pipe and sin-
gle ring spargers. In view of this, \l was thought desirable to
undertake a systematic experimental and CFD study of flow
distribution in single and multiple ring spargers and spiders
over a wide range of inlet flow rate, and geometrical param-
eters [pitch, number of holes, hole diameter, ring diameter
and number of rings (for single and multiple ring spargers),
arm length and number of arms (for spiders)]. The schematic
diagrams of all the sparger designs taken up in the present
investigation are as shown in Figs. 2-4.
Second ring {R2)
First ring (Rl)
Header
oeoo m)
0 200
Fig. 2 - Schematic diagrams for ring spargers: (A) single
ring sparger and (B) two ring sparger.
3. Experimental set-up and procedure
Experiments were performed on 13 ring (single and multiple
ring) and 4 spider type spargers to obtain pressure and flow
distribution for different inlet air velocities (20-90 m/s) in a
1.5 m diameter bubble column reactor. The design details of
the above mentioned sparger types are given in Tables 1-6. All
spagers were made of mild steel and column was made up
of perspex. Ambient air was used for the experimental study.
The volumetric flow rate of air entering the sparger was mea-
sured by using a pre-calibrated rotameter. Pressure taps were
provided between two consecutive holes in all the cases. Pres-
sure along the sparger was measured by a U-tube manometer,
with water as a manometric fluid. The reproducibility in the
measurement of all the variables was within 5 per cent. Hole
velocity has been calculated by taking pressure balance at the
control surface shown in Fig. 5. The measured pressure pro-
file was fitted by least square technique in order to obtain the
pressure at every hole. The R^ value was always higher than
0.98. In order to estimate the hole velocity profile, the fitted
pressure profile was solved by orifice equation so that total
mass balance satisfies. The maximum error in the measured
mass flow rate and estimated mass flow rate was 0.0015 kg/s
(which is within maximum 1 per cent).
In order to measure critical weep point for ring and spi-
der type spargers for various clear liquid heights, first air was
1616 C HE MI C AL E N G I N E E R I N G RES EARCH A N D DE S I GN 8 7 ( 2 O O 9 ) 1 6 1 2 - 1 6 3 0
Table 2 - Design details of two ring sparger with Dp = 0.012 m.
TWo ring sparger Rl( m) R2fm)
(m)
FA;
DRl
DR2
DR3
DR4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.0
1,0
0.8
0.8
0.004
0.002
0.004
0,002
0,004
0,004
0,004
0.004
19
19
19
19
25
25
25
25
2,11
0,53
2,11
0,53
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
Table 3 - Design details of three ring sparger with Dp = 0.012 m.
Three ring sparger Rl (m)
TRl 0,4
TR2 0.4
R2(m)
0,8
0.8
R3(m)
1.0
1.0
do: (m) 1
0.004
0.002
Jo2 (m)
0,004
0,004
do3 (ni)
0,004
0,006
" I
19
19
N2
25
25
" 3
31
31
FAj
2,11
0.53
FA2
2,78
2.78
FA3
3.44
6.25
Table 4 - Design details of four ring sparger with Dp = 0.012 m.
Four ring Rl (m) R2 (m) R3 (m) R4 (m) d^ (m) d(,2 (m) do3 (m) do4 (m)
sparger
N2 N4 FA, FA2 FA3 FA4
FRl
FR2
Table 5 -
Spider
SI
S2
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.004
0.002
0.004
0.004
Design details of 3-arni spiders with Dp = 0.012 m.
LI (m)
0.4
0.4
L2(m)
1
1
L3(m)
0,4
0.4
d!oLi ( m)
0.004
0.002
doL2 (m)
0,004
0.004
0,004
0,005
doi3 (ni)
0.004
0.002
0.004
0,006
" L l
20
20
19
19
25
25
nu
26
26
31 37
31 37
nL3
20
20
2.1
0.5
FAu
1.98
0.5
2,8
2.8
3.4
5.4
FAL 2
2.58
2.58
4.1
9.2
FA L 3
1.98
0.S
introduced at a sufficiently high volumetric flow rate and then
column was filled with water up to the desired height, The
clear liquid height is the height of liquid column above the
sparger hole. Thereafter, the air flow rate was reduced slowly.
Incipient weeping was spotted by visual observation. As and
(A)
Htadcr
B)
when weeping starts, the bubbling becomes intermittent and
pressure reading in the manometer starts to show fluctuations
due to unsteady nature of weeping phenomena. The repro-
ducibility of critical weep point velocity was within 5 per cent.
4. Computational model
4.1. Governing equations
The standard k-F mode! was chosen as it is experimentally
validated and most popular choice for single phase turbulent
fluid flow problems. The equations of continuity, momentum,
turbulent kinetic energy (fe) and turbulent energy dissipation
(f) for the flow of air in three dimensional cylindrical co-
ordinate system are
a n
dt
+ V (/.u) = 0
1 - (/lu) + V
(10)
(11)
where P is the static pressure, r is the stress tensor and ,>g
is the gravitational body force. The stress tensor is given by
following equation:
(vu
where
HcnJcr
I'eff - /' +I'T
in = /<-,<
(12)
(13)
(14)
Fig. 3 - Schematic diagrams for multiple ring spargers: (A)
three ring sparger and (B) four ring sparger.
The governing equations for turbulent kinetic energy (k)
and turbulent eddy dissipation (r) are given by the following
CHEMICAL ENGINEEKING RESEARCH AND DESIGN 87 {2OO9) 1612-1630
1617
e.
TU
'S.
s s
88
d
(A)
hinJaniKL.!)
Q
iccond um
4
1
H
O.SDO
Hier
B)
[ounhafm{L4)
Fifth amiU.S
Thirdann(!.3)
First unn (LU
Ikadcr
Fig. 4 - Schematic diagrams for spiders: (A) three arm
spider and (B) 6ve arm spider.
P_ =
r
X,
I
I
I
L
Fig. 5 - Fluid velocities and pressures at the control surface
near the hole the sparger.
1618
C H E M I C A L E N G I N I E R I N G R E S E A R C H A N D D E S I G N 8 7 ( 2 O O 9 ) 1 5 1 2 - 1 6 3 0
equations:
' If J I ' ' Al I \_ ' b \ 'b ' ' " t
" T t
(15)
The model constants are C ,,=0 .0 9 , |, = 1 .0 0 , n.=1 .3 ,
C,,i = 1.44, C,2 = 1.92. In Eq. (15) the production of turbulent
kinetic energy (G) and is given by the following term:
(17)
4.2 . S imulation details
4.2 .1 . CfD model and initiai and boundary conditions
Three- dimensional (3D) steady state simulations were per-
formed for single, multiple ring spargers and spiders shown
in Tables 1-6. A nsys CFX-10.0 was used for all the simulations.
The initial conditions applied at the inlet are mass flow rate
of gas and static pressure at the sparger holes. The boundary
conditions are derived as follows:
I - Turbulet intensity = 7 %
aug
where
(18)
(19)
"R irbuient kinetic energy is given as (CFX-10.0/11.0 user man-
ual) :
(2 0 )
So the inlet boundary condition for the turbulent kinetic
energy is specified by using Eq. (20)
Tlirbulent energy dissipation is given as (CFX-10.0/11.0 user
manual) :
(21)
=0 .1 6
By rearranging,
_ _
( 2 2 )
(2 3 )
where ( D avis, 1972)
i IS to of do in pipe
6 ( ( l/2 0 ) do)
which gives
(2 4 )
(2 5 )
(2 6 )
So the inlet boundary condition for the turbulent energy dis-
sipation is specified by using Eq. (26). The wall region was
modeled using standard wall function approach as presented
in A nsys CFX-10.0 software. The k-t model requires first grid
point to be at y"^- 1 1 or higher. If we go below y"* <1 1 , the vis-
cous effects are dominant and usage of simple wall functions
is not adequate and it requires low R eynolds number turbu-
lence models {Thakre and Joshi, 2001). In the present work, we
have used tetrahedral mesh elements with five layers of prism
mesh. The estimation of y"* requires wall shear velocity, which
is not available. So we have taken the square root of turbulent
kinetic energy close to wall as a characteristic velocity at the
first node point from the wall. It is found that, the first layer
of prism mesh is at y* ~~ 5 1 . H ence the usage of fe- i- model is
justified for the problem under consideration.
4.2 .2 . N umerical descritization
Three- dimensional (3D) steady state simulations were per-
formed for single, multiple ring spargers and spiders shown
in Tables 1-6. A nsys ICEM CFD-10.0 was used to generate the
tetrahedral grid along with three prism layers on the holes.
The number of grid points were varied from 0.3 million to 3
million depending upon the hole size, number of holes, ring
diameter and number of rings (in case of multiple ring sparg-
ers) and arm length and number of arms (in case of spiders) .
4.2 .3 . N umerical prediction o/weeping
As explained in the experimental set- up and procedures (S ec-
tion 3), onset of weeping is dened as the condition under
which kinetic energy of the gas flowing through the holes is
insufficient to support the liquid head above the sparger holes.
This onset of weeping can be physically observed by reducing
the inlet gas flow rate to the sparger for a fixed liquid height. At
a particular flow rate, the manometer starts to show rapid fluc-
tuations due to imbalance in kinetic energy of gas flow from
the holes of the sparger and liquid above the sparger holes.
This point has been noted down as critical weep point and the
gas velocity passing as critical weep point velocity.
The numerical prediction of critical weep point velocity is
uncertain, as it is very difficult to pinpoint at which inlet gas
flow rate there is onset of weeping by CFD study. H ence, in
present study the inlet gas flow rate at which there is onset of
weeping occurs has been noted down from experimentation
and this inlet gas flow rate has been used as a initial boundary
condition in CFD study.
5. R esults and discussion
The pressure and hole velocity profiles obtained from the
experimental measurements and the CFD simulation exem-
plify the role played by pressure recovery and friction effects
on the extent of non- uniformity in sparging and the critical
C H D M I C A L E N G I N E E R I N G R E S E A R C H A N D D E S I G N 8 7 [ 2 0 0 9 ) 1 6 1 2 - 1 6 3 0
1 6 1 9
Fig. 6 - The geometrical and mesh details for sparger.
weep point. The extent of non-uniformity has been estimated
from the following expression (Kulkarni et al., 2007);
Extent of non- uniformity (ENU) - x 100 (27)
This analysis provides the basis for the selection of sparger
design out of all the sparger designs taken up in the present
investigation.
5 .1 . Grid dependency of solution and model ualidation
The present study includes the simulations of different type
of spargers. Hence, firstly the influence of the computational
grid density on the results has been investigated. An unstruc-
tured tetrahedral grid has been employed for the geometry
under consideration. The geometrical and mesh details of the
problem investigated are shown in Fig. 5. Fig. 7A and B shows
the pressure profiles for different tap number as well as the
velocity with hole number respectively, for sparger SRI and
SR3 with three different grid sizes i.e. 701,736, 945,901 and
117,663 nodes. All three simulations with different grid resolu-
tions are capturing the pressure profiles and predict similarly
the velocity profiles, in principle one can conclude that these
entire three grids are suitable for simulating the sparger. In the
present work, the medium grid has been used for the rest of
the study i.e. 945,901 nodes. The CFD model has been validated
for the reported data by Acrivos et al. (1959). The prediction of
pressure profile and hole velocity profile were found to be in
good agreement with CFD predictions.
5.2. Gas distribution in ring and spider type of
spargers
5.2.1. Single ring spargers
5.2.1.1. E//ect o/ring diameter/pitch. When ring diameter was
increased from 0.8 m (SRI) to 1.0 m (SR3), AP was found to
change from - 40 Pa (for SRI) to - 2 5 Pa (for SR3), as shown
in Fig. 8A. This shows that the friction effects are higher
than the pressure recovery effects for SR3 compared to SRI.
Also, from the hole velocity profiles shown in Fig. 8B, E N U has
been observed to be the lowest in SR3 (1%) compared to SRI
(15%). Similar explanation was found to hold when pitch was
increased. In Fig. SB the hole velocity profiles were shown for
half part of the ring. This is because in our previous study
(Kulkarni et al., 2007) it was found that the pressure profile
for ring was symmetric with respect to inlet. It follows that
the hole velocity profile should be also be symmetric, tn the
present experiments similar observation was made for the
cases of multiple ring spargers and spiders, Hence the hole
velocities are presented for only half of the ring and spider
sparger in the subsequent Figures as well.
5.2.1.2. E//ectQ/holediameter/FA. The effect of hole diameter
on gas distribution has been studied by varying the hole diam-
eter from 0.002 m (SR3) to 0.004 m (SR4). The i P was found to
change from - 2 5 Pa (for SR3) to - 1 5 0 Pa (for SR4), as shown
(A)
49.5
5 7
HOLE NUMBER
(B)
7 V
TAPNl'MBKR
Fig. 7 - Grid dependency of solution (A) grid dependency on
predicted hole velocity profile and (B) grid dependency for
pressure profile along the sparger. (1) 701,736 nodes, (2)
945,901 nodes, and (3) 117,663 nodes.
1620 CHEMI CAL ENGI NEERI NG KESEARCH AND DESI GN 8 ; ( 2 O 9 ) 1 6 1 2 - 1 6 3 0
(A)
1 3 5 7 9 u 13 15
H)2.K) 107:00
1

L
O
C
I
T
Y

.
H
O
L
E

V
I
/ 1 1
5 5
,
45
40-

5(1
I 3 5 7 y II
HOLE NUMBOR (-)
Fig. 8 - Effect of ring diameter: (A) pressure profile for SR3:
A, experimental (Vi = 2S.34 m/s); , CFD (Vn = 25.34 m/s)
and SRI; 0, experimental (Vj^ =23.56 m/s); , CFD. (B) Hole
velocity profile for SR3: A, experimental (Vjn = 25.34 m/s); ,
CFD (Vjn = 25.34 m/s) and SRI; , experimental
(Vin = 23.56 m/s); , CFD (Vn = 3.56 m/s).
in Fig. 9A. This shows that the pressure recovery effects are
dominant for SR4 as compared to SR3. Also, from hole veloc-
ity profiles shown in Fig. 9B, ENU has been found to be higher
in the case of SR4 (45%) compared to SR3 (1%). Similar expla-
nation has been observed to hold when FA was increased.
5.2.1.3. E^ect of inlet air ueiocity. When the velocity of the gas
at the inlet (V,,,) was increased (from 30.56 m/s to 90.87 m/s)
for a single ring sparger (SR4), AP was found to increase from
-30Pa to -70Pa, as shown in Fig. lOA. This shows that pres-
sure recovery effects tend to increase with an increase in V,,,
(Thorat et al, 2001). The increase in V^^ leads to higher dis-
charge from the holes near the rear end (Senecal, 1957), which
leads to uniform flow distribution. Also, from hole velocity
profiles shown in Fig. lOB, ENU was found to be higher in the
case of Vjn = 30.56 (40%) compared to V, = 90.87 m/s (20%) for
SR4 type of sparger. Similar explanation was found to hold
when Vj,, was increased for other single ring sparger designs
considered in the present investigation.
5.2.2. Header/or multiple ring spargers and spiders
5.2.2.1. EJJ'ecto/increase in number of rings/arms. In the case
of multiple ring type of spargers, as the number of rings
increase from two (DRl) to four rings (FRI), AP of the header
has been found to vary from 27 Pa to -185 Pa (at Vj^ = 45 m/s),
as shown in Fig. llA. Thus, causing pressure recovery effects
to dominate the friction effects. Similar explanation holds for
spiders, as shown in Fig. llB, Hence, it can be concluded that,
ENU in sparging for individual rings/arms is strongly depen-
dent on the design of the header in the case of multiple ring
and spider type of spargers.
5.2.3. Multiple ring spargers
In the case of multiple ring spargers, kinetic energy of the gas
entering the individual rings has been found to be dependent
on the design of the header (as discussed in Section 5.2.2.1), as
gas entering the individual rings has to overcome the AP (fric-
tion/pressure recovery effects) of the individual rings. Hence,
uniformity in sparging is decided by the AP for the individual
rings,
In the case of DRl type of sparger, AP for the first ring (Rl)
and second ring (R2) has been observed to be -20 Pa and -90 Pa
respectively, as shown in Fig. 12A. This indicates that, AP has
been found to be highest for the second ring (R2) when com-
pared to first ring (Rl). Also, from hole velocity profiles shown
in Fig. 12B, ENU has been found to increase in the following
order: second ring (15%) > first ring (6%). Similar to the case of
double ring sparger based on pressure drop one can interpret
which ring will give highest uniformity in gas distribution.
The AP in the case of TRl type of sparger for the first ring
(Rl), second ring (R2) and third ring (R3) has been found to
be -25 Pa, ISO Pa and 80 Pa respectively. This shows that, AP
(A) I(1R3W. 1 10170(1
3 5 7 '> I I
HOLENUMBHR(-)
Fig. 9 - Effect of hole diameter; (A) pressure profile for SR4:
A, experimental (Vn = 25.56 m/s); , CFD (Vi = 25.56 m/s)
and SR3; 0, experimental (Vj^ = 28.23 m/s); , CFD
(Vjn = 28.23 m/s). (B) Hole velocity profile for SR3: x,
experimental (Vj^ = 28.23 m/s); , CFD (Vjn = 28.23 m/s) and
SR4; A, experimental Vj^ = 25.56 m/s; , CFD
(Vi= 25.56 m/s).
C H E M I C A L E N G I N E E R I N G R E S E A R C H A N D D E S I G N 8 7 ( 2 O O 9 J 1 6 1 2 - 1 6 3 0 1621
o; 730
01 (.NO
oir.iti
0I4KO'
A
A j a
>
m

a
m
10^100
,; 7 y 11 i. 15
TAP NUMBER (-)
(R)
-i 7 ) II
HOLENMBER(-)
Fig. 10 - Effect of inlet kinetic energy: (A) pressure profile
for SR4: A, experimental (V,n =9 0 .86 m/ s) ; , CFD
(Vin = 9 0 .87 m/ s) and SR4; :, experimental {Vn = 3 0 .2 3 m/ s) ;
, CFD (Vin = 3 0 .2 3 m/ s) . (B) H ole velocity profile for SR4; x,
experimental (Vj^ = 9 0 .87 m/ s) ; , CFD (Vjn = 9 0 .87 m/ s) and
SR4; A, experimental V i = 3 0 .2 3 m/ s; , CFD
(V, = 30.23 m/s).
has been observed to be highest for the second ring compared
to first ring (Rl} and third ring (R3), A lso, from hole velocity
profiles, ENU has been found to increase in the followingorder:
second ring (70%) > third ring (S0%} > first ring (6%).
In the case of FRl type of sparger, AP for the first (Rl)
and second ring (R2) has been found to be - 6 7 Pa and - 40 Pa
respectively. S imilarly, AP for the third (R3) and fourth ring
(R4) has been observed to be - llO Pa and - 1 2 0 Pa respec-
tively. This indicates that. AP has been found to be highest
for the third ring (R3) and fourth ring (R4) compared to first
ring (Rl) and second ring (R2). A lso, from hole velocity profiles,
E N U has been found to vary according to the following order:
fourth ring (3 0 % )^ third ring (3 0 % )> second ring (8%) s first
ring (8%).
The effect of change in ring diameter/ pitch, hole diame-
ter/FA and inlet kinetic energy has been discussed in S ections
5.2 .1 .1 , 5.2.1.2 and 5.2.1.3 respectively. S imilar explanation has
been observed to hold for all the multiple ring spargers taken
up in the present investigation.
5,2.4, Spiders
The kinetic energy of the gas entering the individual arms is
dependent on the design of the header (as discussed in S ection
5,2,2.1) for spider type of spargers, as gas entering the individ-
ual rings has to overcome the AP ( friction/ pressure recovery
effects) of the individual arnis. H ence, uniformity in sparging
is decided by the AP for the individual arms.
In the case of S I type of sparger, A P has been observed to be
150 Pa, 270 Pa, and 130 Pa (for V,n = 21.73 m/s) for the first arm
(LI), second arm (L2) and third arm (L3) respectively, as shown
in Fig, 13A. This shows that, AP has been observed to be high-
est for the second arm (L2) compared to rest two arms. A lso,
from hole velocity profiles shown in Fig. 13B, ENU has been
found to vary in the following order; second arm (61%) > third
arm (10%) > first arm (7%). S imilar explanation holds for S2, S3
and S4 type of spiders.
The effect of change in arm length ( analogous to change
in ring diameter) / pitch, hole diameter/FA and inlet kinetic
energy has been discussed in S ections 5.2 .1 .1 , 5.2.1.2 and
5.2.1.3 respectively. S imilar explanation has been found to
hold for all the spider type spargers taken up in the present
investigation.
5.3 . Weep point velocity/ or spargers
C ritical weep point velocity (Vo^^rit) 's strongly dependent on
liquid height (HL) and geometrical parameters of the sparg-
ers [pitch, number of holes, hole diameter, ring diameter and
number of rings (for single and multiple ring spargers) and
,102400 H llS O O
101200 HVIWHI
0 11.2 0 4 O.fi 0,8 I
DISTANCE FROM THE ENTRANCE (m)
10)4011
0 02 0,4 O.ft (I, 1 1.2
DISTANCE FROM THE ENTRANCE (m)
Fig. 1 1 - Effect of increase in the number of rings/ arms on
the header: (A) pressure profile for D R l: ; , experimental; 4,
CFD (Vj = 45.2 4 m/ s) and FR l; x, experimental; , CFD
{V, =45.40 m/ s) . (B) Pressure profile for S 4: A, experimental;
A, C FD ( Vj n=46 .3 8m/ s) andS l; x, experimental; , CFD
{Vi = 45.24 m / s j .
1622 C H E M I C A L E N G I N E E R I N G R E S E A R C H A N D D E S I G N 8 7 ( O O g ) 1 6 1 2 - 1 6 3 0
( A
i
A
lO UO l
10 13 50
10 13 0 0
10 1250
1O I 20 O
10 1150

K .
0
. s 2 ^ * *
toiwo
101500
101450
101400
4 (i S
TAP NUMBER (-)
10 1:
(B)
HOLE NUMBER (-)
Fig. 12 - Pressure and hole velocity profiles for individual
rings of DRl for Vj^ = 40.65 m/s: (A) pressure profile for
second ring (R2), x, experimental- , CFD- and first ring
(Rl): 0, experimental; , CFD. (B) Hole velocity profile for
first ring (Rl): 0 experimental; 4, CFD and second ring (R2):
A, experimental; i , CFD,
number of arms (for spiders) ]. Vo,nt has been observed to
increase with an increase in Hi, as shown in Fig. 14. Simi-
lar observation was made for other sparg ers. The inlet kinetic
energy of gas required to support the static head exerted by
the Uquid above the sparg er holes has been found to increase
with an increase in liquid heig ht for all the sparg ers. V^^^ has
also been found to decrease with an increase in the ring diam-
eter/pitch as shown in Fig. 14. This is due to increase of ENU
of sparg ing with an increase in the ring diameter/pitch. The
increase in the hole diameter/FA results in an increase in Vo^u,
as shown in Fig. 14. This is because, ENU has been observed
to increase with an increase in the hole diameter/FA . Simi-
lar explanation has been found to hold for spiders. Similarly,
VoCTj[ has been observed to increase with an increase in the
number of ring s, as shown in Fig. 14. S ince, ENU was found
to increase with an increase in the number of ring s. Similar
explanation hasbeen found to hold when the numbers of anns
were increased for spiders.
5.4. C omparison betujcen di^crent sparger desig ns
From the foregoing discussions, SR3 type sparg er has been
found to give lowest ENU (almost 0%) in sparg ing and low-
est Vo t-rit (for any given liquid heig ht) compared to other types
of single ring sparg ers taken up in the present investig a-
tion. Under the categ ory of multiple ring sparg ers, double ring
S pargers were found to give the lowest ENU in sparg ing for
the individual ring s and Vo^^j^ (for any given liquid heig ht)
compared to other types of multiple ring sparg ers. Similarly,
under the categ ory of spiders, three arm spiders gave the low-
est ENU in sparg ing for the individual arms and lowest Vofrji
compared to rest of the spiders. In the case of sparg ers consid-
ered in the present investig ation, ENU in sparg ing with respect
to hole diameter has been found to increase in the following
order for sing le ring sparg ers: 6 mm (50%) > 5 mm (30%) > 4 mm
(20%) > 2 mm (4%). S imilar explanation has been found to hold
when FA was increased. The variation of ENU with the chang e
in hole diameter/FA can be explained on the same lines for dif-
ferent sparg er desig ns taken up in the present investig ation.
In case of sieve plates or perforated pipes, the interfacial
forces (surface tension) on the bubble can be conveniently
neg lected. Under these circumstances only inertia, gravity
and buoyancy forces are important. These three forces can
be conveniently formulated in terms of densometric Froude
number. Since the critical weep velocity depends upon the
desig n parameters as hole diameter, pitch, leng th of pipe and
clear liquid heig ht above the hole, it was thoug ht appropri-
ate to correlate these parameters with critical weep velocity
by using Froude number. S imilar attempts can be seen in the
(A) li'2l
l Ol ' JOO
10 I 7( H )
1015110
A
0
0
X
A A A

i
H)t7(Kl
101500
101 WOO
.^ 4 5 h 7
TAPNDMBERI-)
(B)
11)11
g
^ 5 7 9 I I 13
HOLE NUMBER (-)
Fig. 13 ~ Pressure and hole velocity profiles for individual
arms of SI for Vj^ = 21.75 m/s: (A) pressure profile for first
arm (LI): x, experimental; 4, CFD; second arm (L2): A,
experimental; A, CFD and third arm (L3), Oi experimental,
, CFD. (B) Hole velocity profile for first arm (LI); A,
experimental; A, CFD; second arm (L2): x, experimental;
CFD; and third arm (L3): 0, experimental; 4, CFD,
C H E M I C A L E N G I N E E R I N G R E S E A R C H A N D DE S I G N 8 7 ( 2 O O 9 ) 1 6 1 3 - 1 6 3 0
1623
o O.t 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 O.K 0.9
C L E A R L I QUI D H E I G H T ( m)
1.1
Fig. 14 - Effect of hole diameter, ring diameter and liquid
height on critical weep point velocity. , Sparger DRl; ,
sparger SR5; A, sparger SR2; , sparger SR4 and line A CFD
prediction pRl), Une B CFD prediction (SR5), line C CFD
prediction (SR4) and line D CFD prediction (SR2).
3 3 4 5 6
EXPERIMENTAL (/vV(-)
Fig. 15 - Parity plot of Froude number.
literature for sieve plate sparger (Thorat et al., 2001).
v do y V 0
(28)
In the case of spiders, the ring diameter (R) should be replaced
by armlength (L) in Eq. (28). The parity plot for critical Froude
number is shown in Fig. 15. The correlation coefficient for Eq.
(28) was found to be 0.91.
VelocHy
( Voor 1)
Vekvlly VI.'I:1(I[N liircclcij
[ owards iht: imvard sideof
ihe hiiie under weeping
inditions.
0 0 ^ ^ ^ oooew
00019 O0Q45
Fig. 16 - Velocity vector plot through a hole of the sparger
under weeping conditions.
5.5. Analy sis of the computational model
Analy tical models for relatively simple sparger designs
(straight pipe spargers) have been discussed in detail by
Kulkarni et al. (2007). However, for complex sparger designs
(single ring spargers, multiple ring spargers and spiders), a
computational model is suitable due to its versatility (as it
can be applied to any ty pe of sparger geometry ) and simplic-
ity (as it does not need fe' and / from experimentation). The
CFD model predicts the pressure, hole velocity and critical
weep point variation which are in good agreement with the
experimental values, as shown in Figs. 8-14. Under weeping
conditions some of the velocity vectors are directed towards
the inside of the hole, as shown in Fig. 16. Under no weep
condition, it has been observed that all the velocity vectors
are directed towards the upward side of the hole, as shown in
Fig. 17,
Velocity |i \ ^
(Vector 1) \ * 11
111
M
8 5648+000 / / '1 \ Y
1 i
O.OOOo+OOO IV
msM] V^~"^
0
^ _
1
1
f
:
/
^
0 . 0 2 ^ ^ 0.005 <m)
0.00125 0 00375
Fig. 17 - Velocity vector plot through a hole of the sparger
under no weep conditions/dry conditions.
1624 C H E M I C A L E N G I N E E R I N G R E S E A R C H A N D D E S I G N 8 7 ( 2 O O 9 ) 1 6 1 2 - 1 6 3 0
6. D esign procedure for sparger
The design procedure for sparger requires column diameter,
superficial gas velocity, operating temperature and pressure
of the reactor as input data. D esign objectives are (a) no
weep condition should be satisfied (b) niinimum pressure drop
across the sparger, in order to reduce operating cost and (c)
minimum pressure variation within the sparger for minimiz-
ing non- uniformity in gas distribution. The design parameters
are: hole diameter (do), pitch, number of pipes and length and
diameter of the pipe and header. For bubble column reactor,
weeping is an undesired phenomena, hence sparger should
be operated above the critical weep velocity (VQ crit)- For critical
weep point velocity, Eq. (28) was used as a basis. The design
procedure is first provided in brief steps and followed by con-
sidering a worked example.
al. (1998):
6.1.
20 0 9 )
O utline of sparger design procedure ( Kulkarni,
(1) E stimate the gas hold up.
(2) E stimate critical weep point velocity by using E q. ( 28) .
(3) E stimate number of holes from continuity equation.
(4) E stimate total length required.
(5) E stimate the number of pipes ( arms) so that total length
required is satisfied.
(6) E stimate the pressure drop across the header and arm
and pressure drop ratio for various number of pipes
( arms) .
(7) S elect the appropriate header and pipe ( arm) diameter.
(8) E stimate the total pressure drop and number of pipes
( arms) .
(9) S elect the design parameters.
(10) E stimate the hole velocity profiles and check the extent
of non- uniformity, average hole velocity, and deviation
from critical weep velocity.
A ll the above mentioned steps are now explained in detail
along with the worked example in the following section.
6.2. Problem statement
A bubble column is operating at pressure 1 M Pa. C olumn diam-
eter is 3 m and the height of dispersion is 8 m. The operating
temperature is 9 0 ^C and superficial gas velocity is 0 .3 m/s.
S parger has a common ring equipped with straight pipe arms
inserted into the column for gas sparging (Fig. I D ) , The gas
phase is pure hydrogen. The sparger design details were
obtained for minimum pressure loss and no- weep condition.
The assumption are: (a) The density of hydrogen was esti-
mated at pressure at the bottom of column and assumed
constant within the sparger (b) it was observed that the outer
feeder ring provides uniform distribution ( Kulkarni et al ,
20 0 7) , hence each sparging pipe is receiving equal flow (c)
length of all the pipes was assumed to be 1.2 m in order to
have some clearance at the centre, (d) for any sparger, dis-
tribution of free area is assumed uniform across the column
cross- section.
6.3 . D etail procedure^ r sparger design
(1) A verage gas hold- up in bubble column reactor was esti-
mated using the following equation provided by Joshi et
0.15 0.15 O I S O I S
(2) Pressure at the bottom was found to be 1.0 71 M Fa. This
was considered as pressure outside the sparger.
(3) Following equation was used for estimation of critical
weep point velocity lE q. (28) with safety margin of 25%]:
(30)
(4) From continuity equation:
(5)
(6)
(31)
H ole diameter (d,,) was assumed in the range of 1-6 mm,
pitch (Ax/do) in the range of 2- 15 in order to estimate crit-
ical hole velocity from Eq. (30). N umber of holes (riEot) was
then obtained from Eq. (31).
Total length of perforated pipe can be approximated by
the following equation:
M o t = 1 - 3
\d
(32)
(7) The objective now reduces to distribute this length, Lt
and the number of holes, ritot over the cross section of col-
umn by either of the configurations shown in Fig. lA - D .
(a) For radial sparger pipe length is fixed say equal to 0.8
times the column radius. From assumption (c), men-
tioned above number of pipes (Np) can be obtained
from the following relation, since length of single pipe
is 1.2 m.
L tot =
(33)
(b) The number of pipes for spider or number of rings
for multiple ring sparger can be estimated as fol-
lows. In case of spider type of sparger (Fig. lC ) total
length of sparger required is equally distributed in
each quadrant. S ince area allocation has to be uni-
form, pipe spacing should be equidistant. In order to
estimate the number of pipes in either quadrant, first
assume minimum length of pipe with sufficient clear-
ance from wall, ew. A ssuming that all arms can be
iriscribed in a circle having diameter 0.97 times col-
umn diameter (2Ro). It provides the available length
on header for distribution of other arms.
Total length of pipe can be estimated by following equa-
tion:
N p- l
fl - ( R - e w - (34)
1= 1
where AXH can be given as
_ R - eu?
" N H - 1
(35)
C H E M I C A L E N G I N E E R I N G R E S E A R C H A N D D E S I G N 8 ? ( 3 O O 9 ) 1 6 1 2 - 1 6 3 0 1 6 2 5
(8)
The number of pipes can be obtained so that the total
length obtained by Eq. (34) matches with E q . (32). For mul-
tiple ring sparger similar procedure can be followed for
estimation of number of rings.
Following correlations for flow distribution parameters as
discharge coefficient (C), momentum recovery factor (b')
and friction factor (fl were used:
(36)
- 0 28
075 0 0 86
1.49
(37)
- 1 0 6
(38)
(9) E uler number was assumed in the range of 0 . 5- 0 - 8 and
the pipe diameter was also assumed in the range of
0 . 0 2 54- 0 . 0 5 m. The flow distribution parameters, dis-
charge coefficient (C), momentum recovery factor (fe'} and
friction factor (/) can now be estimated.
(10) The head losses within the radial sparger can be esti-
mated as follows.
(a) D iameter of header pipe (H ) and pipe diameter (dp)
were assumed for estimation of head losses. In order
to keep non- uniformity within the header to a mini-
mum value, header diameter selection can be made
by using the pressure drop ratio as suggested by
S enecal (1 9 57).
(38)
The eq uation states that the ratio of frictional pres-
sure drop within sparger to that across the holes (in
the present context pipe) should be less than 0 .1 , so
that uniformity in the flow is 95%. E xperiments on
ring sparger reveal that, pressure profile is symmetric
about the entrance and non- uniformity is very less as
compared to straight pipe. H ence, it is reasonable to
assume that flow is eq ually divided at the first bifur-
cation and is symmetric with respect to the entrance.
(b) The pressure losses within the ring were obtained
by estimating the orifice discharge coefficient for the
ring sparger, where the hole diameter is the diame-
ter of pipe and number of holes as number of pipes.
D iameter of ring was assumed as 3.5 m. Following cor-
relation for orifice discharge coefficient for ring was
used:
v\ 017
(39)
(c) Fig. 1 8 shows the pressure drop with respect to num-
ber of pipes for various values of d and dp and
0 . 1 3 5( R e) ""^'( E u) -
. - 0. 07.
the pressure drop ratio given by E q . (38). R eader
may refer A ppendix A to read Fig. 1 8. I n Fig. 1 8
it was observed that, for a particular H , as pipe
diameter increases, pressure drop decreases and
non- uniformity increases. Further, for a particular
pipe diameter, as diameter of header pipe increases
non- uniformity decreases whereas pressure drop
decreases. A ssuming pressure drop ratio as 0 . 1 , three
cases can be identified, (a) dH 0 . 2 5; dp 0 .0 2 54 (b) dH
0 . 3 5; dp 0 .0 2 54 (c) du 0 . 3 5; dp 0 . 0 3 81 . It is logical to
state that for case (b) and (c) cost of sparger would be
much higher, specifically because of ring. H ence as an
example header diameter was selected as 0 .2 5 m and
pipe diameter as 0 .0 2 54 m.
(11) B. H ead losses within the header for spider or multiple
ring sparger could be estimated as follows:
(a) In case of spider feed gas can be provided at either
extreme, as shown in Fig. lC . If we assume that each
hole is distributing uniformly, regardless on which
arm it is located, then it is desired that, at the cen-
ter flow should be maximum whereas minimum at
any extreme. I t is practically difficult to obtain such
flow profile within any pipe sparger ( in the present
case header) . If feed point is provided at the center of
the column ( header) , then due to geometric symme-
try, it is reasonable to assume that flow distribution
is also symmetric. N ow each distributing node on
the header is a four way junction. The pressure drop
relationship for four way junction with variable area
ratio could not be found in the literature. H owever,
pressure drop can be estimated by treating header as
a single pipe having holes ( pipes) on only one side.
Under these circumstances percent free area and
R eynolds number at the entrance of header should
be kept constant. For maintaining these constancies
a single pipe ( header) should have diameter half of
the actual, number of holes ( pipes) should also be
half of that of actual case. The mass flow rate should
also reduce to half of actual. With these parame-
ters, orifice discharge coefficient (C) and momentum
recovery parameter (fe') could be obtained. The selec-
tion of header diameter and pipe diameter can be
done based on pressure drop alone. For the present
case, for comparison with radial type of sparger, the
header diameter and pipe diameter are maintained
constant as 0 .2 5 m and 0 .0 2 54 m respectively.
(b) A t this stage as well, there is practically no guess
regarding the extent of non- uniformity which should
be provided within the header, so that each hole
( regardless on which arm it is) would at least sparger
at or above critical weep point velocity. H ence, it is
assumed that each hole is distributing eq ual flow,
under these circumstances, the following eq uation,
stating the volumetric flow ratio for any two arms,
holds;
9
(h
(40)
(c) Further, length ratio for the same arms can be written
by following eq uation:
h i
L 2
(41)
1626 C H E MI C A L E N G I N E E R M G RES EARCH A N D DE S I G N 8 ? ( 2 O O 9 ) 1 6 1 2 - 1 5 3 0
1,E+O2
I) 10 20 30 40 H\ 60
NUMBER OF PIPES (-)
Fig. 18 - Pressure drop characteristics with header and pipe
for radial sparger. D and ' du 0.15 m, dp 0.0254 m;
and C dH 0.15 m, dp 0.0381 m; A and
0.15 m, dp 0.0508 m; x and K dn
0.25 m, dp 0.0254 m; ^ and 1"* du 0.25 m, dp
0.0381 m; and > dH 0.25 m, dp 0.0508 m; 6
and 9 dH 0.35 m, dp 0.0254m; - and \ dH
0.35 m, dp 0.0381 m; 1 ^ and I du 0.35 m, dp
0.0508 m.
(d) If, hole diameter on any arm is kept constant, then Eq.
(40) says that the ratio of volumetric flow rate on any
two arms can be estimated by the ratio of number of
holes on concerned arms. Substitute the flow ratio as
ratio of number of holes in Eq, (41). The length ratio in
Eq. (41) can be obtained from Eq. (34). This indicates
that if we expect that each hole should deliver equal
flow rate, regardless on which arm it is, then pitch of
holes on each arm should vary according to Eq. (41).
(12) Total pressure drop is obtained by addition of that within
the sparger (step 11) pipe and that across the sparger
holes.
(13) The total pressure drop in sparger is shown in Fig. 19 for
various values of hole diameter and number of pipes for
radial sparger. In ail cases. Ax/do is the same for getting
either pressure drop or the number of pipes. The pipe
diameter and header diameter were the same as obtained
from step (11), Reader may refer the Appendix to read
Fig, 19.
(14) From Fig. 19 it can be seen that minimum pressure drop
is obtained for the hole diameter of 1mm and corre-
sponding Ax/do ratio of 15. The corresponding number
of pipes even higher than 100 (required number of pipes
1135). However, it is practically impossible to incorporate
these many pipes since, reactor is operating at pressure
oi l MPa. Hence, mechanical constraints would decide the
upper limit of number of pipes. Therefore, as an example,
the number of pipes was selected to be 36, corresponding
Ax/do ratio as 3 and hole diameter as 4 mm. The corre-
sponding total pressure drop can be obtained from the
Ordinate on LHS as 12.55 kPa. This path is shown by a dot-
ted line in Fig. 19. Thus appropriate values can be found
from Fig. 19 by setting various objectives, as a specific hole
diameter or specific number of pipes or specific pressure
drop etc. In the present case the above mentioned values
were considered as an example. All the design details of
0.001 0 002 0 003 0 004 0 005
HOLE DIAMETER (m)
0 006 0 007
Fig. 19 - Total pressure drop across the sparger
Ax/do 2;
Ax/do 4;
Ax/do 6;
Ax/do 10;
Ax/do 3;
Ax/do 5;
Ax/do 8;
Ax/do 12;
the sparger for are given in Table 7a. Similar graph can
be prepared for spider type of sparger as well. For com-
parison, the hole diameter and pitch for spider were kept
constant and number of pipes and corresponding pres-
sure drop can be read from the respective graph. The
design details for spider are given in Tables 7b and 7c.
Comparison of Tables 7a and 7b with respect to pressure
drop it can be seen that pressure drop in spider is too
high, This is specifically because the minimum length of
the arm, which was 0.5 m for this case. From Tible 7c it
can be seen that pressure drop in the last arm (arm num-
ber 11) is too high, because the number of holes on that
arm are even less than half. Hence even if it is assumed
that header is giving uniform distribution, the velocities
in the last arm would be more than twice as compared to
any other arm. Relative difference in the orifice discharge
coefficient for that arm (Eq. (36)) is of few per cent. Need-
less to mention that this set of design parameters are not
advisable. The solution to this situation is to increase the
minimum length of the arm as 1 m.
(15) With these values detail pressure and velocity profiles
can be estimated with the corresponding values of flow
distribution parameters.
7. Comparison of various designs
At this stage it would be appropriate to have some discus-
sion regarding the choice of sparger type for a particular case.
In case of radial sparger, the mechanical constraints always
decide the upper limit of number of pipes. Hence it is advis-
able to use this type of sparger when, superficial gas velocity
is relatively low. As regards to non-uniformity, spider type of
sparger provides maximum non-un i form ity. However, when
superficial gas velocity is very high then this sparger becomes
the preferred choice, since large amount of length could be
accommodated. In case of multiple ring sparger header design
is same as described for spider type. However, it is logical that
this sparger provides less non-uniformity as compared to spi-
der. This is because ring itself provides uniform distribution
C H E M I C A L E N G I N E E R I N G R E S E A R C H A N D D E S I G N 8 7 [ 2 O O 9 ) 1 6 1 2 - 1 6 3 0 1 6 2 7
- D esign detaiis of radial sparger.
I nput data D esign details for sparger
S upercial gas velocity
C olumn diameter
H eight of dispersion
O perating pressure
O perating temperature
0 .3 m/s
3 m
8m
lM Pa
9 0 C
Type of sparger
H eader pipe (ring) diameter
H eader ring diameter
D iameter of sparger pipe
N umber of sparger pipes (Np)
L ength of single pipe
H ole diameter (do)
Pitch (.ix/do)
N umber of holes (N)
Velocity at sparger inlet
Pressure at the bottom
S parger pressure drop
Pressure at entrance of spai^er
R adial
0 .2 5 m
3 .9 m
0 .0 2 5 m
3 7
1.2 m
4 mm
3
3 70 0
43 .2 nVs
1.072 M Pa
1 2 .5 5 kPa
1.0S4MPa
Table 7 b - Design details of spider sparger.
I nput data D esign details for sparger
S uperficial gas velocity
C olumn diameter
H eight of dispersion
O perating pressure
O perating temperature
0 .3 ni/s
3 m
8m
lM Pa
9 0 C
"^pe of sparger
H eader pipe diameter
D iameter of sparger pipe
N umber of sparger pipes (Np)
Pitch on header (ixn/dp)
M inimum length of arm
H ole diameter (do)
Pitch, on the 1 st arm (dx/do) '
Velocity at sparger inlet
Total number of holes (N)
Pressure at the bottom
S parger pressure drop*
Pressure at entrance of sparger
S pider
0 .2 5 m
0 .0 2 5 m
44
3 .82
0 .5 m
4 mm
3
43 ,2 m/s
3 9 0 8
1.072 M Pa
2 7.76 4kPa
1,099 M Pa
D etails for each arm are given in T^ble 7c.
- Details of spider sparger for any quadrant
A rm number A rm length Pitch N umber of
(m) (Ax/do) holes
Pressure drop in the
arm (Pa)
C ritical weep velocity in M inimum hole velocity
the arm {m/s) ' in the arm (m/s)
1 (central arm) 1.42
2 1.40
3 1.36
4 1.32
5 1.26
6 1.19
7 l . l l
8 1.01
9 0.S9
10 07 3
1 1 0.S0
3 .0 0
2.92
2 ,83
2 .70
2 .5 5
2 .3 7
2 .1 5
1.88
1.56
1.20
1.20
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
89
42
1 1 ,45 2 .1 9
1 1 ,5 5 9 .9 8
1 1 ,6 88.5 4
1 1 .844.5 3
1 2 ,0 3 3 .9 5
1 2 ,2 6 9 .3 3
1 2 .5 71 .1 2
1 1 ,772 .5 8
1 1 .875 .79
1 1 ,9 9 1 .1 8
2 7.76 4.5 2
3 6 .6 7
3 6 .79
3 6 .9 S
3 7.1 7
3 7.4S
37 .82
38.31
38.98
39.98
41.52
. 46
48.5 6
48.1 8
47.6 6
46 .9 7
46 .0 7
44.9 3
43 .45
41 .43
3 8.74
3 5 .3 7
84.9 5
C ritical weep velocity is without safety margin.
Table 7d - D esign details for wheel sparger.
I nput data D esign details for sparger
S uperficial gas velocity
C olumn diameter
H eight of dispersion
O perating pressure
O perating temperature
C hamber diameter
C hamber length
0 .3 m/s
3 m
8m
lM Pa
9 0 C
0 .5 m
l m
Type of sparger
D iameter of pipe (m)
N umber of sparger pipes (Np)
N umber of pipes in a single layer
N umber of layers of pipes
H ole diameter (do)
Pitch
Total number of holes (N)
L ength of single pipe
Pressure at the bottom
S parger pressure drop
Pressure at entrance of sparger
Wheel
0 .0 2 5
40
1 0
4
4 mm
3
3 6 80
1 .1 m
1.072 M Pa
1 2 .9 3 kPa
1.085 M Pa
1628
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND DESIGN 87 (2 0 0 9) 1612-1630
Gas
Bubble column
Various layers
of arms
Chamber
Gas
Fig. 20 - A new sparger design.
as compared to straight pipe (Kulkami et al., 2007). In view of
the above discussion, selection of sparger type has following
dimensions (a) number of pipes to be incorporated within a
given column cross-section, (b) the extent of non-uniformity
(c) total pressure drop, (d) cost of the sparger. With the due con-
siderations to the abovementioned parameters, a new sparger
type, the Wheel sparger has been proposed which is as follows.
It is proposed that instead of header, a cylindrical chamber
could be installed at the center and the arms to be provided
along its periphery. If chamber height is sufficient, say 1 m and
diameter say 0.5 m and then several pipes could be attached
to it along the periphery as shown in Fig. 20. The large num-
ber of pipes can be easily accommodated by providing various
layers of sparger pipes by changing angular position as shown
in Fig. 20. This new design may be called as Wheel type of
sparger. In the absence of any experimental data on flow distri-
bution behavior of such chamber, the selection of above values
is intuitive. Further, it is likely that the flow distribution to the
arms attached to such chamber would be uniform. For such
design there is practically no guess for estimation of pres-
sure drop across chamber and arms hence orifice discharge
coefficient was assumed to be 0.7. It is however logical that
as pipe diameter increases, the pressure drop across cham-
ber and pipe would reduce. However for comparison purpose
the pipe diameter was assumed to be 0.0254 m. Except this,
design procedure would end at step (7) in the above example
and non-uniformity would be oniy in the arms. Further this
design eliminates the limitation of maximum number of pipes
as in case of radial sparger. Further large amount of length
could be easily accommodated as in case of spider or multi-
ple ring type of sparger. The design details for this sparger are
given in T^ble 7d.
8. Web based software tool for sparger
design
In view of above discussion it was thought desirable to
develop a software tool for various spargers. This would
enable to generate and compare operating maps and effect of
several parameters on the design parameters. The softwares
were developed for six different spagers: (1) radial sparger, (2)
conventional spider sparger, (3) spider sparger with feed from
either extreme and pitch changes on each arm, (4) spider
sparger with feed from the center and pitch changes on each
arm, (5} multiple ring sparger with pitch changes on each arm,
(6) wheel Sparger. More details for using these software and
the various terminologies have been discussed in the operat-
ing manual provided along with the software. The softwares
can be downloaded freely from URL http://esnips.com/web/
ICT-Sparger-Design and http://www.4shared.com/dir/
17462467/f894cb45/lCT-Sparger.design.htmi. On this web
page operating manual for all softwares is given. The con-
cerned document is 'operating manual.pdf. The softwares
are available in 'sparger-design.rar' document. After down-
loading, 'sparger-design.rar', unzip this file to get a single
folder named 'software', ln this folder there are six subfolders
containing the concerned excutables for each sparger. The
detail path for each sparger design software is also provided
in the operating manual. All softwares were developed in
MATLAB and the stand alone excutables were generated
from MATLAB. All excutables would run only in Windows
environment. In order to use any of these software the
user should install "MATLAB Component Runtime 7.5 setup
(MCRInstallation)" on their computer.
9. Conclusion
Experimental and CFD investigations have been performed for
obtaining the pressure distribution, flow distribution and crit-
ical weep point for single ring, multiple ring, and spider type
of spargers over a wide range of hole diameter, pitch, FA, ring
diameter, number of rings (in case of multiple ring spargers),
arm length and number of arms (in case of spiders). It has been
observed that CFD predictions show good agreement with the
experimentally obtained pressure distribution, flow distribu-
tion and critical weep point. Hence, CFD model can be used for
the design of ring and spider type of spargers. Also the design
procedure for spargers for bubble column reactor has been
proposed with the help of worked example. The comparative
merits and demerits of different sparger designs are discussed.
Further a new sparger (Wheel type) has been proposed and
design procedure is also discussed.
Acknowledgements
Shrikant V. Badgandi would like to acknowledge the fellow-
ship support given by the University Grants Commission
(UGC), Government of India. Anand V. Kulkarni would like
to acknowledge BRNS for financial support in the form of
fellowship.
Appendix A.
A.I, Guidelines to read and use Figs. 18 and 19
Both Figs. 18 and 19 are the operating maps for selection
respective design parameters. Both Figs. 18 and 19 are com-
C H E M I C A L E N G E N E E R I N G R E S E A R C H A N D D E S I G N 8 7 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 6 1 2 - 1 6 3 0
1629
bination of two graphs. It means, Fig. 18 is the combination of
tw o graphs: (1) pressure drop across header and pipe (arm) ver-
sus number of pipes w ith set of header diameter ( d n ) and pipe
diameter (dp) as a parameter, (2) pressure drop ratio (defined by
Eq. (2)) versus number of pipes (arms) w ith same set of d u and
dp. Similarly Fig. 19 is the combination of following two graphs:
(1) total pressure drop versus hole diameter w ith pitch (Ax/do)
as a parameter and (2) number of pipes versus hole diame-
ter w ith pitch (Ax/do) as a parameter. In both Figs. 18 and 19
the Ordinate for all lines and sy mbols in red color is on RHS
and Ordinate for all lines and sy mbols in black color is on
LHS.
Fig. 18 is meant for selection of set of dn and dp and not
for selection of number of pipes (arms). The ordinate on RHS,
pressure drop ratio, indicates the degree of non-uniformity .
Since these are estimated for a set of d and d p, the non-
uniformity w ithin the header is obtained for the respective
set. It is advisable to select the values of pressure drop ratio
less than 0.25. Fig. 19 is meant for selection of sparger design
parameters as hole diameter, pitch, number of pipes and total
pressure drop.
A .2 . Guidelines to read and use Fig. 18
Since Fig. 18 combines tw o graphs w ith a common param-
eter, set of dn and dp, the symbol remains the same for a
specific number of pipes (arms). This means assume some
value of number of pipes (arms) and read any specific sym-
bol, associated to a set; in black color then ordinate on LHS
would give the pressure drop value. Refer the same symbol
for the same number of pipes (arms) however in red color
then ordinate on RHS gives the pressure drop ratio. However
it is recommended to start from some value of pressure drop
ratio (ordinate on RHS), since pressure drop ratio gives degree
of non- uniformity in header, w hich is expected to be mini-
mum. S tarting w ith some value of pressure drop ratio (usually
not greater than 0.25) and read the symbol in red color for
any corresponding set of dn and dp, read corresponding num-
ber of pipes (arms). Read the same symbol in black color for
same number of pipes (arms) to read the pressure drop value.
It is certain that more than one set of dn and dp would satisfy
these conditions, under these circumstances, the set w hich
gives minimum pressure drop for maximum number of pipes
(arms) is to be selected.
For example start w ith pressure drop ratio of 0 .1 . For this
case, three sets of dn and dp covers the entire range of num-
ber of pipes (arms) (dH 0.35 m, dp 0.0254 m, dH 0.35 m, dp 0.038 m
and dH 0.25 m, dp 0.0254). The other sets how ever cover respec-
tive limited number of pipes (arms). Now for these three sets
corresponding value of pressure drop can be read from ordi-
nate on LHS by referring the same symbol in black color. It
can be seen that the set of dn 0.35 m, dp 0.0254m gives max-
imum pressure drop and other two sets gives nearly similar
pressure drop value for any value of number of pipes (arms).
Hence if selection is to be made w ithin these three sets, then
set of dj.) 0.25 m, dp 0.0254 m is logically optimum since it gives
less pressure drop in comparison to other sets as well as fixed
cost for this set w ould be minimum as compared to other tw o
cases. R eferringback to the pressure drop ratio the selected set
gives higher value of pressure drop ratio as compared to set
dH 0.35 m dp 0.0254 m. Hence it is obvious that non- uniformity
would be higher in comparison. Such comparison can be done
w ith alt other sets as w ell.
A .3 . Guidelines to read and use Fig. 19
Fig. 19 is meant for selection of design parameters. The
methodology to read this figure is practically same as that
of Fig. 18. In Fig. 19 one can start from any point like hole
diameter, or total pressure drop or number of pipes (arms).
The choice of either hole diameter or total pressure drop
or number of pipes (arms) solely depends upon the specific
process under consideration. S electing a specific hole diam-
eter and a specific total pressure drop automatically sets
the pitch and the number of pipes (arms). Othenvise select-
ing either a specific hole diameter and a specific number of
pipes (arms) automatically sets the pitch and total pressure
drop.
For example if a process demands hole diameter not to
exceed than 3 mm, then assume hole diameter as 3 mm.
Also assume pitch as 3. Read the total pressure drop given
by black line w hich is nearly 5kPa. Use the same symbol
however on red line and same hole diameter of 3 mm, the
number of pipes (arms) can be obtained from the ordinate
on RHS as nearly 55. If the pressure drop appears too high
then increase pitch, as 4. For this case total pressure drop can
be obtained as 3.5 kPa and again the number of pipes (arms)
can be found to be 70. If total pressure is to be reduced fur-
ther then increase pitch, as 8. The total pressure drop w ould
now be 2.5 kPa and corresponding number of pipes (arms)
would be too large (even higher than 100). S imilar comparison
can be made w ith any specific hole diameter. For the above
mentioned case it is the designer's choice to select specific
parameter. In case of radial spargers the structural limitations
alw ays put the upper limit for number of pipes (arms) however
this is not the case for spider or multiple ring or w heel ty pe of
sparger,
R eferences
A crivos, A., Babcock, B.D. and Pigford, R.L.. 1959, Flow distribution
in manifolds. C bem. Eng. Sei., 10(1-2): 112-124.
Akagi, Y, Okada, K. and Kosaka, K., 1987, Liquid w eeping
accompanied by bubble formation at submerged orifices. I nd.
Eng. C hem. Res., 26(8): 1S46-1550.
D avis, ].T., (1972). Turbulence Phenomena. (A cademic press. New
York).
G reskovich, E.J. and O'Bara. J.T., 1968, Perforated- pipe
distributors. I nd. Eng. C hem. Proc. D es. Dev., 7{4): 59 3 -
595.
H aque, M.W., N igam. K.D.R and Joshi, J.B., 1986, Optimum gas
sparger design for bubble columns w ith low
height- to- diameter ratio. C hem. E ng.) ., 33(2): 6 3 - 6 9 .
Joshi, J.B. and S harma, M.M., 1976, M ass transfer characteristics
of horizontal spargerd contactors. TVans. I nst. C hem. Eng.
(U.K.), 54: 42 - 53 .
Joshi, J.B., 2 0 0 1 . C omputational flow modeling and design of
bubble column reactors. C hem. Eng. Sei., 56: 589 3 -
5933.
Joshi, J.B., Parasu Veera, U., Prasad, Ch.V., Phanikumar, D.V.,
D eshpande, N.S., Thakre, S.S. and Thorat, B.N.. 1998. Gas
hold- up structure in bubble column reactors. PINSA-A, 64:
441 .
Knaebel, K.S., 1981, Simplified sparger design. C hem. Eng., 3;
116-118.
Kulkami, A.V., 2009. D esign of pipe/ring ty pe of sparger for bubble
column reactor. C hem. Eng. Technol. (in press) .
Kulkami. A.V.. Roy, S. and Joshi, J.B., 2007, Pressure and flow
distribution in pipe and ring spargers: experimental
measurements and CFD simulation. C hem. Eng. J., 133(1-3):
173-186.
1630 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND DESIGN 8 7 ( 2 0 0 9 } 1 5 1 2- 1 6 3 0
Ranade, V.V. and Joshi, J.B., 1987, TYansport phenomena in Thakre. S.S. and Joshi, J.B., 2001, Low Reynolds number k-e
multiphase systems: momentum mass and heat transfer in modeling of turbulent pipe flow: flow patterns and energy
bubble column reactors, In Proc. Symp. Transfer Process balance. Can. J. Chem. Eng.. 78: 214-226.
Multiphase Systems (BHU. Varanasi), pp. 113-196. Thorat, B.N., Kulkarni, A.V. and Joshi, J.B., 2001, Design of sieve
Senecal, V.E., 1957, Fluid distribution in process equipment. Ind. plate spargers for bubble columns: role of weeping. Chem.
Eng. Chem., 49(6): 993-997. Eng. Tech., 24(8): 815-828.
Copyright of Chemical Engineering Research & Design: Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers
Part A is the property of Elsevier Science and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.