Bubble column

Anand V. Kulkarni1
1

Institute of Chemical
Technology, University of
Mumbai, Matunga, Mumbai,
India.

1015

Research Article

Design of a Pipe/Ring Type of Sparger for a

Bubble Column Reactor
The sparger is an important accessory of bubble column reactors which governs
the performance of the reactor. Specifically the sparger design becomes more important when the aspect ratio of the bubble column is low. The maldistribution
and design of the sparger are of major concern and both these aspects are
described in detail in the present work. Various methods for reducing maldistribution have been discussed and a simple method for its reduction is presented
experimentally. Further a step-wise design procedure for a pipe/ring type of sparger for bubble columns is presented together with a work example.
Keywords: Bubble column, Head-loss coefficient, Non-uniform sparging, Sparger, Weeping
Received: July 22, 2008; revised: December 21, 2008; accepted: March 9, 2009
DOI: 10.1002/ceat.200800347

Introduction

Bubble columns are commonly used for conducting various

gas-liquid and gas-liquid-solid reactions, such as oxidation
chlorination, hydrogenation, Fischer-Tropsch reaction, wet-air
oxidation, halogenation, hydrometallurgical operations, coal
liquification, steam cracking in vacuum residues etc. The ease
with which the residence time can be adjusted and heat can be
added/removed to/from the reactor, and the absence of moving parts are attractive features of bubble column reactors [1].
In the simplest form, a bubble column is a cylindrical vessel in
which gas is sparged at the bottom by means of a sparger. The
aspect ratio (height-to-diameter ratio) varies from 1-20 (typically 3-10).
The design aspects, such as gas hold-up, hydrodynamic
behavior, heat and mass transfer characteristics, have been covered widely in the literature [2]. However, design aspects of
the sparger remain ignored. The sparger design has a decisive
role because the bubble size distribution at the sparger is
decided by the sparger design, energy dissipation rate, and
physicochemical properties of the liquid phase at the sparger.
These parameters further affect gas hold-up, interfacial area,
and mass transfer even for a bubble column with a high aspect
ratio [3]. If the aspect ratio is low, the performance of a bubble
column is mainly governed by the sparger design. It is generally believed that the sparger costs 10 % of the costs of a bubble
column, however, 90 % of the reactor performance is governed
by the sparger design.

The sparger used in a bubble column usually has a low free

area and the height of the continuous phase is much higher as
compared to a plate column. Hence, the design objectives for
the sparger for a bubble column are significantly different from
a plate column. Various types of spargers are in commercial
use, such as plate type, multiple ring, spider, radial (Fig. 1),
and porous plate/pipe. The porous plate/pipe sparger offers a
high-pressure drop as compared to other spargers. As a general
rule, the pipe/ring type of spargers are preferred instead of
sieve plate spargers for large-diameter bubble columns. The
present work deals with the design of a pipe/ring type of sparger, specifically because information is very rare.
In the case of a straight pipe/ring sparger, the pressure profile
along the sparger is decided by two mechanisms: (i) the momentum recovery after every hole results in an increase in pressure and (ii) pressure losses occur along the pipe due to friction.
As a general case, the pressure rise due to momentum recovery
is higher than the frictional losses in the pipe. Therefore, the
pressure increases along the pipe length which results in maldistribution. The maldistribution is higher in the case of a straight
pipe as compared to the ring sparger [4]. The maldistribution
results in low values of interfacial area and mass transfer coefficient, higher level liquid phase backmixing, and possibilities of
formation of dead zones. Furthermore, non-uniformity results
in high-pressure drop and gives rise to possible clogging of
holes. In view of the discussion above, the present work concentrates on two issues: (i) reducing maldistribution in sparging
and (ii) the design procedure for pipe/ring type of sparger.

Correspondence: Dr. A. V. Kulkarni (anandvkulkarni@ gmail.com),

Institute of Chemical Technology, University of Mumbai, Matunga,
Mumbai 400019, India

Various methods have been suggested in the literature for reducing non-uniformity:

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2010, 33, No. 6, 10151022

Uniformity in Flow Distribution

2010 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

www.cet-journal.com

1016

A. V. Kulkarni

feasible methodology is demonstrated in

the present investigation.
For a straight pipe sparger, pressure was
measured at the entrance, at the dead end,
and at various intermediate locations by
using a manometer [4]. As mentioned earlier, pressure is low at the entrance and
high at the dead end of the pipe. In order
to reduce pressure at the dead end, both
extreme ends of the sparger are interconnected by means of a Tee-joint. It results in
equalization of pressure at both ends. Such
interconnection should give an average
pressure at both extreme ends and flatten
the pressure profile along the pipe. Thus, a
change in the pressure profile results in reduction of non-uniformity. Experiments
were performed with ten different straight
pipe distributors. Further experimental details as well as the procedure for estimation
of flow distribution parameters is reported
elsewhere [4].
Fig. 2 shows the velocity profile along
the pipe sparger. Figs. 2A and 2B illustrate
the velocity profile during normal operation (no interconnection of extreme
pressure tappings) and for the same case
after interconnection for spargers P1 (do
0.002 m, pitch 2do, pipe length 0.6 m) and
P2 (do 0.003 m, pitch 4do, pipe length
0.6 m). Similarly, Figs. 2C and 2D are for
spargers P3 (do 0.002 m, pitch 4do, pipe
length 1.5 m) and P4 (do 0.005 m, pitch
8do, and pipe length 1.5 m). The hole velocities are normalized with respect to the
hole velocity at the first hole in the respective normal condition. From Fig. 2 it can
Figure 1. Different types of spargers used in industry. (A) Sieve plate sparger, (B) multiple
be seen that non-uniformity in sparging
ring sparger, (C) spider sparger, (D) radial sparger.
can be as high as 25 % (Fig. 2D). Also it
can be clearly seen that reduction in non1. Varying the pipe diameter (tapering the pipe), thus the pipe
uniformity can be as high as 50 %. It is important to note that
velocity and velocity head remain constant which compendue to interconnection the pressure profile alters while the
sates the pressure rise along the pipe [5].
average pressure within the sparger is the same. The following
2. Varying the free area along the pipe (either in terms of hole
correlations were developed for orifice discharge coefficient
diameter and/or pitch) so that the pressure rise along the
(C), momentum recovery factor (k), and friction factor (f).
pipe compensates the flow through each hole [6].
The correlation coefficients were found to be 0.91, 0.92, and
3. Feed from both ends of the sparger (applicable for a single
0.91, respectively.
straight pipe and spider, Fig. 1C, type of sparger). This
  0:79 0:39
method reduces the velocity head at the inlet [7].
Dx
0:064
0:26
0:75 Dx
(1)
C 0:112Re
Eu
FA
The first two methods are sensitive to the flow rate for which
do
L
they were designed. Also, such steps are difficult to adopt for
the industrial-scale spargers. The third methodology seems to
  0:75  0:086
provide a good solution, however, no experimental data are
Dx
Dx
k 0:03Re0:29 Eu0:32 FA 0:28
(2)
available on actual reduction of non-uniformity. Furthermore,
do
L
the expected percentage reduction is a strong function of the
inlet Reynolds number. Even further, this step adds another in 0:81  1:49  1:06
termediate distribution node. Hence, some non-uniformity
Dx
Dx
do
(3)
may be added in the loop. In all three cases, the cost of the
f 0:0476Re0:52Eu 0:37
L
do
dp
hardware is an additional issue. A simple and operationally

www.cet-journal.com

2010 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2010, 33, No. 6, 10151022

Bubble column

1017

Figure 2. Normalized hole velocity profile along the sparger, before and after interconnection. (A) Sparger P1, (B) sparger P2, (C) sparger
P3, (D) sparger P4.

Design Procedure for the Sparger

A single straight pipe and ring are the basic structures of complex spargers like multiple ring (Fig. 1B), spider (Fig. 1C), and
radial sparger (Fig. 1D). Hence, relationships obtained for various design parameters from experiments on a single pipe/ring
are useful for actual complex sparger geometries. The present
procedure for the design of a sparger requires column diameter, superficial gas velocity, operating temperature, and pressure of the reactor as input data. Objectives for the design are:
(i) no weep condition should be satisfied; (ii) minimum pressure drop across the sparger in order to reduce operating cost;
and (iii) minimum pressure variation within the sparger for
minimizing 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. The starting point
for the sparger design is the critical weep velocity. For bubble
column reactors, weeping is an undesired phenomena, hence it
is expected that the sparger should be operated above the critical weep velocity (VOC).

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2010, 33, No. 6, 10151022

There are very few attempts in the literature for estimation

of the critical weep point velocity. A mathematical model was
developed for VOC by taking the force balance on the liquid
film when a bubble is formed at the orifice (but not detached)
[8]. The force balance considers the surface tension force,
buoyancy force, pressure force acting on the film (arises from
the surface curvature of the bubble), and the inertia. The critical weep velocity was obtained for the transition of a quasi
steady-state formation of a bubble and the breaking up of a
jet. This implies that during the jetting regime weeping does
not occur. Two limiting cases for the force balance were defined: (i) a very small hole diameter, hence buoyancy forces are
neglected, and (ii) a very large hole diameter, hence interfacial
forces can be neglected. For the former case, the following
equation based on the Weber number was obtained:
WeO

2
qG do VOC
2
r

2010 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

(4)

www.cet-journal.com

1018

A. V. Kulkarni

whereas for the latter case the following relationship in terms

of the modified Froude number has been suggested [5]:
 
V 2 q 5=4
0:37
Fr OC G
do g Dq


(5)

The demarcation between a large hole diameter and small

hole diameter can be given by equating Eq. (4) and Eq. (5):
do

hq g i0:5 Dq5=8
G
2:32
r
qG

1:6 

t
do

0:75
(8)

In the absence of any information on critical weep velocity

for pipe spargers, the above mentioned correlation (Eq. 8) was
used as basis in the present work.

3.1

For NC =d2:5
1:5 107
o


For NC =d2:5
> 1:5 107
o

8
ReGL 1:14 10 21 N2:2
C do

 0:17


q rd
1:2 107
ReGU 6:5 107 L 2 o
d1:5
For NC =d2:5
o
o
lL

 1:2


14 qL rdo
1
2:5
> 1:2 107
ReGU 1:4 10
d1:5
o NC For NC =do
l2L
(7)

This work also gives some important conclusions: (i) the

liquid weeps immediately after the detachment of a bubble
from the orifice, (ii) the liquid does not weep for small orifice
diameter and large chamber volume, and (iii) a negligible
effect of the chamber volume on weeping was found when
VC 2 103 m3 for their setup.
In another attempt, a model was developed for the critical
weep point for bubble column reactors, based on experimental
data on sieve plates covering a wide range of hole diameter,
pitch, % free area, clear liquid height, and two different column diameters [11]. The model considers two extreme cases:
(i) when holes are partially open with an annular liquid film
within the hole and (ii) when holes are completely active. The

www.cet-journal.com

Fr 0:37 140HL

Dx
do

(6)

It is argued that the above equations are valid for perforated

plates and all holes remain active if the above equations are
satisfied [9].
The experimental determination of the critical weep point
velocity is restricted for sieve plate spargers. These attempts
are further restricted for plate columns, where the clear liquid
height is negligible as compared to bubble columns. Experimental evidence also shows a significant effect of plate geometry (such as pitch, plate thickness, chamber volume etc.) on
the critical weep point [10, 11]. An earlier attempt for the
experimental determination of VOC covered the hole diameters
of 0.002 m, 0.006 m, and 0.008 m, pitch ranges from 1.5 to 6,
number of holes from 1 to 13, plate thickness of 0.001 m, clear
liquid height from 0.05 to 0.4 m, and the chamber volume
from 4E-05 to 2.8E-02 m3 [10]. The liquid phase was water,
aqueous glycerin, and aqueous methanol. The correlations
were obtained for lower and upper limits of the orifice Reynolds number where weeping occurs. The effect of the chamber volume was considered in terms of the dimensionless
chamber volume (NC). The limiting Reynolds number beyond
which weeping does not occur is given by the following equations:
ReGL 7 10 6 do 2:5

criteria for the critical weep point velocity is given by the following equation:

Problem Statement

A bubble column is operating at a pressure of 1 MPa. The column diameter is 1.6 m and the height of dispersion is 8 m.
The operating temperature is 363 K and superficial gas velocity
is 0.1 m/s. The sparger has a common ring equipped with
straight pipe arms inserted into the column for gas sparging
(Fig. 1D). The gas phase is pure hydrogen. The sparger design
details were obtained for minimum pressure loss and no-weep
condition. The following assumptions were made: (i) The density of hydrogen was estimated at the pressure at the bottom of
the column and assumed to be constant within the sparger;
(ii) it was observed that the ring sparger provides uniform distribution [4], hence each sparging pipe is receiving equal flow;
(iii) the length of all the pipes was assumed to be 0.65 m in
order to have some clearance at the center; (iv) for any sparger
the distribution of free area is assumed to be uniform across
the column cross section.

3.2
1)

Design Procedure
The average gas hold-up in the bubble column reactor
was estimated using the following equation [12]:

eG 0:62VG0:52
2)
3)

r 0:15 l 0:15 q 0:15 q 0:15

w
G
W
w
r
l
qa
qL

(9)

The pressure at the bottom was found to be 1.069 MPa.

This was considered as pressure outside the sparger.
Experimental data for weeping in pipe/ring spargers are
not available, hence the equation for the plate type of
sparger was assumed to be applicable (Eq. (8)). As a safety
margin, the critical hole velocities were taken 25 % higher
than that obtained from the following equation:

2
Vocritical



 
d g q qG
Dx
0:37 140HL
1:25 o L
qG
do

1:6

t
do

0:75 !

(10)
4)

From continuity equation:

do2 N
5)

D2 VG
Vo

(11)

The hole diameter (do) was assumed to be in the range of

0.001 m to 0.006 m, the pitch (Dx/do) in the range of 2 to

2010 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2010, 33, No. 6, 10151022

Bubble column

6)

8 in order to estimate the critical hole velocity from

Eq. (10). The number of holes (N) was then obtained
from Eq. (11).
The total length of the perforated pipe can be approximated by the following equation:

 
Dx
L
d N
do o
7)

(12)

The objective now reduces to distribute this length, L, and

the number of holes, N, over the cross section of the column by either of the configurations shown in Fig. 1A to
Fig. 1D. For a radial sparger pipe the length is fixed say
equal to the column radius. From assumption (iii) mentioned above the number of pipes (Np) can be obtained
from the following simple relation since the length of a
single pipe is 0.65 m.

L = Np l

(13)

8)

Flow distribution parameters like the discharge coefficient

(C), momentum recovery factor (k), and friction factor
(f) were estimated by using Eq. (1) to Eq. (3).
9) The Euler number was assumed to be in the range of 0.5 to
0.8 and the pipe diameter was also assumed to be in the
range of 0.0254 m to 0.0381 m. The flow distribution
parameters, discharge coefficient (C), momentum recovery
factor (k), and friction factor (f) can now be estimated.
10) The pressure drop across the holes was calculated. Further
the head losses within the sparger were also estimated.
The procedure is as follows :
(a) The header diameter (dH) and pipe diameter (dp)
were assumed for calculation of head losses. In order
to keep non-uniformity within the header to a minimum value, the header diameter selection can be
made by using the pressure drop ratio [13].

DPp
0:1
DPo

(14)

The equation states that the ratio of frictional pressure drop

within the sparger to that across the holes (in the present context pipe) should be less than 0.1, so that the uniformity in the
flow is 95 %.
Experiments on ring spargers reveal that the pressure profile
is symmetric at the entrance and non-uniformity is very less as
compared to the straight pipe. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that the flow is equally divided at the first bifurcation
and is symmetric with respect to the entrance.
(b) The head loss coefficients were estimated for various
Tee-junctions [14]. The head loss coefficients need
the area ratio and flow ratio of branch and header.
Experiments on ring spargers indicate that flow distribution is uniform. Hence, the following equation can
be written for the flow ratio between the branch and
header at any node:
 
QP
2

(15)
where Ni = 1, 2...... Np/2
QH i NP 2Ni 1

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2010, 33, No. 6, 10151022

1019

Ni is the pipe number starting from the entrance on either

side.
(c) The velocity in the header after any branch (sparger
pipe) Ni can be given by the following equation:

VHi

 1
0 
Ni
_ 0:5
m
4
N
P
A
@
2
qpdH

where Ni =1, 2... Np/2

(16)

From the above equations individual head losses were estimated at each node.
11) Fig. 3 shows the pressure drop within the sparger with respect to the number of pipes for various values of dH and
dP. In Fig. 3, the configuration shown by line A is optimum in terms of pressure drop as well as the extent of
non-uniformity. Hence, the header diameter was selected
as 0.1 m, the pipe diameter as 0.025 m, and the number
of pipes can be set between 10 to 18, so that the pressure
drop within the sparger is minimum. Increasing the number of pipes has an additional advantage such that it
reduces the kinetic head at the entrance of each pipe.
However, the upper limit for the number of pipes is given
by the mechanical constraints.
Alternatively, the pressure losses within the ring were
obtained from the case shown by line A and line C
(dH = 0.1 m and dp = 0.025 m) by estimating the orifice
discharge coefficient for the ring sparger, where the hole
diameter is the diameter of the pipe and the number of
holes is the number of pipes. The ring diameter was assumed to be 2 m. The following correlation for the orifice
discharge coefficient for the ring was used:
Cring 0:135Re0:091 Eu
dp
dring

0:061

FAring

0:074

0:11

 0:17
Dx
do

(17)

The pressure drop was found to be 576 Pa and 416 Pa for a

number of pipes of 12 and 18, respectively. The pressure drop
obtained from the former method was found to be 674 Pa and
671 Pa for the same number of pipes, respectively (Fig. 3). A
reasonable agreement can be found in these values. Hence, the
pressure drop within the sparger was considered as 600 Pa.
12) The 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 the sparger is shown in Fig. 4
for various values of hole diameter and number of pipes.
In all cases, Dx/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).
14) In Fig. 4, all empty symbols are associated with the ordinate on LHS representing the total pressure drop and the
corresponding filled symbols are associated with the ordinate on RHS representing the number of pipes for the
respective Dx/do ratio. From Fig. 4 it can be seen that the

2010 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

www.cet-journal.com

1020

A. V. Kulkarni

velocity was found to be 0.107 m/s and the

average hole velocity was 54.75 m/s. The defined superficial gas velocity was 0.1 m/s and
the critical hole velocity (for do = 0.004 m and
Dx/do = 5) was 51.1 m/s. Reasonable agreement can be seen in the calculated values and
defined values of the superficial gas velocity
and critical weep point velocity. All design details of the sparger are given in Tab. 1.

3.3

Figure 3. Pressure drop characteristics within the header and pipe of a radial
sparger. Line A = dH 0.1 m, dp 0.025 m; line B = dH 0.165 m, dp 0.038 m; line
C = dH 0.12 m, dp 0.032 m; line D = dH 0.12 m, dp 0.025 m.

minimum pressure drop is obtained for the hole diameter

of 0.005 m and the corresponding Dx/do ratio of 8. The
corresponding number of pipes can be seen to be nearly
18, as shown by a solid line. However, the reactor pressure
is 1 MPa, hence structural limitations may not permit
these many pipes. Therefore, as an example, the number
of pipes was selected to be 10, corresponding to a Dx/do
ratio of 5 and a hole diameter of 0.004 m. The corresponding total pressure loss can be obtained from the
ordinate on LHS as 3900 Pa. This path is shown by a
dotted line in Fig. 4. Thus, appropriate values can be
found from Fig. 4 by setting various objectives, such 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.
15) With these values detailed pressure and velocity profiles
were estimated again with the corresponding values of
flow distribution parameters. The hole velocity profile for
each pipe is shown in Fig. 5 where the velocities are normalized with the hole velocity at the first hole of the first
pipe. Since the pressure profile was assumed to be symmetric, the velocity profile within the ring is also symmetrical, hence the velocity profiles were shown for the pipes
on one side of the ring and the other part is symmetric. It
was found that the minimum hole velocity is at the first
hole of the first pipe (from the sparger entrance) as
50.55 m/s and the maximum hole velocity was at the last
hole of the last pipe as 59.51 m/s. Thus, the percent maldistribution is 10% with respect to the average hole
velocity.
16) With these values the superficial gas velocity and critical
hole velocity for no weep condition were estimated for
confirmation. For the present case, the superficial gas

www.cet-journal.com

Design of a Spider and Multiple Ring

Sparger

In the case of a spider type of sparger (Fig. 1C), the

required total length of the sparger is equally distributed in each quadrant. Since area allocation has
to be uniform, pipe spacing should to be equidistant. Hence, the total number of pipes can be estimated by assuming the minimum pipe length. In
the case of a multiple ring sparger, the number of
holes on any ring is assumed to be constant. Either
the minimum or maximum diameter of the ring
should be assumed as requisite. For known do and

Table 1. Design parameters for the sparger.

Input data
Superficial gas velocity
Column diameter

Design details for sparger

0.1 m/s Type of sparger
1.6 m

Header pipe (ring)

diameter

0.1 m

Height of dispersion

8m

Operating pressure

1 MPa

Diameter of sparger
pipe

0.025 m

Operating temperature

363 K

Number of sparger
pipes (Np)

10

Hole diameter (do)

0.004 m

2010 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

Header ring diameter

Radial

Pitch (Dx/do)
Number of holes (N)

2m

5
310

Velocity at sparger
inlet

17.78 m/s

Pressure at the
bottom

1.069 MPa

Pressure drop across

holes

3.32 kPa

Pressure drop within

header

0.6 kPa

Pressure at entrance
of sparger

1.073 MPa

Average hole velocity

54.75 m/s

Non-uniformity in
sparging

10 %

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2010, 33, No. 6, 10151022

Bubble column

1021

sure drop can be estimated by treating

the header as a single pipe having holes
(pipes) on only one side. Under these
circumstances the percent free area and
Reynolds number at the entrance of
the header should be kept constant.
For maintaining these constancies, a
single pipe (header) should have a diameter half of the actual one and the
number of holes (pipes) should also be
half than that for the actual case. The
mass flow rate should also reduce to
half of the actual one. With these parameters, the orifice discharge coefficient (C) and momentum recovery parameter (k) could be obtained, hence
the flow profile can be estimated.

Various methods for reducing nonuniformity in sparging are discussed

including their relative merits and
demerits. A simple and operationally
feasible method for achieving more
uniformity in sparging is demonstrated
together with an experimental evidence
for straight pipe spargers. The literature pertaining to the critical weep
point velocity is discussed. Furthermore, a stepwise design procedure has
been presented for a radial type of
sparger along with a work example.
The possible extension of the design
procedure for a spider and ring type of
sparger is also discussed.

Figure 4. Total pressure drop across the sparger.

and = x/do 3;

Keys

and = x/do 4;
and = x/do 5;

and = x/do 6;

and = x/do 8;

Conclusion

and = x/do 7;

Acknowledgement
Financial support from BRNS in form
of a fellowship is highly acknowledged.

pitch, the number of holes on a ring can be estimated, hence

the number of rings can also be estimated. The above steps give
the number of pipes and pitch for the central header.
The design of the header is more challenging in both cases.
In the case of a spider, if feed is provided at either extreme, it
is desired that at the center the flow should be maximum
whereas it should be minimum at any extreme. It is practically
difficult to obtain such flow profile within any pipe (in the
present case the header). If the feed point is provided at the
center of the column, then, due to the geometric symmetry, it
is reasonable to assume that the flow distribution is also symmetric. Since the sparging fluid is gas, inclination of the sparger will not alter the flow distribution. Now each distributing
node within the header is a four-way junction. The pressure
drop relationship for a four-way junction with variable area
ratio could not be found in the literature. However, the pres-

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2010, 33, No. 6, 10151022

Symbols used
C

[]

Cring

[]

do
dH
dP
dring
D
Eu
FA

[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[]
[]

FAring

[]

orifice discharge coefficient for

straight pipe sparger
orifice discharge coefficient for
ring sparger
hole diameter
diameter of header
diameter of pipe sparger
ring diameter for ring sparger
diameter of bubble column
Euler number
free area based on surface area of
a single pipe
free area for ring sparger

2010 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

www.cet-journal.com

1022

A. V. Kulkarni

VC
Vo1p1

[m3]
[m/s]

Weo

[]

Dx

[m]

chamber volume
hole velocity at the first hole of
the first pipe
Weber number at the critical
weep point
distance between any two holes,
pitch

Greek symbols
e
r
l
q

[]
[N/m]
[Pas]
[kg/m3]

hold-up
surface tension
fluid viscosity
fluid density

Subscripts

Figure 5. Normalized hole velocity profile for a radial sparger.

P1 P5 sparger pipe number.

Fr
Fr
f
g
HL
k
L
l

m
N
NC
Np
Pout
DPo

[]
[]
[]
[m/s2]
[m]
[]
[m]
[m]
[kg/s]
[]
[]
[]
[Pa]
[Pa]

DPp
QP
QH

[Pa]
[m3/s]
[m3/s]

Re
ReGL

[]
[]

ReGU

[]

t
VG
VH
Vo
VO C

[m]
[m/s]
[m/s]
[m/s]
[m/s]

www.cet-journal.com

Froude number
modified Froude number
friction factor
acceleration due to gravity
clear liquid height
momentum recovery factor
total length of pipe
length of a single pipe
mass flow rate
total number of holes
dimensionless chamber volume
number of pipes
pressure outside the sparger
pressure drop across the pipe
hole(s)
pressure drop along the pipe
volumetric flow rate in the pipe
volumetric flow rate in the
header
Reynolds number
lower limit of orifice Reynolds
number for weeping
upper limit of orifice Reynolds
number for weeping
thickness of pipe
superficial gas velocity
velocity in the header
hole velocity
critical weep velocity

L
G
P
a
w

liquid
gas
pipe
air
water

References
[1] W.-D. Deckwer, A. Schumpe, Chem. Eng. Sci. 1993, 48 (5),
889.
[2] W.-D. Deckwer, Bubble Column Reactors, John Wiley & Sons
Ltd., Chichester 1992.
[3] K. Schugerl, J. Lucke, U. Oels, Adv. Biochem. Eng. 1977, 7, 1.
[4] A. V. Kulkarni, S. S. Roy, J. B. Joshi, Chem. Eng. J. 2007, 133
(13), 173.
[5] A. Acrivos, B. D. Babcock, R. L. Pigford, Chem. Eng. Sci.
1959, 10 (12), 112.
[6] H. W. Cooper, Chem. Eng. 1963, 28, 148.
[7] J. N. Tilton, in Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook, 7th ed.
(Eds: R. H. Perry, D. W. Green, J. O. Maloney), McGraw-Hill,
New York 1999.
[8] K. Ruff, T. Pilhofer, A. Mersmann, Int. Chem. Eng. 1978, 18
(3), 395.
[9] A. Mersmann, Ger. Chem. Eng. 1978, 1, 1.
[10] Y. Akagi, K. Okada, K. Kosaka, T. Takahashi, Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 1987, 26, 1546.
[11] B. N. Thorat, A. V. Kulkarni, J. B. Joshi, Chem. Eng. Technol.
2001, 24, 815.
[12] J. B. Joshi et al., PINSA - A 1998, 64, 441.
[13] V. E. Senecal, Ind. Eng. Chem. 1957, 49 (6), 993.
[14] D. S. Miller, Internal Flow Systems: Design and Performance
Prediction, 2nd ed., Gulf Publishing Company, BHRA, Greenfield, UK 1990.

2010 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2010, 33, No. 6, 10151022