chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 19861995

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering Research and Design

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

Design and selection of sparger for bubble column reactor.

Part II: Optimum sparger type and design

Anand V. Kulkarni, Jyeshtharaj B. Joshi

Department of Chemical Engineering, Institute of Chemical Technology, Mumbai 400 019, India

a b s t r a c t

The ease with which residence time could be adjusted, the absence of moving parts, higher values of heat and
mass transfer coefcient are the attractive features of bubble columns, hence are widely used for conducting several
mass transfer operations/chemical reactions. However selection of sparger design and type is crucial and it affects
performance of the reactor implicitly and explicitly. The Part I of this work addressed the roles of various parameters
to be considered while designing the sparger for bubble column reactors. The second part, deals with the selection of
optimum design and type of the sparger for several designs of bubble column, i.e., effect of column diameter, aspect
ratio, operating pressure and volumetric ow rate of gas phase.
2011 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Bubble column; Sparger; Gas distributor; Spider sparger; Multiple ring sparger; Sieve plate sparger; Radial
sparger; Weeping; Gasliquid reactions

1. Introduction operating pressure and the volumetric ow rate of gas on the

The sparger is an important accessory for bubble col-
umn, which is used to introduce the gas phase into the
liquid/liquidsolid pool. The importance of sparger design is
widely recognized (Freedman and Davidson, 1969; Joshi and
Sharma, 1976; Deckwer, 1992; Delnoij et al., 1999; Joshi, 2001;
Kulkarni et al., 2009). However, selection of sparger design and
type are lacking in the literature. The design procedure for
sparger has been recently established (Kulkarni, 2010). Hence
considerations required while sparger design and there conse-
quences on the performance of bubble column reactor should
be identied. This is the specic objective of this work. In
Part I of this work, several aspects of sparger design have
been highlighted by considering the hydrogen peroxide man-
ufacture as a case. The aspects like weeping, non-uniformity,
pressure drop and its consequences on design and operational
problems have been discussed in detail. The considerations
required for the selection of header diameter, pipe/arm diame-
ter, pitch, and hole diameter for all types of spargers, i.e., sieve
plate, spider, multiple ring, radial sparger and newly devel-
oped wheel type of sparger, have been dealt. In the present
work, the effect of different design and operating parame-
ters of bubble column, i.e., the column diameter, aspect ratio,
selection of sparger design and type are discussed. Hence,
objective of the present work is to point out the optimal
sparger design and type for the different cases under con-
sideration. It is expected that the present work would prove
rationale for the practicing engineers. In order to maintain
continuity with Part I of this work, the case of hydrogen per-
oxide manufacture is considered. We now begin with a brief
description of the design procedure.
2. Design procedure for sparger
For any bubble column reactor, it is expected that no-weep
condition is satised. Hence, sparger should be operated above
the critical no-weep velocity with certain safety margin.
Knowing the volumetric ow rate and critical weep velocity,
the required number of holes could be estimated for the set of
hole diameter and pitch. Further, the required length of pipe
for the same set of hole diameter and pitch could be obtained.
Here onwards, the objective is left to distribute these holes in
different types of spargers and to estimate the pressure drop
and non-uniformity. Since for the ideal design, both should
be as low as possible, as a rst step a set of header diameter
and pipe diameter is to be selected so that the non-uniformity

Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 22 33611111/33612222; fax: +91 22 24145614.
E-mail addresses: jbj@udct.org, jbjoshi@gmail.com, jbj@ictmumbai.edu.in (J.B. Joshi).
Received 1 July 2010; Received in revised form 17 October 2010; Accepted 6 January 2011
0263-8762/$ see front matter 2011 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2011.01.014
 chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 19861995 1987

Table 1 Different cases under consideration.

Nomenclature
Case No. VG (m/s) D (m) HD (m) P (Mpa)
D column diameter (m) Case 1 0.05 2 4 0.3
DC chamber diameter of wheel sparger (m) Case 2 0.05 2 4 1
dH header diameter (m) Case 3 0.05 2 4 2
do hole diameter (m) Case 4 0.05 2 4 3
dp pipe diameter (m) Case 5 0.05 2 4 5
Case 6 0.1 2 4 0.3
HC height of chamber of wheel sparger (m)
Case 7 0.1 2 4 1
HD dispersed height of bubble column (m) Case 8 0.1 2 4 2
No number of holes (-) Case 9 0.1 2 4 3
NP number of pipes (-) Case 10 0.1 2 4 5
NR number of rings (-) Case 11 0.2 2 4 0.3
P operating pressure (Pa) Case 12 0.2 2 4 1
Case 13 0.2 2 4 2
VG supercial gas velocity (m/s)
Case 14 0.2 2 4 3
P pressure drop (Pa)
Case 15 0.2 2 4 5
x distance between two holes (m) Case 16 0.4 2 4 0.3
Case 17 0.4 2 4 1
Case 18 0.4 2 4 2
within the header and pipe/arm is minimum. For the selected Case 19 0.4 2 4 3
header and pipe diameter, it is possible to generate the oper- Case 20 0.4 2 4 5
ating map for selection of hole diameter and pitch. The hole Case 21 0.05 3 6 1
Case 22 0.05 5 10 1
diameter is usually the process concern and not the sparger
Case 23 0.2 2 12 1
design concern. Since, hole diameter affects the bubble diam-
Case 24 0.2 3 30 1
eter and hence the fractional gas hold-up and the interfacial
area at least in the near sparger region. The guidelines for
selection of hole diameter have been given in Part I of this
Table 2 Spargers under consideration.
work. Selection of hole diameter and pitch enables to eval-
uate the hole velocity proles for the entire sparger, which Sparger Sparger name Sparger details
can be veried with respect to the supercial gas velocity. The 1 Multiple ring 3 Modied multiple ring with
non-uniformity and the possibility of weeping in any pipe/arm side entry
could also be observed. 2 Multiple ring 4 Modied multiple ring with
In the case of sieve plate sparger, the chamber diameter central entry
and chamber height are the design parameters. The effect of 3 Spider sparger 2 Modied spider with side entry
4 Spider sparger 4 Modied spider with central
both of these on pressure drop can be found in Part I of this
entry
work and also given by Dhotre and Joshi (2003, 2006). In case of
5 Spider sparger 6 Modied spider with both side
sieve plate sparger the gas enters from the bottom is preferred entry
to have low non-uniformity. 6 Radial sparger Radial sparger
7 Wheel sparger Wheel type of sparger
3. Manufacture of hydrogen peroxide 8 Sieve plate sparger Sieve plate sparger

Hydrogen peroxide is manufactured in a two-step reaction. In

the rst step, alkyl anthraquinone is hydrogenated by using
hydrogen to give respective anthrahydroquinone, which is
subsequently oxidized to give hydrogen peroxide and the
anthraquinone (Kirk-Othmer, 2005). The anthraquinone is
then recycled back for the hydrogenation.
The oxidation of alkyl hydroquinone is usually conducted
in a bubble column reactor. In which the alkyl anthrahydro-
quinone and oxygen (usually air) are passed in a co-current
manner. The oxidation is an exothermic reaction. It is reported
that the reaction occurs in the liquid phase (Kirk-Othmer,
2005). The oxidation reaction is conducted at nearly atmo-
spheric pressure and the operating temperature is typically
80 C. The physico-chemical properties have been given in
Table 2 of Part I.
4. Optimum sparger design and type
The design parameters for bubble column are column diam-
eter (D), aspect ratio (HD /D), supercial gas velocity (VG ),
temperature and operating pressure (P) and the sparger
design. In the present work, D, HD , VG , and P have been var-
ied in the range of 25 m, 410 m, 0.050.4 m/s, and 0.35 MPa,
respectively. All these cases are listed in Table 1. Since it was
shown in Part I of this work that conventional spider and mul-
tiple ring sparger are not suitable, only the modied spargers
were considered which are listed in Table 2. The sparger names
were kept the same as in Part I (Table 1). For all 24 design cases,
the design of all 8 spargers was executed based on the same
criteria mentioned in Part I. For each case, hole diameter was
restricted to 1 mm or 2 mm, since it is reported that reaction
occurs in the liquid phase. Hence maximizing the interfacial
area is favorable. The best three spargers designs for each case
was considered and are provided in Tables 38. It was ensured
that no-weep condition is satised in all the cases. The bub-
ble column design cases were categorized so as to evaluate
the effect of VG , P, HD and D. The design cases 120 show the
effect of operating pressure and supercial gas velocity. Thus
Tables 36 list the best three spargers for each case. The com-
parison of each case in sequence in each Tables 36 show the
effect of VG . Tables 7 and 8 list the best of three spargers for the
effect of D and HD . In Tables 38, for each case, the operating
parameters are mentioned in the respective rst row followed
by the design parameters (dH , dp , do , x/do , and the chamber
diameter and height for wheel sparger) and the results (NP , No ,
 1988
Table 3 Effect of operating pressure on sparger design and type for VG 0.05 m/s.
Case No. Operating Supercial gas velocity (m/s) Column diameter (m) Dispersed height (m) Operating pressure (MPa) Average bubble
parameter size (m)
Selected spargers Number of pipes/rings (-) Number of holes (-) Pressure drop (Pa) % Non-uniformity

Case 1 0.05 2 4 0.3

Multiple ring 3 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.051 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 3 3380 417.8 0.55 0.013
Multiple ring 4 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.051 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 3 3380 417.8 0.55 0.013

chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 19861995

Wheel Design parameters DC = 0.4 m, HC = 0.5 m, dp = 0.0254 m, do = 1 mm, x/do = 3
Results 27 5859 659.12 3 0.0097

Case 2 0.05 2 4 1
Multiple ring 4 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.038 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 5 5625 562.6 3 0.011
Multiple ring 3 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.038 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 5 5625 562.6 3 0.011
Wheel Design parameters DC = 0.4 m, HC = 0.5 m, dp = 0.0254 m, do = 1 mm, x/do = 3
Results 26 5642 716.08 2.8 0.0098

Case 3 0.05 2 4 2
Multiple ring 3 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.038 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 7 8054 563.2 3.2 0.0098
Multiple ring 4 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.038 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 7 7913 579.2 3 0.0099
Wheel Design parameters DC = 0.4 m, HC = 0.5 m, dp = 0.0254 m, do = 1 mm, x/do = 3
Results 26 5642 707.71 3.1 0.0098

Case 4 0.05 2 4 3
Multiple ring 4 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.038 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 8 9181 646.3 6.4 0.0094
Multiple ring 3 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.038 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 8 9181 646.3 6.4 0.0094
Wheel Design parameters DC = 0.4 m, HC = 0.5 m, dp = 0.0254 m, do = 1 mm, x/do = 3
Results 26 5642 707.71 3.1 0.0098

Case 5 0.05 2 4 5
Multiple ring 3 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.038 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 10 11,337 798.2 21.01 0.0089
Multiple ring 4 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.038 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 10 11,109 851.2 23.18 0.0089
Wheel Design parameters DC = 0.4 m, HC = 0.5 m, dp = 0.0254 m, do = 1 mm, x/do = 3
Results 26 5642 707.71 3.1 0.0098
Table 4 Effect of operating pressure on sparger design and type for VG 0.1 m/s.
Case No. Operating parameter Supercial gas velocity (m/s) Column diameter (m) Dispersed height (m) Operating pressure (MPa) Average bubble
size (m)
Selected spargers Number of pipes/rings (-) Number of holes (-) Pressure drop (Pa) % Non-uniformity

Case 6 0.1 2 4 0.3

Multiple ring 3 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.051 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 5 5724 633.2 0.66 0.014
Multiple ring 4 dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.051 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2

chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 19861995

Design parameters
Results 5 5724 633.2 0.66 0.014
Wheel Design parameters DC = 0.4 m, HC = 0.5 m, dp = 0.0254 m, do = 1 mm, x/do = 3
Results 45 9765 932.15 3.3 0.01

Case 7 0.1 2 4 1
Multiple ring 3 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.038 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 10 11,109 806.7 23.25 0.011
Multiple ring 4 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.038 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 10 11,109 806.7 23.23 0.011
Wheel Design parameters DC = 0.4 m, HC = 0.5 m, dp = 0.0254 m, do = 1 mm, x/do = 3
Results 46 9982 903.45 3.1 0.01

Case 8 0.1 2 4 2
Multiple ring 3 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.038 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 11 11,870 1570.9 42.98 0.01
Multiple ring 4 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.03 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 12 13,260 1182.5 25.71 0.01
Wheel Design parameters DC = 0.4 m, HC = 0.5 m, dp = 0.0254 m, do = 1 mm, x/do = 3
Results 46 9982 893.62 3.3 0.01

Case 9 0.1 2 4 3
Multiple ring 3 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.03 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 14 15,077 1754.7 44.68 0.01
Multiple ring 4 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.03 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 14 15,077 1754.7 44.68 0.01
Wheel Design parameters DC = 0.4 m, HC = 0.5 m, dp = 0.0254 m, do = 1 mm, x/do = 3
Results 46 9982 893.62 3.3 0.01

Case 10 0.1 2 4 5
Multiple ring 3 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.03 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 15 15,576 2988.8 72.03 0.01
Multiple ring 4 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.03 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 16 16,648 2636 72.6 0.01
Wheel Design parameters DC = 0.4 m, HC = 0.5 m, dp = 0.0254 m, do = 1 mm, x/do = 3
Results 44 9548 972.27 3.4 0.01

1989
 1990
Table 5 Effect of operating pressure on sparger design and type for VG 0.2 m/s.
Case No. Operating parameter Supercial gas velocity (m/s) Column diameter (m) Dispersed height (m) Operating pressure (MPa) Average bubble
size (m)
Selected spargers Number of pipes/rings (-) Number of holes (-) Pressure drop (Pa) % Non-uniformity

Case 11 0.2 2 4 0.3

Multiple ring 3 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.0254 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 11 11,755 1438.1 50 0.0134
Multiple ring 4 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.038 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 10 11,109 1033.1 23.11 0.014

chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 19861995

Wheel Design parameters DC = 0.5 m, HC = 0.5 m, dp = 0.032 m, do = 1 mm, x/do = 2
Results 49 15,925 1267.93 5.5 0.011

Case 12 0.2 2 4 1
Multiple ring 3 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.0254 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 16 17,192 2117.9 51.76 0.012
Multiple ring 4 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.03 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 14 15,077 2282.7 44.76 0.012
Wheel Design parameters DC = 0.5 m, HC = 0.5 m, dp = 0.032 m, do = 1 mm, x/do = 2
Results 50 16,250 1233.45 5.2 0.011

Case 13 0.2 2 4 2
Multiple ring 3 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.0254 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 18 18,687 4332 78.8 0.0116
Multiple ring 4 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.0254 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 18 18,687 4332 78.8 0.0116
Wheel Design parameters DC = 0.5 m, HC = 0.5 m, dp = 0.032 m, do = 1 mm, x/do = 2
Results 51 16,575 1174.84 5.4 0.011

Case 14 0.2 2 4 3
Multiple ring 3 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.019 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 21 20,839 9399.4 170.8 0.011
Multiple ring 4 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.019 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 21 20,839 9399.4 170.8 0.011
Wheel Design parameters DC = 0.5 m, HC = 0.5 m, dp = 0.032 m, do = 1 mm, x/do = 2
Results 51 16,575 1174.84 5.4 0.011

Case 15 0.2 2 4 5
Multiple ring 3 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.019 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 23 22,851 11,521.6 171.49 0.011
Multiple ring 4 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.019 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 23 22,851 11,521.6 171.49 0.011
Wheel Design parameters DC = 0.5 m, HC = 0.5 m, dp = 0.032 m, do = 1 mm, x/do = 2
Results 52 16,900 1132.88 5.4 0.011
Table 6 Effect of operating pressure on sparger design and type for VG 0.4 m/s.
Case No. Operating parameter Supercial gas velocity (m/s) Column diameter (m) Dispersed height (m) Operating pressure (MPa) Average bubble
size (m)
Selected spargers Number of pipes/rings (-) Number of holes (-) Pressure drop (Pa) % Non-uniformity

Case 16 0.4 2 4 0.3

Multiple ring 3 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.0254 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 16 17,192 2670.35 51.48 0.015
Multiple ring 4 dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.0254 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2

chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 19861995

Design parameters
Results 15 15517 3873.1 77.7 0.015
Wheel Design parameters DC = 0.5 m, HC = 0.5 m, dp = 0.032 m, do = 1 mm, x/do = 2
Results 94 28,200 2030.31 3.6 0.011

Case 17 0.4 2 4 1
Multiple ring 3 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.019 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 23 22,851 10,067.1 172.16 0.013
Multiple ring 4 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.019 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 23 22851 10,067.1 172.16 0.013
Wheel Design parameters DC = 0.5 m, HC = 0.5 m, dp = 0.032 m, do = 1 mm, x/do = 2
Results 98 29400 1867.67 3.5 0.011

Case 18 0.4 2 4 2
Multiple ring 3 Design parameters dH = 0.4 m, dp = 0.019 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 23 27139 29,066.9 246.14 0.014
Multiple ring 4 Design parameters dH = 0.4 m, dp = 0.019 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 23 27139 29,066.9 246.14 0.014
Wheel Design parameters DC = 0.5 m, HC = 0.5 m, dp = 0.032 m, do = 1 mm, x/do = 2
Results 102 30,600 1723.36 3.5 0.011

Case 19 0.4 2 4 3
Design parameters
Results
Design parameters
Results
Wheel Design parameters DC = 0.5 m, HC = 0.5 m, dp = 0.032 m, do = 1 mm, x/do = 2
Results 94 28,200 2030.31 3.6 0.011

Case 20 0.4 2 4 5
Design parameters
Results
Design parameters
Results
Wheel Design parameters DC = 0.5 m, HC = 0.5 m, dp = 0.032 m, do = 1 mm, x/do = 2
Results 91 27,300 2166.59 3.6 0.011

1991
 1992
Table 7 Effect of D and HD on sparger design for VG 0.05 m/s.
Case No. Operating parameter Supercial gas velocity (m/s) Column diameter (m) Dispersed height (m) Operating pressure (MPa) Average bubble

chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 19861995

size (m)
Selected spargers Number of pipes/rings (-) Number of holes (-) Pressure drop (Pa) % Non-uniformity

Case 2 0.05 2 4 1
Multiple ring 4 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.038 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 5 5625 562.6 3 0.011
Multiple ring 3 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.038 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 5 5625 562.6 3 0.011
Wheel Design parameters DC = 0.4 m, HC = 0.5 m, dp = 0.0254 m, do = 1 mm, x/do = 3
Results 26 5642 716.08 2.8 0.0098

Case 21 0.05 3 6 1
Multiple ring 3 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.038 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 6 10,527 1063.76 13.9 0.0116
Multiple ring 4 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.038 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 6 10,527 1063.8 13.85 0.0116
Wheel Design parameters DC = 0.5 m, HC = 0.5 m, dp = 0.0254 m, do = 1 mm, x/do = 3
Results 33 12,111 1286.32 5.1 0.01

Case 22 0.05 5 10 1
Multiple ring 3 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.038, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 8 24,346 3205 74.19 0.0123
Multiple ring 4 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.038 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 8 24,346 3205 74.19 0.0123
Wheel Design parameters DC = 0.5 m, HC = 0.5 m, dp = 0.032 m, do = 1 mm, x/do = 4
Results 54 28,350 1600.13 2.36 0.01
Table 8 Effect of D and HD on sparger design for VG 0.2 m/s.

chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 19861995

Case No. Operating parameter Supercial gas velocity (m/s) Column diameter (m) Dispersed height (m) Operating pressure (MPa) Average bubble
size (m)
Selected spargers Number of pipes/rings (-) Number of holes (-) Pressure drop (Pa) % Non-uniformity

Case 12 0.2 2 4 1
Multiple ring 3 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.0254 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 16 17,192 2117.9 51.76 0.012
Multiple ring 4 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.03 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 14 15,077 2282.7 44.76 0.012
Wheel Design parameters DC = 0.5 m, HC = 0.5 m, dp = 0.032 m, do = 1 mm, x/do = 2
Results 50 16,250 1233.45 5.2 0.011

Case 23 0.2 2 6 1
Spider sparger 6 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.032 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 56 7924 4611.42 58.42 0.0153
Multiple ring 3 Design parameters dH = 0.25 m, dp = 0.0254 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 11 9937 5111.37 33.1 0.0142
Wheel Design parameters DC = 0.6 m, HC = 1 m, dp = 0.0254 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 4
Results 61 4209 1488.53 4.69 0.019

Case 24 0.2 3 10 1
Multiple ring 3 Design parameters dH = 0.25 m, dp = 0.0254 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 2
Results 11 17,072 15,021 71 0.0154
Multiple ring 4 Design parameters dH = 0.35 m, dp = 0.0254 m, do = 2 mm, x/do = 3
Results 16 16,632 10,068.9 33.52 0.016
Wheel Design parameters DC = 0.6 m, HC = 1 m, dp = 0.0254 m, do = 1 mm, x/do = 3
Results 95 33,250 2478 7.5 0.011

1993
1994 chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 19861995
P, non-uniformity and average bubble size) are given for the
selected three spargers in the subsequent rows. The optimum
sparger in each case is given in bold face.
The selection of optimum sparger is crucial since several
parameters are required to analyze. It is logical that param-
eters affecting xed cost of the sparger are dH , dp , NP , and
No . In all the cases less number of pipes is favorable since
it inuences the xed cost rather than dp . In all the cases,
the cost of ring sparger is higher than that of spider, radial
and wheel sparger. Comparison of spider and multiple ring
sparger based on NP /NR is not advisable since the total length
of the pipe (sparging arms) is going to be more or less same
for a specic case and hence only pipe diameter is to be
considered. The parameters P and non-uniformity affect
the operating cost and the average bubble size is always
the process concern. If the difference in P is higher than
30%, which implicitly implies the higher non-uniformity, after
the due considerations mentioned in Kulkarni et al. (2009)
then aspect ratio should be considered before selecting the
optimum sparger type. In any case, less non-uniformity is
desired and the modied multiple ring sparger usually has
less non-uniformity as compared to the modied spider type
of sparger. If the difference in the non-uniformity is larger
than 30% then the difference in the pressure drop and the
detail costing is needed. This formulates the logical basis for
the selection of sparger type for all the cases under consider-
ation.
The bubble column is operated at higher pressure and/or
higher VG to increase the capacity. The bubble column oper-
ated at higher pressure would have relatively less column
volume. Similarly an increase in VG also reduces the volume
requirement. In the present case, HD was kept constant for the
sake of illustration, since the objective of the present work is
not to evaluate the different designs of bubble column.
Comparison of all the cases in Tables 36 show that an
increase in the P and VG essentially increases the P, since
critical weep velocity increases. This also increases the non-
uniformity, No hence NP . In Table 3, case 1 (VG 0.05 m/s, D 2 m,
HD 4 m, and P 0.3 MPa) and Table 4, case 6 (VG 0.1 m/s, D 2 m,
HD 4 m, and P 0.3 MPa) the best sparger should be selected
based on the costing of the sparger. This is because, in case
1, pipe diameter for wheel sparger is half than that for multi-
ple ring sparger and the number of holes required are nearly
twice than that of multiple ring sparger. The difference in the
pressure drop and the average bubble size is not too large in
either case. In Table 5, case 11 (VG 0.2 m/s, D 2 m, HD 4 m, and
P 0.3 MPa), multiple ring 3 sparger was found to be optimum
sparger. Since, for case 11 the sparger design parameters are
dp 0.0254 m, NR 11, and No 11,755, which are favorable as com-
pared to those for wheel sparger (dp 0.032 m, NP 49, and No
15,925). The difference in pressure drop and non-uniformity
is marginal.
It is to be mentioned that in case 19 (VG 0.4 m/s, D 2 m,
HD 4 m, and P 3 MPa) and case 20 (VG 0.4 m/s, D 2 m, HD 4 m,
and P 5 MPa), for any sparger, except wheel sparger, it was
not possible to nd the operating map. The hole diameter of
3 mm or above is usually not suitable from process point of
view. These are the specic cases, when the reactor is operated
at high capacity the number of pipes becomes too large and
hence cannot be accommodated. These cases show the abil-
ity of wheel sparger, which can be effectively used even under
extreme operating conditions. In all the other cases, wheel
sparger is most suitable sparger as compared to the respective
best three spargers for the individual case.
Comparison of each case in Tables 36 in sequence, i.e.,
case 1, case 6, case 11, case 16 similarly, case 2, case 7, case 12,
case 17 and likewise enables us to compare the effect of VG .
From the design procedure mentioned in Part I the effect of
VG is evident, i.e., No increases, hence NP . However it should
be noticed that wheel type of sparger enables to select the do
of 1 mm, which is not possible for any other sparger.
The effect of D and HD can be found in Tables 7 and 8.
As we increase D, the criterion of the non-uniformity attains
importance. The difference in non-uniformity is evident for
any sparger in all the spargers. Based on similar guidelines
mentioned above, wheel type of sparger was found to be
most suitable. Further, this exercise also highlight that for
different designs of bubble columns the operating map for
sparger design changes hence sparger design changes (com-
pare cases 2 and 21 with 22 in Table 7 and case 12 with 24 in
Table 8).
5. Conclusion
The present work is concerned with the selection and
design of spargers for bubble column reactors over a wide
range of design and operating parameters. A systematic
analysis for optimum sparger design and type is pro-
vided. It was highlighted that optimum sparger design and
type requires process considerations, operational consid-
erations and the fabrication considerations. It was found
that wheel type of sparger is most suitable over a wide
range of operating and design parameters of bubble column
reactor. However it is to be emphasized that detailed anal-
ysis is required for any specic case for optimum sparger
design. Readers are recommended to use the design proce-
dure given in http://www.4shared.com/le/ptlLFNVX/Sparger-
Design.html and http://www.esnips.com/web/ICT-Sparger-
Design.
Acknowledgements
The project was supported by a grant from Board of Research
in Nuclear Sciences (2006/34/24-BRNS/2803). Dr. Anand V.
Kulkarni would like to acknowledge BRNS for their nancial
assistance and also to Mr. Pinaki Ghosh, from IIT Kharagpur
for his technical assistance during this work.
References
Deckwer, W.-D., 1992. Bubble Column Reactors. John Wiley,
England.
Delnoij, E., Kuipers, J.A.M., van Swaij, W.P.W., 1999. A three
dimensional CFD model for gasliquid bubble column. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 54, 22172226.
Dhotre, M.T., Joshi, J.B., 2003. CFD simulation of gas chamber for
gas distributor design. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 81, 677683.
Dhotre, M.T., Joshi, J.B., 2006. Design of a gas distributor:
three-dimensional CFD simulation of a coupled system
consisting of a gas chamber and a bubble column. Chem. Eng.
J. 125, 149163.
Freedman, W., Davidson, J.F., 1969. Hold-up and liquid circulation
in bubble columns. Trans. Ichem E. 47 (8), T251T262.
Joshi, J.B., Sharma, M.M., 1976. Mass transfer characteristics of
horizontal spargerd contactors. Trans. IChem E. 54,
4253.
Joshi, J.B., 2001. Computational ow modeling and design of
bubble column reactors. Chem. Eng. Sci. 56,
58935933.
 chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 19861995 1995

Kirk-Othmer, 2005. In: Seidel, A. (Ed.), Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia
of Chemical Technology, vol. 14, 5th ed. John Wiley & Sons,
New Jersey, pp. 3578.
Kulkarni, A.V., 2010. Design of pipe/ring type of sparger for bubble
column reactor. Chem. Eng. Tech. 33 (6), 10151022.
Kulkarni, A.V., Badgandi, S.V., Joshi, J.B., 2009. Design of ring and
spider type of spargers for bubble column reactor:
experimental measurements and CFD simulation of ow and
weeping. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 87 (12), 16121630.