chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1972–1985

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering Research and Design

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

Design and selection of sparger for bubble column reactor.

Part I: Performance of different spargers

Anand V. Kulkarni, Jyeshtharaj B. Joshi ∗

Department of Chemical Engineering, Institute of Chemical Technology, N.P. Marg, Matunga [E], Mumbai – 400 019, India

a b s t r a c t

Bubble columns are widely used for conducting gas–liquid and gas–liquid–solid mass transfer/chemical reactions.
Sparger is the most important accessory because it decides the bubble size/rise velocity distribution. These, in turn,
govern the radial and axial hold-up profiles, the liquid phase flow pattern and hence the performance of bubble
columns. In particular, the sparger design is critical if the aspect ratio is low and the sparger design dominates the
performance of the bubble column. However, systematic procedure for the selection of sparger design and type are
not available in the published literature. This is the specific objective of the present work. In Part I, the performance
of different spargers, including the newly developed wheel type of sparger is discussed. Thus the important consid-
erations required for the sparger design are highlighted. The bubble column used in the manufacture of hydrogen
peroxide has been considered as a case for illustration.
© 2011 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

1. Introduction
Bubble column reactors are widely used for conducting
a variety of two phase and three phase reactions. These
are preferred reactors due to flexibility in the residence
time, excellent heat and mass transfer characteristics and
the absence of any moving parts. Sparger is an impor-
tant accessory for any bubble column, since it decides the
bubble size/rise velocity distribution. It is also known that
sparger design is the major concern when aspect ratio is
low (Freedman and Davidson, 1969; Joshi and Sharma, 1976;
Deckwer, 1992; Grevskott et al., 1996; Lin et al., 1998; Delnoij
et al., 1999; Joshi, 2001; Kulkarni, 2010). Various design as well
as operational problems may arise due to improper selection
of the type and/or the design of sparger. Such problems are
(1) weeping, which results in undesirable residence time dis-
tribution and hence poor selectivity. Weeping also induces
non-uniformity in sparging and higher pressure drops. (2)
weeping also results into plugging of some holes if solid phase
is present either as a reactant or any product. (3) it is desir-
able to know the inherent non-uniformity in sparging since
the consequences of non-uniform distribution are the forma-
tion of dead zones. This also lowers the values of interfacial
area and the increased values of pressure drop, etc. (4) it is
always desirable to have low pressure drop from operating
cost point of view. However we need to ensure no weep condi-
tions as well as the uniformity of sparging. Apart from these
tribulations, there are always some practical concerns such as
(a) maximum possible number of pipes which can be accom-
modated in the column. (b) provision of proper inlet for the
sparger. (c) smooth inflow/outflow of the liquid phase depend-
ing upon the co-current/counter-current operation and (d) the
location of sparger from the bottom of the reactor, with due
considerations to the total height of the column.
Various spargers are in commercial use such as sieve plate,
radial, spider and multiple ring (Fig. 1). The design of sieve
plate sparger involves the specifications of the diameter, num-
ber and orientation of holes. It also involves the specification
of chamber dimensions below the sieve plate (Fig. 2) and the
specification of the gas inlet (size and location) to the gas
chamber. In case of sieve plate sparger, under no weep con-
ditions, the gas chamber contains only gas. The dimensions
of the gas chamber and the location of gas inlet are selected in
such a way that the gas gets uniformly supplied to all the holes

∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 22 24145696/25597625; fax: +91 22 24145614.
E-mail addresses: jbj@udct.org, jbjoshi@gmail.com, jb.joshi@ictmumbai.edu.in (J.B. Joshi).
Received 1 July 2010; Received in revised form 17 October 2010; Accepted 6 January 2011
0263-8762/$ – see front matter © 2011 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2011.01.004
 chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1972–1985 1973

Table 1 – Sparger types under consideration.

Nomenclature
Sparger Sparger name Sparger details
AW constant in Eqs. (6) and (7) 1 Multiple ring 1 Conventional multiple ring with
Bdo bond number based on orifice diameter side entry
BW constant in Eq. (6) 2 Multiple ring 2 Conventional multiple ring with
D column diameter (m) central entry
DC chamber diameter (m) 3 Multiple ring 3 Modified multiple ring with side
entry
dB bubble diameter (m)
4 Multiple ring 4 Modified multiple ring with
dH header diameter (m) central entry
do hole diameter (m) 5 Spider sparger 1 Conventional spider with side
dp pipe diameter (m) entry
Fr Froude number 6 Spider sparger 2 Modified spider with side entry
f allowable bending stress (N/mm2 ) 7 Spider sparger 3 Conventional spider with central
entry
g acceleration due to gravity (m/s2 )
8 Spider sparger 4 Modified spider with central
Ga Galileo number
entry
H column height (m) 9 Spider sparger 5 Conventional spider with central
HC chamber height for sieve plate sparger (m) entry
HL static liquid head (m) 10 Spider sparger 6 Modified spider with both side
L length of the sparging pipe/arm (m) entry
l dimension of single plate used for fabrication 11 Radial sparger Radial sparger
12 Wheel sparger Wheel type of sparger
of sieve plate (mm)
13 Sieve plate sparger Sieve plate sparger
N number of holes
P operating pressure (Pa)
of sparger together with detailed specifications. For practic-
ReO Reynolds number based on hole velocity
ing engineers, worked examples have been given over a wide
T operating temperature (◦ C)
range of design and operating parameters. The entire work is
VC critical weep velocity (m/s)
divided into two parts so as to comprehend all the considera-
VG superficial gas velocity (m/s)
tions needed for the sparger design. Part I of this work presents
VO hole velocity (m/s)
the importance of different considerations required for the
VW critical weep velocity (m/s)
selection of sparger design and type for a case of hydrogen
t thickness of sieve plate (m)
peroxide manufacture. Thus Part I discusses the performance
x distance between two holes (m)
characteristics of different spargers. In Part II selection proce-
PW wet pressure drop (Pa)
dure has been described for the optimum sparger design and
Greek symbols type for the same example and for the same range of oper-
 liquid density in Eq. (5) (kg/cm3 ) ating and design characteristics of bubble column, i.e. range
G gas density (kg/m3 ) of superficial gas velocity, aspect ratio, column diameter and
L liquid density (kg/m3 ) operating pressure.
ω expansion factor
2. Design procedure for sparger

The spargers for bubble column can be classified into two cate-
(this means that the radial pressure profile is practically uni-
gories: (1) plate type of sparger (sieve plate) and (2) pipe type of
form below the sieve plate and the velocity vectors are almost
sparger. The class of pipe type spargers include: radial, spider
vertical below the plate) (Dhotre and Joshi, 2003, 2006). For the
and multiple ring spargers. Major parameters for bubble col-
other spargers, we need to know the pipe diameter and the
umn design are column diameter and column height, which
number of pipes/rings together with the diameter and number
are decided by the rates of mass transfer and/or chemical
of holes. Gas is supplied to these spargers by a header which is
reaction, capacity, the required degree of conversion, operat-
expected to execute uniform supply to all the pipes (in radial
ing pressure and temperature, superficial gas velocity and the
pipe and spider sparger) and all the rings (in case of multi-
physical properties of gas and liquid phases.
ple ring spargers). For this purpose, we need to specify the
Since weeping is undesirable phenomena, sparger should
header and pipe/arm dimensions. Fig. 3 shows the schematic
be operated above critical weep point velocity and the ‘no-
representation of headers for the spider and ring spargers.
weep’ condition should be satisfied for all the holes. The
The possibilities of connection between the gas supply and
correlations for critical weep velocity have been reported in
sparger are shown and these are: one side entry (Fig. 3A), two
the literature for sieve plate (Thorat et al., 2001):
side entry (Fig. 3B) and the central entry (Fig. 3C). Fig. 3D shows
radial sparger and Fig. 3E represents the wheel type of sparger,    x −1.6  t 0.75 
(L − G )do g
which is newly developed sparger (Kulkarni et al., 2009). All VC2 = 0.37 + 140HL (1)
G do do
these combinations form the set of twelve spargers as listed
in Table 1.
and for other sparger designs such as pipe, ring and spiders
The foregoing discussion brings out the importance
(Kulkarni et al., 2009):
of the sparger design. However, practically no informa-
tion/guidelines are available in the published literature for the   −0.12  x −0.145  H 0.67
0.44(L − G )do g L L
selection of type and/or the design of spargers. Therefore, it VC2 = (2)
G do do do
was thought desirable to provide rationale for the selection
1974 chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1972–1985

A B

Header
diameter

Pipes/Arms

Rings

C D

Fig. 1 – Different types of spargers.

The operating hole velocity (VO ) is selected higher than the
weep velocity (VW ) with some margin (say, 15%). On the basis
of VO and the volumetric flow rate of gas, the free area of the
sparger can be estimated. By selecting hole diameter (to be
confirmed later), the number of holes are obtained.
In the case of pipe spargers, one can estimate the total
length of pipe by knowing the total number of holes required
and the pitch of holes. Usually, for any bubble column reactor,
the hole diameter of sparger is in the range of 0.5–6 mm. Also
pitch (x/do ) ranges from 3 to 50 for sieve plate and 2–15 for
pipe spargers. In case of pipe spargers, it is desirable to have
minimum non-uniformity in the header, since it reduces the
overall non-uniformity. Maximum uniformity can be achieved
if (a) the ratio of frictional pressure drop (in the header and the
pipe put together) to that across the holes and (b) the ratio of
the kinetic head at the pipe inlet to the pressure drop across
the holes both are as low as possible.
Usually, if column diameter is large (>1 m), then pipe sparg-
ers are preferred. This is because, the plate thickness (for sieve
plate) increases with an increase in the pressure at the reac-
tor bottom. However, in either case, it can be observed from
the correlations for critical weep velocity that, the value of
VC increases as the static liquid height (above the sparger)
increases and as the pitch decreases. In the case of pipe/ring
type of spargers, the critical weep velocity decreases as length
of the pipe increases.
In case of multiple ring sprager, it was found that, the side
entry with half way header as shown in Fig. 1D (or Fig. 3A)
is not advisable. This is because, for any total pressure at the
entrance of header, it may not be possible that the gas can
be distributed in the entire sparger with sufficient uniformity.
Further, there is always a maximum limit of length and the
number of holes on the pipe beyond which it starves for gas for
a certain total inlet pressure and the frictional pressure drop
(Acrivos et al., 1959). Hence, in the case of multiple rings, either
central entry (Fig. 3C) or entry from both ends (Fig. 3B) are
advisable. The multiple ring sparger with entry from both ends
is shown in Fig. 3B and F. The single entry (either side entry or
central entry), does not alter the pressure drop and the non-
uniformity for a specific hole diameter and pitch. However,
if gas enters from both ends, then considerable reduction in
both pressure drop and the non-uniformity can be achieved.
The selection of hole diameter is the most crucial part in
the entire design, because, hole diameter influences all the
design parameters either implicitly or explicitly. The implicit
parameters are critical weep velocity hence pressure drop,
average bubble size and bubble size distribution at the sparger
and the number of pipes. The explicit effect is on the (a) non-
 chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1972–1985 1975

GAS OUT
TOP GAS-DISPERSION
INTERFACE PRESSURE EQUALIZATION
LINE

LIQUID
IN/OUT

LIQUID OUT
(COUNTER-CURRENT)

LIQUID IN
(CO-CURRENT)

SIEVE PLATE
GAS IN
SPARGER

GAS CHAMBER

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

uniformity. (b) liquid and gas phase flow patterns and hence
on the column performance such as (i) axial mixing (Joshi and
Sharma, 1978; Joshi, 1980, 1982; Joshi et al., 2002; Yang and
Fan, 2003; Sokolichin et al., 2004). (ii) heat transfer (Joshi et
al., 1980) and (iii) mass transfer (Pandit and Joshi, 1986; Gupta
et al., 2009).
In the case of pipe/ring spargers, the selection of design
parameters can be classified into two stages. In the first
stage, header and pipe/arm diameter (shown in Fig. 1) is to be
3. Manufacture of hydrogen peroxide
Hydrogen peroxide is manufactured using a two step reac-
tion. In the first step, alkyl anthraquinone is hydrogenated
using hydrogen to give respective anthrahydroquinone, which
is subsequently oxidized to give hydrogen peroxide and the
anthraquinone (Kirk-Othmer, 2005). The anthraquinone is
then recycled back for the hydrogenation.

OH
C2H5 C2H5
Catalyst
+ H2

OH (3)

OH
C2H5 C2H5

+ O2 + H 2O 2
(air)
OH (4)

selected, and later, based on these sizes, the second stage
includes the selection of hole diameter (do ) and pitch. Usu-
ally, header diameter and pipe diameter are less sensitive for
a specific hole diameter and pitch, however it may alter the
range of operating map, i.e. the range of hole diameter and
pitch which could be used for a specified case of header and
pipe diameter.
The oxidation of alkyl hydroquinone is usually conducted
in a bubble column reactor. The alkyl anthrahydroquinone and
oxygen (usually air) are passed in co-current manner. The oxi-
dation is exothermic reaction. It is reported that the reaction
occurs in the liquid phase (Kirk-Othmer, 2005). The oxidation
reaction is conducted at nearly atmospheric pressure and the
operating temperature is typically 80 ◦ C.
1976 chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1972–1985

GAS OUT GAS OUT GAS OUT

SPIDER OR SPIDER OR
MULTIPLE RING MULTIPLE RING
SPARGER SPARGER

GAS IN GAS IN GAS IN

GAS HEADER GAS IN

A B C

GAS OUT GAS OUT

PIPE SPARGER WHEEL

AS SHOWN IN SPARGER
FIGURE 1 SPARGER
ARMS
GAS IN GAS IN

CHAMBER
GAS HEADER
GAS IN
D E

GAS GAS

Fig. 3 – Schematic of bubble column with radial, spider, multiple ring and wheel type of sparger, with type of gas entry. (A)
Spider or multiple ring sparger with gas entry from one side. (B) Spider or multiple ring sparger with gas entry from both
sides. (C) Spider or multiple ring sparger with gas entry from center. (D) Radial sparger. (E) Wheel type of sparger. (F)
Multiple ring sparger with gas entry from both ends.

Table 2 – Physico-chemical properties of hydrogen peroxide (concentration by weight).

Parameter Concentration of hydrogen peroxide by weight

10% 35% 50% 60% 70% 90%

Density at 20 ◦ C (kg/m3 ) 1.034 1.113 1.195 1.2364 1.288 1.387

Viscosity at 20 ◦ C (mPa s) 1.01 1.11 1.17 1.24 1.26
Surface tension at 20 ◦ C (N/m) 0.0731 0.0746 0.0757 0.0773 0.0792
 chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1972–1985
4. Performance evaluation for different
spargers
As a typical case, it is assumed that the column diameter
is 3 m, the superficial gas velocity is 0.03 m/s. The dispersed
height is 16.5 m. Operating pressure is 0.05 MPa (gauge) at
the top. The physico-chemical properties have been reported
Kirk-Othmer (2005) and are reproduced in Table 2. First of all,
we design the sieve plate sparger and then the twelve dif-
ferent designs of pipe sparger. In case of sieve plate sparger
the important design parameters are diameter and number
of holes, thickness of sieve plate, dimensions of gas chamber
(Fig. 2) and the location of gas inlet. The thickness of sieve plate
could be estimated from the following relationship (Ghadyalji,
2005):
 respectively. However, this reduction is marginal. Increasing
1 3Hl2
t=
10 4f
For a large column diameter, sieve plate is to be fabricated
using multiple pieces. Supports are required to withstand
the weight of gas–liquid dispersion. Supports are also needed
for the different pieces which together form the sieve plate
sparger (Fig. 4). In the present case, column diameter is 3 m,
hence diameter of sieve plate is also 3 m and we consider the
pieces to be 100 mm squares. The plate thickness estimated by
above equation was found to be 25 mm. The diameter of gas
chamber is usually the same as the column diameter. Cham-
ber height is to be selected based on the total pressure drop.
Pressure drop across the plate could be estimated based on
the following equation (Thorat et al., 2001):
0.2 −0.08
pW ω2 (t/do ) (HC D2 /Nd2o t) AW
0.4
= + BW
0.5VO2 (x/do ) ReO
where BW is 0.14 and AW is given by:
8.9 × 104 HL
AW = 1.4 1.6
+ 1192
(x/do ) (t/do ) D
For a particular hole diameter, pressure drop increases with
an increase in chamber height and it decreases as the pitch
increases. Fig. 5 shows the pressure drop with respect to hole
diameter (do ) for different chamber heights.
The selection of hole diameter is always the process con-
cern and hence is to be selected in conjunction of resultant
average bubble size at the sparger. For the present problem,
it is reported that the oxidation of ethyl anthrahydroquinone
occurs in the liquid phase. Hence maximizing the interfa-
cial area is desired. The dependency of hole velocity and
hole diameter on average bubble size has been reviewed
(Jamialhamadi et al., 2001). Jamialhamadi et al. (2001) have
proposed the following unified correlation for the estimation
of average bubble size:
 1/3
dB 5 9.261Fr0.36
= + + 2.147Fr0.51
do Bd1.08
O
Ga0.39
Eq. (8) was used for the estimation of average bubble size. For
the present case, only the third term is significant. It shows
that average bubble size increases with 1/3rd power of the hole
velocity and with 0.83 power of the hole diameter.
1977
Fig. 5 shows the total pressure drop with respect to the do
for sieve plate sparger. It can be seen that the lowest pressure
drop is obtained for pitch 50 and do of 3 mm. However, average
bubble size would be too large (0.019 m, according to Eq. (8)).
It was thought appropriate (as a first case) to set the values of
do to be 1 mm, in order to reduce the average bubble size and
maximize the interfacial area. The wet pressure drop (exclud-
ing the static liquid height), for this case was 2151.3 Pa and the
average bubble size was found to be 9 mm. The chamber height
was selected to be 1 m. The results for the specified case are
shown in Table 3. It can be seen that a reduction in the pitch
increases the pressure drop. For instance, for the case of do of
1 mm and pitch 50 the wet pressure drop across the sparger is
1522.4 Pa whereas for pitch 30 it is 2151.3 Pa. Same is applicable
for hole diameter 3 mm. If do is increased from 1 mm to 3 mm
and pitch 30, pressure drop reduces from 2151.3 Pa to 1855 Pa,
(5) the do also increases the average bubble size.
For sieve plate spargers the cost of drilling the holes is con-
siderable and it increases with the plate thickness. Reducing
the pitch reduces the number of holes. For sieve plate spargers
if the number of holes are too high, as it is for do 1 mm and pitch
50 the number of holes are 15,323 and the cost of fabrication
would also be high. Hence pitch was set to 30. The modest set
of design parameters for the prescribed case is do 1 mm, pitch
30, number of holes are 10,207, chamber height 1 m. For such
a set of parameters, the wet pressure drop works out to be
2151.3 Pa. It should be mentioned however that the sieve plate
sparger may not be a good selection for the present case since
column diameter is 3 m (readers can realize this point after
the procedure for design of pipe spargers is discussed and the
results are obtained).
Fig. 6 shows the operating map for selection of header
diameter and pipe diameter for conventional spider sparger
(6)
with central entry (seventh sparger in Table 1). The operat-
ing map is used to select the set of header diameter and pipe
diameter and not the number of pipes/rings. The ordinate for
pressure drop ratio is on RHS and that for the pressure drop
is on LHS. The general trends, which are applicable for all
(7) the cases of spiders and multiple rings are as follows: (1) the
pressure drop decreases and pressure drop ratio increases as
the number of pipes/rings increases. (2) as header diameter
reduces and the pipe diameter increases, the non-uniformity
increases. For the extreme case, i.e. minimum header diame-
ter and maximum pipe diameter, dH 0.15 m and dp 0.05 m (‘×’
in Fig. 6, ordinate on RHS) it can be seen that the pressure
drop ratio is high even for 10 pipes. On contrast, for the other
extreme case, dH 0.35 m and dp 0.0254 m (‘♦’ in Fig. 6, ordi-
nate on RHS), the pressure drop ratio is minimum, hence the
non-uniformity is minimum for any number of pipes. (3) for
a specific pipe diameter, pressure drop ratio decreases as the
header diameter increases. Whereas, pressure drop decreases
with an increase in the header diameter. The later is more
distinct if pipe diameter is high. (4) If both header diameter
and pipe diameter are minimum among the list considered,
dH 0.15 m and dp 0.0254 m, pressure drop is maximum for any
number of pipes and vice-a-versa.
It is mentioned above that the pressure drop ratio should
(8)
be as low as possible. Hence, three choices (1) dH 0.35 m and
dp 0.0254, (2) dH 0.35 m and dp 0.038 m and (3) dH 0.25 m and dp
0.0254 m could be explored. At this stage it is logical to state
that the case 2, i.e. dH 0.35 m and dp 0.038 m would be costli-
est followed by case 1, dH 0.35 m and dp 0.0254 m and case 3,
dH 0.25m and dp 0.0254 m would be the cheapest. Hence, as
1978 chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1972–1985

PLAN : DOWNSTREAM
OF SIEVE PLATE
Single plate
Perforations

Rib support
B

SECTION OF
SIEVE PLATE

GAS
CHAMBER

PLAN : UPSTREAM OF
SIEVE PLATE

SUPPORTS FOR
SIEVE PLATE
GAS

A C

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

5
10
pitch/do 3
• pitch/do 3
pitch/do 5
О pitch/do 5
pitch/do 8
× pitch/do 8
pitch/do 10
+ pitch/d o 10
× pitch/do
pitch/d 15
o 15

pitch/do 20 20
pitch/do
pitch/do 25
Total pressure drop (Pa)

◊ pitch/d o 25
pitch/do
pitch/d o 30 30
pitch/do
pitch/d o 40 40
pitch/d o 50 50
pitch/do
4 0.1D
0.1D
10 0.6D
0.6D
1.2D
1.2D

3
10
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
-3
Hole diameter (mm) x 10

Fig. 5 – Pressure drop characteristics for sieve plate sparger.

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

Table 3 – Design parameters for sieve plate sparger.

Parameter do 1 mm,x/do 30 do 1 mm,x/do 50 do 3 mm,x/do 10 do 3 mm,x/do 30 do 3 mm,x/do 50

Number of holes 10,207 15,323 411 986 1476

Plate thickness (mm) 25 25 25 25 25
Chamber height (m) 1 1 1 1 1
Dry pressure drop (Pa) 642.1 339.5 4230 1064.1 564.7
Wet pressure drop (Pa) 2151.3 1522.4 5996.8 1855 1161.8
Critical weep velocity (m/s) 17.6 11.8 48.7 20.3 13.6
Average bubble size (mm) 9 7 30 23 19
 chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1972–1985 1979

20000 0.5
15000 • dH 0.15m;dH
dp 0.0254m
0.15m;dp 0.025m• dH dH 0.15m;dp
0.15m; 0.025m
dp 0.0254m
10000 О dH 0.15m; dH
dp 0.038m О
0.15m;dp 0.038m dH dH 0.15m;dp
0.15m; 0.038m
dp 0.038m
× dH 0.15m; dH
dp 0.051m ×
0.15m;dp 0.051m dH dH
0.15m; dp 0.051m
0.15m;dp 0.051m
5000 + dH 0.25m; dH
dp 0.0254m + dH dH
0.25m; dp 0.0254m
0.25m;dp 0.025m
0.25m;dp 0.025m
× dH 0.25m; dH
dp 0.038m ×
0.25m;dp 0.038m 0.25m;
dH dH 0.038m 0.4
dp 0.038m
0.25m;dp

dp 0.051m
dH 0.25m;dH

0.25m;dp 0.051m dH dH
0.25m; d
0.25m;dp
p 0.051m
0.051m
◊ dH 0.35m;dH 0.0254m 0.025m
dp 0.35m;dp ◊ 0.35m;
dHdH dp 0.0254m
0.35m;dp 0.025m
dH 0.35m;dH
dp 0.35m;dp
0.038m 0.038m 0.35m;
dHdH dp 0.038m
0.35m;dp 0.038m

Pressure drop ratio (-)

dH 0.35m;dH 0.051m 0.051m
dp 0.35m;dp dHdH
0.35m; dp 0.051m
Pressure drop (Pa)

0.35m;dp 0.051m 0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Number of pipes (-)

Fig. 6 – Pressure drop characteristics for selection of header and pipe diameter.

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

30000 100
pitch/do 2 pitch/do 2
25000 • pitch/do
pitch/d3o 2 pitch/do 3
О pitch/do
pitch/d4o 3
pitch/do 4
× pitch/do 4
20000 + pitch/do
pitch/d5 5
o
pitch/do 5 80
× pitch/do
pitch/d6o 6 pitch/do 6

pitch/do 8
pitch/d o 8 pitch/do 8
Total pressure drop (Pa)

◊ pitch/do o 10
pitch/d10 pitch/do 10
15000
Number of pipes (-)

pitch/d12
pitch/do o 12 pitch/do 12
pitch/d15
o 15 60
pitch/do pitch/do 15

10000
40

20

5000

0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Hole diameter (mm)

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

1980 chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1972–1985

Table 4 – Design parameters for conventional spider with central entry.

Parameter Set of hole diameter and pitch, header
diameter 0.25 m and pipe diameter 0.0254 m

do 2 mm, x/do 2 do 3 mm, x/do 2 do 3 mm, x/do 3

Number of pipes 8 8 8
Number of holes 2024 1348 900
Total pressure drop 8364.6 8666.1 9419.1
Per cent non-uniformity 76.7 79.4 87.2
Pitch on header (m) 0.38 0.38 0.38
Average critical weep velocity (m/s) 21 23 22.3
Average hole velocity (m/s) 34.2 30 35.7
Per cent minimum critical weep velocity with respect to +28.5 +9.7 +24
minimum hole velocity
Average bubble size (mm) 18 24 25

At this stage it should be mentioned that if a sparger is
to be designed to satisfy ‘no-weep’ condition, the bubbling is
usually in the jetting regime and the bubble size distribution is
wide. Higher is the average bubble size, lesser is the interfacial
area and lesser is the gas hold-up. In the present case, if the
hole diameter is increased from 2 mm to 3 mm, then the aver-
age bubble size increases from 18 mm to 24 mm (according to
Eq. (8)) and the corresponding increase in average hole veloc-
ity is nearly 10 per cent. In both situations, the non-uniformity
is nearly same and increment in the total pressure drop is not
significant. It may be noted that, even if average bubble size
increases nearly by 33 per cent, rise velocity dose not change
significantly. Hence, the fractional gas hold-up remains prac-
tically constant. Therefore, if the hole diameter of 2 mm is
chosen, then the average bubble size would be 18 mm and the
interfacial area in the sparger region would be high and pres-
sure drop would also be less as compared with 3 mm holes.
Under these circumstances, for conventional spider with cen-
tral entry, it is advisable to set the hole diameter to be 2 mm
and pitch 2.
The above analysis was performed for dH 0.25 m and dp
0.025 m. At this stage it would be appropriate to check the
effect of increasing the header diameter and pipe diameter. As
mentioned previously, changing the header and pipe diameter
may change the range of operating map. The case of do 2 mm
and pitch 2 is not a feasible case if dH and/or dp is increased.
Hence comparison is presented for do 3 mm in Table 5. It can
be seen that increasing the header diameter has a little effect
on the total pressure drop (first two columns in Table 5). How-
ever, with an increase in the pipe diameter from 0.0254 m to
0.032 m, the reduction in the total pressure drop is even higher
than 50 per cent and the number of pipes reduce by 50 per
cent. On the other side, some holes may weep (8th row of first
two columns). Hence, safety margin needs to be increased.
Increasing the safety margin certainly increases the total pres-
sure drop and reduces the non-uniformity as can be seen from
3rd column in Table 5. Under these circumstances, it would be
advisable to choose dH 0.25 m, dp 0.0254 m, do 2 mm and pitch
2. These are the optimized set of parameters for this type of
sparger.
After arriving at the specification of one sparger type, it is
desirable to compare the different sparger types. Above men-
tioned case is the conventional spider and non-uniformity is
considerably high. Similar trends can be observed in all the
conventional spiders and multiple ring spargers, i.e. 1st, 2nd,
5th, 7th, and 9th case in Table 1. These cases therefore, will
not be considered. Hence, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 11th, and
12th case in Table 1 are considered. It has been shown ear-
lier that the effects of header diameter and pipe diameter are
not significant, however, for each sparger type it should be
considered as a parameter.
In the case of modified spider with single side entry, dH
0.25 m and dp 0.0254 m cannot be selected, because pressure
drop ratio and hence non-uniformity is too high even for lim-
ited number of pipes. Under these circumstances, it is required
to increase the header diameter. Hence, a comparison has
been made for dH 0.35 m and 0.4 m. The pipe diameter was
kept 0.0254 m. The results are shown in Table 6. It is worth to
note that, a significant reduction in the non-uniformity can be
obtained for the modified case, which is maximum 3 per cent.

Table 5 – Effect of header diameter and pipe diameter on design parameters for conventional spider with central entry.
Parameter Hole diameter 3 mm

dH 0.25, dp 0.032, dH 0.3, dp 0.032, do dH 0.3, dp 0.032, do

do 3 mm, pitch 2 3 mm, pitch 2 3 mm, pitch 2 and
safety margin 300
per cent

Number of pipes 8 8 4
Number of holes 1348 1348 532
Total pressure drop 3410 3410.2 15360
Per cent non-uniformity 78.9 78.9 51.9
Pitch on header (m) 0.38 0.38 0.76
Average critical weep velocity (m/s) 23 23 23.3
Average hole velocity (m/s) 22 22 61.4
Per cent minimum critical weep velocity with respect to −22.6 −22.6 +49
minimum hole velocity
Average bubble size (mm) 22 22 29
 chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1972–1985 1981

Table 6 – Design parameters for modified spider with single side entry.
Parameter Set of hole diameter and pitch, header diameter 0.35 m and pipe
diameter 0.0254 m

do 1 mm do 1 mm do 3 mm do 3 mm
x/do 4 x/do 8 x/do 10 x/do 20

Number of pipes 40 84 28 58
Number of holes 6522 6932 616 638
Total pressure drop 3768.7 3206.9 5155.6 4601.8
Per cent non-uniformity 2.6 1.3 1.8 1.3
Pitch on header (m) 0.1 0.05 0.15 0.073
Average critical weep velocity (m/s) 17 16.1 20.3 19.3
Average hole velocity (m/s) 41.2 38.8 48.7 47
Per cent minimum critical weep velocity with respect to +57 +57.2 +56.4 +57.2
minimum hole velocity
Average bubble size (mm) 10 10 26.5 26

Increasing the hole diameter increases the total pressure drop
and significant reduction in the number of pipes can be seen
(2nd column and last column in Table 6). Increasing the pitch,
from 4 to 8 for hole diameter of 1 mm and pitch from 10 to
20 for hole diameter of 3 mm reduces the total pressure drop.
However, this reduction can usually be ignored and the selec-
tion be based on the reduction in the number of pipes. As a
result there is a reduction in fixed cost and also the average
bubble size. Changes in non-uniformity can also be neglected
being nominal. Increasing the hole diameter to 4 mm or above
is normally not beneficial since it would increase the pressure
drop as well as the average bubble size, though the number of
pipes may reduce even further. Hence, for this case, the choice
is to be made between the set of do 1 mm, x/do 4 and do 3 mm,
x/do 10. The increase in the total pressure drop is nearly 40%
(from 3768.7 Pa to 5155.6 Pa) and reduction in the number of
pipes is also nearly 40% (from 40 to 28), respectively. However,
an increase in the average bubble size is 2.6-fold. Under these
circumstances it is advisable to choose do 1 mm and x/do 4.
Because, even if increment in number of pipes is 40%, its con-
tribution may not be significant, unless very specific material
of construction is required. For the present case, it is reported
that stainless steel as the suitable material of construction.
Yet another benefit is the lower average bubble size. Further,
the number of pipes may be reduced by reducing the pitch to 3
or even 2, without any significant impact on the other parame-
ters except total pressure drop. Hence for this specific sparger,
set of design parameters are dH 0.35 m, dp 0.0254 m, do 1 mm
and x/do 4.
In the case of modified spider with central entry, results are
shown in Table 7. The dH was 0.25 m and dp was 0.0254 m based
on earlier arguments. However, in this type of sparger it is pos-
sible to reduce the header diameter since the non-uniformity
is significantly less. Hence, the results are also shown for dH
0.15 m and dp 0.0254 m. In this case also hole diameter can
be set to 1 mm based on earlier arguments. Increasing pitch,
reduces the pressure drop considerably, from 3573 Pa for do
1 mm and x/do 4 to 2917 Pa for do 1 mm and x/do 12. Max-
imum non-uniformity is 5 per cent, hence can be assumed
negligible. However reducing the pitch reduces the number
of pipes significantly, from 80 for pitch 12 to 28 for pitch 4,
with modest increase in non-uniformity. If header diameter
is reduced from 0.25 m to 0.15 m, pipe diameter is kept con-
stant 25.4 mm, and do 1 mm and x/do 4, then total pressure
drop across the sparger increases by 33 per cent, which may
be acceptable with respect to dispersed height of 16.5 m. The
number of pipes reduces to 24. Therefore for modified spi-
der with central entry, the suitable design parameters are dH
0.15 m, dp 25.4 mm, do 1 mm and x/do 4.
The results for modified spider with gas entry from both
sides are presented in Table 8. The header diameter of 0.25 m
and 0.15 m is considered. The pipe diameter was 25.4 mm.
Since, hole diameter of 1 mm lies within the operating map
and also suitable, results are presented for this case in Table 8.
On the basis of earlier arguments, suitable design parameters
are dH 0.15 m, dp 25.4 mm, do 1 mm, and pitch 6.
The results for modified multiple ring sparger with central
entry are shown in Table 9. The minimum ring diameter was
set to be 1 m in all the cases. The header diameter of 0.25 m
and 0.35 m was considered. Pipe diameter was 25.4 mm. It may
be noted that an increase in pipe diameter directly affects the
fixed cost in the case of multiple ring sparger and a reduction

Table 7 – Design parameters for modified spider with central entry.

Parameter Set of dH 0.25 m, dp 0.0254 m Set of dH 0.15 m, dp 0.0254 m

do 1 mm do 3 mm do 1 mm

x/do 4 x/do 8 x/do 12 x/do 10 x/do 20 x/do 4

Number of pipes 28 52 80 20 36 24
Number of holes 7528 7028 7280 720 648 6496
Total pressure drop 3573 3176.3 2917.4 5357 4586.6 4747.6
Per cent non-uniformity 7.3 1.9 1.3 5 1 8.1
Pitch on header (m) 0.11 0.06 0.038 0.15 0.084 0.13
Average critical weep velocity (m/s) 17 16.2 15.7 20.4 19.4 17
Average hole velocity (m/s) 35.9 38.2 36.7 41.7 46.3 41.4
Per cent minimum critical weep velocity with +47 +54.5 +54.5 +46.1 +55.1 +54
respect to minimum hole velocity
Average bubble size (mm) 10 10 10 25 26 10
1982 chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1972–1985

Table 8 – Design parameters for modified spider with entry from both ends.
Parameter Set of dH 0.25m, dp 0.0254 m Set of dH 0.15 m, dp 0.0254 m

do 1 mm x/do 4 do 1 mm x/do 15 do 1 mm x/do 6

Number of pipes 24 84 32
Number of holes 7428 7504 7004
Total pressure drop 2680 2125.5 2153.9
Per cent non-uniformity 12.3 1.1 4.3
Pitch on header (m) 0.13 0.043 0.1
Average critical weep velocity (m/s) 17 15.4 16.5
Average hole velocity (m/s) 36.3 34.7 37.2
Per cent minimum critical weep velocity with +49 +56.5 +55.3
respect to minimum hole velocity
Average bubble size (mm) 10 10 10

in the pressure drop is relatively less. From Table 9, it can be dH 0.2 m and 0.15 m are also given in Table 11. It can be seen
seen that minimum pressure drop is obtained for do 1 mm and that, a reduction in dH dose not increase total pressure drop to
pitch 20, and dH 0.35 m. However number of rings is very high, any considerable extent, non-uniformity increases, however,
hence this set of parameters cannot be selected, since fixed still in an acceptable range. It was found that if dH is reduced
cost of sparger would be too high. If hole diameter is increased further, 0.1 m, then total pressure drop and non-uniformity
from 1 mm to 2 mm, total pressure drop increases marginally both increase considerably. Hence for radial sparger mod-
for both header diameters. The case of do 2 mm, pitch 5, would est set of design parameters are dH 0.15 m, dp 25.4 mm, do
be optimum set, since both pressure drop and number of rings 1 mm, and pitch 5. However, it should be mentioned that radial
are less (3 rings), however non-uniformity is high, i.e. 15%. sparger cannot be used for the present case for the above men-
On contrary, if hole diameter is selected to be 1 mm, which tioned reasons.
is also desired for the process requirement, pitch of 5 is more In case of wheel sparger a chamber is placed at the cen-
optimum. For this case (1st row in Table 9) number of rings are ter and pipes are placed along the periphery in the form of
6, which are not too high and the non-uniformity is also low. layers (Fig. 8). The chamber diameter is preferably maximum
Hence, for modified multiple ring sparger with central entry, 30 per cent of column diameter and chamber height should
dH 0.25 m, dp 25.4 mm, do 1 mm and pitch 5, are the modest be sufficient to accommodate the pipes. In the present case,
design parameters. chamber diameter is considered to be 0.6 m and height can
In the case of modified multiple ring sparger with gas entry be selected based on the number of pipes. Selection of pipe
from both ends (as shown in Fig. 4), the effect of design param- diameter is straightforward. Larger is the pipe diameter lesser
eters is shown in Table 10. Header diameter was set to 0.25 m is the pressure drop and higher is the fixed cost. In the present
and pipe diameter 25.4 mm was considered. In this case again case, dispersed height is 16.5 m hence if the increment in the
do 1 mm and pitch 5 are the most suitable design parame- total pressure drop is not significant, it is preferable to choose
ters, since pressure drop is less, non-uniformity is also less, lower pipe diameter. Table 12 shows the results for wheel type
number of rings are modest and average bubble diameter is of sparger. Based on the earlier arguments it is appropriate
also acceptable. Reducing the pitch below 5 is not advisable
since, it increases the non-uniformity considerably and rela-
tive advantage in terms of number of rings is marginal. Hence,
design parameters for this sparger are, dH 0.25 m, dp 25.4 mm,
do 1 mm and pitch 5.
In the case of radial sparger, the results are shown in
Table 11. The diameter of outer ring was considered to be 1.25
times the column diameter, 3.75 m and length of single pipe
was 80 per cent of column diameter, 1.2 m for the present case.
In case of radial sparger the cost of header, i.e. outer ring is
relatively high hence the diameter of ring pipe should be as
low as possible. Further, in the case of high pressure reactors
and also tall columns, i.e. the present case, mechanical con-
straints always limit the number of pipes, typically 4–8 are
considered to be maximum. It is already, mentioned that for
the present case, hole diameter of 1 mm along with minimum
non-uniformity is suitable from process considerations. How-
ever increasing hole diameter decreases the number of pipes
considerably, which is desired for radial sparger. Table 11 lists
the results for do 1 mm, and 2 mm. Increasing the hole diam-
eter increases the average bubble size and the total pressure
drop. Increasing the pitch is not desirable for radial sparger,
since it always increases the number of pipes. Reducing pitch
increases the total pressure drop and non-uniformity. Hence,
for header diameter of 0.25 m, do 1 mm and pitch 5 is suitable.
Since, diameter of header should be minimum, the results for Fig. 8 – Wheel type of sparger.
 chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1972–1985 1983

Table 9 – Design parameters for modified multiple ring sparger with central entry.
Parameter Set of dH 0.25 m, dp 0.0254 Set of dH 0.35 m, dp 0.0254 m

do 1 mm, do 1 mm, do 2 mm, do 2 mm, do 1 mm, do 2 mm,

x/do 5 x/do 10 x/do 5 x/do 10 x/do 20 x/do 5

Number of rings 6 11 3 5 22 3
Number of holes 7915 7269 1977 1649 7422 1977
Total pressure drop 3755.6 3302 4007 4100 2181 2572
Per cent non-uniformity 4.3 1.1 16.2 4.9 1.44 15.4
Pitch on header (m) 0.14 0.07 0.35 0.175 0.033 0.35
Average critical weep velocity (m/s) 16.9 16.1 19.8 18.8 15.3 19.8
Average hole velocity (m/s) 34.1 37 34.1 40.7 35.8 34.1
Per cent minimum critical weep velocity with +46.6 +53.3 +37.4 +50.2 +54.5 +37.3
respect to minimum hole velocity
Average bubble size (mm) 10 10 17 18 10 17

Table 10 – Design parameters for modified multiple ring sparger with entry from both ends.
Parameter Set of dH 0.25 m, dp 0.0254 m

do 1 mm,x/do 5 do 2 mm,x/do 5 do 2 mm,x/do 10

Number of rings 5 3 5
Number of holes 6606 1978 1651
Total pressure drop 2977 2569.8 3012.5
Per cent non-uniformity 4 15.4 4.7
Pitch on header (m) 0.175 0.35 0.175
Average critical weep velocity (m/s) 16.9 19.8 18.8
Average hole velocity (m/s) 40.8 34.1 40.7
Per cent minimum critical weep velocity with respect to +55.4 +37.3 +50.3
minimum hole velocity
Average bubble size (m) 10 17 18

Table 11 – Design parameters for radial sparger.

Parameter Set of dH 0.25 m, dp 0.0254 m Set of dH 0.2 m, dp Set of dH 0.15 m, dp
0.0254 m 0.0254 m

do 1 mm, do 2 mm, do 2 mm, do 1 mm, do 2 mm, do 1 mm, do 2 mm,

x/do 5 x/do 8 x/do 10 x/do 5 x/do 8 x/do 5 x/do 8

Number of pipes 22 16 20 22 16 22 16
Number of holes 5280 1200 1200 5280 1200 5280 1200
Total pressure drop 4920.7 7108 5865.3 5022.2 7192.2 5470.5 7549.2
Per cent non-uniformity 5.5 4.4 2.7 7.2 5.3 14.8 9.3
Pitch on header (m) 0.54 0.74 0.59 0.54 0.74 0.53 0.74
Average critical weep velocity (m/s) 51.2 56.3 56.3 51.2 56.3 51.2 56.3
Average hole velocity (m/s) 50 56.3 55.4 50 56.3 50.7 56.3
Per cent minimum critical weep velocity +0.9 −2.5 +0.2 −1.6 −2.9 −6.7 −4.9
with respect to minimum hole velocity
Average bubble size (mm) 10 20 20 10 20 10 20

Table 12 – Design parameters for wheel type of sparger.

Parameter Chamber diameter 0.6 m, chamber height 1 m and dp 0.0254

do 1 mm, do 1 mm, do 1 mm, do 3 mm, do 3 mm,

x/do 5 x/do 20 x/do 10 x/do 20 x/do 10

Number of pipes 16 71 34 18 9
Number of holes 3360 3763 3570 324 315
Total pressure drop (Pa) 3294 2829.2 3288.3 4893.5 6528.4
Non-uniformity 2.5 0.03 0.1 0.2 2.2
Average hole velocity (m/s) 80.4 71.8 75.6 92.6 95.2
Critical weep velocity (m/s) 80.2 72.6 76.3 92.9 97.7
Number of pipes in a single layer 16 25 25 18 9
Number of layers 1 2.8 1.4 1 1
Length of single pipe 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05
Average bubble size (mm) 12 12 13 33 33
1984 chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1972–1985
Table 13 – Comparison of selected design parameters for all spargers.
Sparger type and selected design parameter Total pressure drop (Pa)
Sparger Design parameters
Multiple ring 3 dH 0.25 m, dp 0.0254 m, 3755.7
do 1 mm, x/do 5
Multiple ring 4 dH 0.25 m, dp 0.0254 m, 2977
do 1 mm, x/do 5
Spider sparger 2 dH 0.35 m, dp 0.0254 m, 3768.7
do 1 mm, x/do 4
Spider sparger 4 dH 0.15 m, dp 0.0254 m, 4747.6
do 1 mm, x/do 4
Spider sparger 6 dH 0.15 m, dp 0.0254 m, 2153.9
do 1 mm, x/do 6
Wheel sparger DC 0.6 m, DL 1 m, 3294
dp 0.0254 m, do 1 mm, x/do 5
to select, dp 25.4 mm, do 1 mm and pitch 5. Because, increas-
ing the hole diameter, increases the total pressure drop and
reduction in number of pipes is not significant. Reducing the
pitch also increases the total pressure drop considerably and
corresponding reduction in the number of pipes is also not
significant. Reducing the pipe diameter increases the pressure
drop and the non-uniformity.
5. Comparison of spargers
From the preceding discussion, the following points can be
noted: (1) modified spiders and multiple ring spargers are
attractive since these sparger types have low non-uniformity
and also relatively low pressure drop. (2) The radial sparger
and sieve plate sparger are comparatively unattractive for the
present case because pressure drop is high (as compared to
spider/multiple ring type of spargers) and the structural lim-
itations do not permit to accommodate these many pipes
radially inserted into the column (for radial sparger). In case
of sieve plate sparger the support structure is unwieldy for the
column of 3 m diameter.
The modest set of design parameters has been isolated for
the individual type of sparger. These sets are presented in
Table 13. The hole diameter is already selected to be 1 mm with
due considerations. In all the cases mentioned in Table 13, no-
weep condition has been satisfied. Further difference in the
minimum hole velocity and the critical weep velocity is also
sufficiently high in all the cases.
Selection of specific sparger, for the present case can now
be done based on total pressure drop, non-uniformity and the
number of pipes. From Table 13, it can be seen that (1) the
difference between the maximum and the minimum pressure
drop is 2600 Pa, i.e. 120 per cent. (2) The difference in maximum
and minimum number of pipes is 24, which is also a large
deviation. (3) The maximum non-uniformity is 8.1, which is
reasonable.
It can be seen that the pressure drop is minimum for spi-
der sparger 6, i.e. modified spider with gas entrance from
both ends. However, number of pipes for this case is relatively
large, 40. Hence, fixed cost would be high. The minimum non-
uniformity was found to be 2.6 and 2.5 per cent for modified
spider 2 and wheel type of sparger, respectively. The difference
in the number of pipes is noticeable, i.e. 40 and 16 respectively.
Hence among these, wheel type of sparger is more suitable.
The pressure drop in the case of wheel type of sparger is
3294 Pa. Hence, comparison is required between wheel type
sparger and multiple ring sparger. Among multiple ring sparg-
Non-uniformity Number of pipes/rings
4.3 6
4 5
2.6 40
8.1 24
4.3 32
2.5 16
ers, difference in number of rings is negligible i.e. 5 and 6 for
modified multiple ring 4 and modified multiple ring 3, respec-
tively. The deviation in the pressure drop is merely 25 per cent,
which can be ignored as compared to the static liquid height.
Hence among multiple ring spargers, modified multiple ring
4 is suitable. The pressure drop, for this sparger is also mini-
mum among multiple ring spargers. Hence, selection is to be
made between the modified multiple ring 4 and wheel type of
sparger. It can be seen that the difference in the pressure drop
is negligible. However, the non-uniformity is low for wheel
type of sparger. Hence, difference in the fixed cost of wheel
type of sparger and modified multiple ring 4 sparger is the only
deciding parameter. It may be argued that the cost of wheel
type of sparger would be less than the modified multiple ring 4
type of sparger. Hence wheel type of sparger is recommended
for the present case.
6. Conclusion
The present work provides the rationale for design of sparg-
ers and the criterion for the selection of a specific sparger
for the specified case. The influence of various parameters
on the process considerations, operational considerations and
the fabrication considerations are discussed in detail for the
case of oxidation reaction in the manufacture of hydrogen
peroxide. It has been shown that conventional spider and
conventional multiple ring spargers are unsuitable since they
provide unusually high non-uniformity. It was further shown
that the wheel type of sparger is suitable for the range of oper-
ating parameters.
Acknowledgements
The project was supported by a grant from Board of Research
in Nuclear Sciences (2006/34/24-BRNS/2803). Dr. Anand V.
Kulkarni would like to acknowledge BRNS for their financial
assistance.
References
Acrivos, A., Babcock, B.D., Pigford, R.L., 1959. Flow distributions in
manifolds. Chem. Eng. Sci. 10 (1–2), 112–124.
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 gas–liquid bubble column. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 54, 2217–2226.
 chemical engineering research and design 8 9 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 1972–1985
Dhotre, M.T., Joshi, J.B., 2003. CFD simulation of gas chamber for
gas distributor design. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 81, 677–683.
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, 149–163.
Freedman, W., Davidson, J.F., 1969. Hold-up and liquid circulation
in bubble columns. Trans. IChemE. 47 (8), T251–T262.
Ghadyalji, K.H., 2005. Process Equipment Design and Drawing – I.
Nandu Printers and Publishers Pvt. Ltd., Chembur, India.
Grevskott, S., Sannaes, B.H., Dudukovic, M.P., Hjarbo, K.W.,
Svendsen, H.F., 1996. Liquid circulation bubble size
distribution, and solid movement in two and three phase
bubble column. Chem. Eng. Sci. 51, 1703–1713.
Gupta, P.P., Merchant, S.S., Bhat, A.U., Gandhi, A.B., Joshi, J.B.,
Bhagawat, S.S., Jayaraman, V.K., Kulkarni, B.D., 2009.
Development of correlations for overall gas hold-up,
volumetric mass transfer coefficient and effective interfacial
area in bubble column reactors using hybrid genetic
algorithm-support vector regression technique: viscous
Newtonian and non-newtonian liquids. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
48, 9631–9654.
Jamialhamadi, M., Zehtaban, M.R., Muller-Steinhagen,
H., Sarrafi, A., Smith, J.M., 2001. Study of bubble formation
under constant flow conditions. Trans. IChemE. 79A,
523–532.
Joshi, J.B., Sharma, M.M., 1976. Mass transfer characteristics
of horizontal spargerd contactors. Trans. IChemE. 54,
42–53.
Joshi, J.B., Sharma, M.M., 1978. Liquid phase back-mixing in
sparged contactors. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 56, 116–119.
Joshi, J.B., 1980. Axial mixing in multiphase contactors—a unified
correlation. Trans. IChemE. (U.K.) 58, 155–165.
1985
Joshi, J.B., Sharma, M.M., Shah, Y.T., Singh, C.P.P., Ally, M.,
Klinzing, G.E., 1980. Heat transfer in multiphase contactors.
Chem. Eng. Commun. 6, 257–271.
Joshi, J.B., 1982. Gas phase dispersion in bubble columns. Chem.
Eng. J. 24, 213–216.
Joshi, J.B., 2001. Computational flow modeling and design of
bubble column reactors. Chem. Eng. Sci. 56, 5893–5933.
Joshi, J.B., Vitankar, V.S., Kulkarni, A., Dhotre, M.T., Ekambara, K.,
2002. Coherent flow structures in bubble column reactors.
Chem. Eng. Sci. 57, 3157–3183.
Kirk-Othmer, 2005. In: Seidel, Arza (Ed.), Kirk-Othmer
Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, vol. 14, 5th ed. John
Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, pp. 35–78.
Kulkarni, A.V., 2010. Design of pipe/ring type of sparger for bubble
column reactor. Chem. Eng. Technol. 33 (6), 1015–1022.
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 flow and
weeping. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 87 (12), 1612–1630.
Lin, T-J., Tsuchiya, K., FanF L.S., 1998. Bubble flow characteristics
in bubble column at elevated pressure and temperature.
AIChE J. 44, 545.
Pandit, A.B., Joshi, J.B., 1986. Mass and heat transfer
characteristics of three phase sparged reactors. TransIChem
Eng. (U.K.) A: Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 64, 125–157.
Sokolichin, A., Eigenberger, G., Lapin, A., 2004. Simulation of
buoyancy driven bubbly flow: established simplifications and
open questions. AIChE J. 50 (1), 24–45.
Thorat, B.N., Kulkarni, A.V., Joshi, J.B., 2001. Design of sieve plate
spargers for bubble column: role of weeping. Chem. Eng.
Technol. 24 (8), 815–828.
Yang, G.Q., Fan, L.S., 2003. Axial liquid mixing in high-pressure
bubble columns. AIChE J. 49 (8), 1995–2008.