Effect of Sparger Design and Height to Diameter Ratio on Fractional Gas Hold-up in Bubble Columns

Comprehensive experimental investigation of counter-current bubble column hydrodynamics: Holdup, flow regime transition, bubble size distributions and local flow properties

“…23, in which the BSDs (U G ¼0.0111 m/s) at h ¼2.4 m and the BSD at h¼1.4 m are compared: the BSDs are similar, confirming that the flow is developed. This agrees with the literature: according to Thorat et al (1998), at h/d c 45, the holdup profile is fully developed (then, the BSD is approximately constant) and, in this case, the images taken at h¼1.4 m correspond to h/d c ¼ 5.83. The main difference in the counter-current mode (Fig.…”

“…Herein, we compare our results (in the batch mode) with a set of experimental studies with similar column diameters and sparger designs (Akita and Yoshida, 1973;Fair et al, 1962;Gopal and Sharma, 1983;Kawase and Moo-Young, 1987a;Otake et al, 1981;Reilly et al, 1986;Sada et al, 1984;Schumpe and Grund, 1986;Thorat et al, 1998;Ying et al, 1981;Yoshida and Akita, 1965). At first, we compare the data in the low U G range (Fig.…”

Mass transfer studies in shallow bubble column reactors

“…Most traditional design of bubble column reactors favors a high height-to-diameter ratio (L/D) to allow system hydrodynamics to reach a fully developed state [1][2][3][4][5]. The gas distributor region is generally ignored in the scale-up considerations.…”

“…Most of the studies available focus on the effect of gas distributor design on the performance of shallow bubble column [3,[12][13][14][15][16]. However, there are mixed reports on the effect of static liquid height on bubble column performance.…”

Gas holdup in a gas-liquid-fiber semi-batch bubble column

“…In the heterogeneous flow regime, the drift flux analysis has been recommended by many investigators to estimate gas holdup (Saxena et al, 1991;Thorat et al, 1998;Zahradnik et al, 1999) due to its simplicity.…”