Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.

1998, 37, 1251-1259 1251

Hydrodynamic Flow Regimes, Gas Holdup, and Liquid Circulation

in Airlift Reactors
Mohamed E. Abashar,*,† Udi Narsingh, Andre E. Rouillard, and Robin Judd
Reaction and Fluidization Engineering Group (RFEG), Department of Chemical Engineering, University of
Durban-Westville, Private Bag X54001, Durban, South Africa

This study reports an experimental investigation into the hydrodynamic behavior of an external-
loop airlift reactor (ALR) for the air-water system. Three distinct flow regimes are
identifiedsnamely homogeneous, transition, and heterogeneous regimes. The transition between
homogeneous and heterogeneous flow is observed to occur over a wide range rather than being
merely a single point as has been previously reported in the literature. A gas holdup correlation
is developed for each flow regime. The correlations fit the experimental gas holdup data with
very good accuracy (within (5%). It would appear, therefore, that a deterministic equation to
describe each flow regime is likely to exist in ALRs. This equation is a function of the reactor
geometry and the system’s physical properties. New data concerning the axial variation of gas
holdup is reported in which a minimum value is observed. This phenomenon is discussed and
an explanation offered. Discrimination between two sound theoretical modelssnamely model
I (Chisti et al., 1988) and model II (Garcia Calvo, 1989)sshows that model I predicts satisfactorily
the liquid circulation velocity with an error of less than (10%. The good predictive features of
model I may be due to the fact that it allows for a significant energy dissipation by wakes behind
bubbles. Model I is now further improved by the new gas holdup correlations which are derived
for the three different flow regimes.

1. Introduction Stein (1981), Verlaan (1987), Joshi et al. (1990), and

Airlift reactors are known to be efficient contactors
for processes involving gases, liquids, and solids. Their
relatively simple mechanical design, low shear rate,
high capacity, good mixing, absence of mechanical
agitators, and low cost make them a versatile type of
bioreactor. Applications of airlift reactors in biotech-
nology and chemical industry and their advantages and
differences over bubble columns are given by many
investigators (Verlaan, 1987; Chisti, 1989; Al-Masry,
1993). The main difficulty in the mathematical model-
ing and design of airlift reactors has been the lack of
information on the hydrodynamics (Ho et al., 1977;
Merchuk et al., 1980; Merchuk and Stein, 1981; Moresi,
1981; Verlaan, 1987; Chisti et al., 1988; Joshi et al.,
1990; Garcia Calvo and Leton, 1991, Hatch, 1993).
Young et al. (1991) which follow from a consideration
of the momentum balance.
The purpose of the present study is to investigate the
hydrodynamics experimentally and to examine the
validity of the two existing hydrodynamic models based
on the energy balance approach.
2. Circulation and the Energy Balance
The energy balance approach considers that the
driving force for circulation in the reactor is produced
by the change in energy as gas bubbles rise and expand
up the riser. This energy is dissipated by the internal
friction losses in the fluids and the friction losses against
the reactor wall. The energy balance over an airlift
reactor loop is given by the following equation:

{ }{ }
An important aspect in the modeling of the hydrody-
namics of airlift reactors is the relationship between the Rate of energy Rate of energy dissipation
dependent variables of gas holdup and liquid circulation input due to due to internal turbulence
rate and the independent variables of superficial gas ) +
isothermal gas and friction between
velocity (independently controllable), the physical prop- expansion the gas-liquid interface

{ }
erties of the fluids, and reactor geometry. This last
variable has a strong influence on the hydrodynamics Rate of energy losses due
and makes it difficult to compare the results from to friction between the (1)
different sources. fluids and the reactor
Several empirical correlations are reported in the
literature (Chisti, 1989), but these do not give any or

∑Ë + ∑Ê
fundamental understanding about the hydrodynamics
and they are thus of limited use for extrapolation. Ein ) (2)
Notable theoretical models are those of Chisti et al.
(1988), Garcia Calvo (1989), and Garcia Calvo et al. ∑Ë ) Ër + Ëd + Ët + Ëb (3)
(1991) which are based on a view of the energy balance
and those of Hsu and Dudukovic (1980), Merchuk and ∑Ê ) Êr + Êd + Êt + Êb (4)

* Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed. where r, d, t, and b refer to riser, downcomer, top, and
† E-mail: mabashar@pixie.udw.ac.za.
bottom sections of the reactor. Because of the negligible
S0888-5885(97)00461-2 CCC: $15.00 © 1998 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 02/14/1998
1252 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 37, No. 4, 1998

drift of gas with respect to the liquid in both the top and changes in flow direction) are given by
and bottom sections, the terms Ët and Ëb are essentially
zero. VLr2
The energy input due to the isothermal expansion of Êt ) m̆LrKt (14)
an ideal gas (supplied at a pressure of Ph and a 2
superficial gas velocity of Ugr) is given by the following
(Chisti, 1989): VLd2
Êb ) m̆LdKb (15)
2

(
Ein ) UgrArPh ln 1 +
Ph)
FLgh
(5) where V is the linear velocity and K is the friction loss
coefficient. The relations between the linear velocities
of the liquid in the riser and the downcomer and the
2.1. Model I (Chisti et al., 1988). The model of superficial liquid velocity in the riser are obtained as
Chisti et al. makes the following assumptions: follows:
(1) Steady-state conditions. (2) Isothermal conditions.
(3) Negligible mass transfer between the gas and the ULr
liquid. (4) The energy losses terms due to the skin VLr ) (16)
friction in the riser and the downcomer negligible (Êr (1 - ro)

()
≈ 0, Êd ≈ 0) in comparison to the other dissipation
terms. This assumption is justified by the experimental ULd Ar ULr
VLd ) ) (17)
evidence of Lee et al. (1986) for low-viscosity Newtonian (1 - do) Ad (1 - do)
fluids (e.g., water). (5) The pressure drop due to
acceleration negligible (Wallis, 1969). Substitution of eqs 14-17 in eq 4 gives
The energies associated with turbulence and internal

[ ]
friction, Ër and Ëd are obtained by an energy balance
Kt Kb(Ar/Ad)2 ULr2
on the riser and on the downcomer. The energy balance
for the riser is given by the following:
∑ Ê ) m̆Lr
(1 - ro) 2
+
(1 -  )2 2
(18)
do

Ein + pressure energy loss ) Substitution of eq 13 for ΣË and eq 18 for ΣÊ in eq 2
potential energy gain + Ër (6) gives the superficial liquid velocity in the riser as

[ ]
or (neglecting the mass of the gas compared to that of 2gh(ro - do) 0.5
ULr ) (19)
the liquid): Kt Kb(Ar/Ad)2
+
Ein + m̆Lr(1 - ro)gh ) m̆Lrgh + Ër (7) (1 - ro)2 (1 - do)2

hence A reliable model based on the overall momentum

Ër ) Ein - m̆Lrrogh
The energy balance on the downcomer is written as
potential energy loss )
pressure energy gain + Ëd (9)
or
m̆Ldgh ) m̆Ld(1 - do)gh + Ëd
hence
Ëd ) m̆Lddogh
For the case where there is no liquid draw off, the
continuity equation gives the following
m̆Lr ) m̆Ld
Substitution of eqs 8, 11, and 12 into eq 3 gives
∑Ë ) Ein - m̆Lr(ro - do)gh
The energy losses due to friction in the top and the
balance was also developed by Hsu and Dudukovic
(8) (1980) for the prediction of the liquid recirculation
velocity in gas-lift reactors. This momentum equation
can also be reduced to eq 19, when friction losses are
neglected.
2.2. Model II (Garcia Calvo, 1989). The main
differences between this model and model I are that in
this model the energy losses are effectively ascribed to
skin friction against the reactor wall and to friction due
to gross slip of the bubbles and the liquid in the riser.
Energy dissipated by internal circulation in the bubble
(10) wakes, for example, is excluded.
The model assumptions for model II are the follow-
ing: (1) Steady-state conditions. (2) Isothermal condi-
tions. (3) Negligible internal recirculation. (4) Negli-
gible mass transfer between the gas and the liquid. (5)
(11) The gas holdup in the downcomer negligible (do ) 0).
(6) The average density of the gas-liquid equal to the
liquid density. (7) The pressure drop due to acceleration
negligible (Wallis, 1969). (8) Constant slip velocity in
the riser. (9) Gas holdup in the riser considered to be
(12) the mean gas holdup.
From assumptions 3 and 5 Ëd ≈ 0 and Ër becomes
only the energy dissipated at the gas-liquid interface
in the riser and is given by the following (Richardson
and Higson, 1962):
(13)
∑Ë ) Ër ) ∫P
P2
VsrAr dP ) VsArro(P2 - P1) )
1

bottom of the reactor (caused by expansion, contracting, VsArroFLgh (20)

 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 37, No. 4, 1998 1253

where Vs is the slip velocity (Wallis, 1969):

Ugr Ugr ULr

Vs ) - VLr ) - (21)
ro ro (1 - ro)

From eqs 17 and 21:

VLd ) ULd ) (1 - ro) ()

Ar
V )
Ad Lr

(1 - ro) ( )(
Ar Ugr
Ad ro )
- Vs (22)

Following Garcia Calvo (1989) and expressing all the

friction in terms of the liquid velocity in the downcomer,
the friction losses between the fluids and the reactor is
given by

VLd2 ULd3
ΣÊ ) Kf m̆Ld ) KfFLAd )
2 2

[ ( )(
Ar Ugr
)]
3
1
KfFLAd (1 - ro) - Vs (23)
2 Ad ro

Substitution of eqs 5, 20, and 23 in eq 2 gives

(
UgrPh ln 1 +
FLgh
Ph )
- VsroFLgh -

( )[
Ar 2
(
Ugr
)]
3
1
KfFL (1 - ro) - Vs ) 0 (24)
2 Ad ro

The corresponding superficial liquid velocity in the riser

is obtained from the definition of the slip velocity in eq
21:

ULr ) (1 - ro) (Ugr

ro
- Vs ) (25)

3. Experimental Section
The pilot plant external loop airlift reactor used in
this work is shown in Figure 1. The reactor was made
of borosilicate glass with an approximated working
volume of 0.725 m3. The major dimensions are sum-
marized in Table 1. Air was introduced through a
circular perforated plate sparger containing 193 holes
of 1-mm diameter on a 11-mm square pitch. The
sparger was designed according to the criteria given by
Ruff et al. (1978) and was located about 0.94 m from
the base of the reactor. The flow rate of the air was
measured by a turbine flowmeter and controlled by a
needle valve just downstream of it. A set of rotameters
was included for visual indications only. The liquid
circulation velocity in the downcomer was measured by
an electromagnetic flowmeter. The pressure drop along
the riser was measured by a set of inverted U-tube
manometers connected to four taps 1.1 m apart in three
sections of the riser. The first tap was located at 1.36
m above the sparger which is greater than the maxi-
mum distance necessary for the equilibrium bubble size,
5 times the column diameter (Joshi et al., 1990). The
pressure measurement system enabled the calculation
of the local gas holdup as well as the overall gas holdup
for individual and a combination of sections. A single
inverted U-tube manometer was used to measure the
gas holdup in the downcomer. For all experiments air
and filtered tap water were used and the reactor was
Figure 1. Experimental setup for the external loop airlift
reactor: (1) air compressor; (2) pressure regulator and filter; (3)
turbine flowmeter; (4) rotameters; (5) sparger; (6) water drainage;
(7) pressure tapping; (8) electromagnetic flowmeter; (9) water inlet;
(10) inverted U-tube manometer; (11) disengagement tank.
Table 1. Major Reactor Dimensions
diameter height dispersion height
(m) (m) (m)
riser 0.225 6.75 6.06
downcomer 0.225 6.75
disengager 1.58 × 0.38 × 0.50
operated at room temperature and atmospheric pres-
sure. The dispersion height was kept at 6.06 m.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Characterization of Flow Regimes. The
characterization of various flow regimes has been
described by Shah et al. (1982) for bubble columns. The
bubbly (homogeneous) flow regime is characterized by
almost uniform sized bubbles with equal radial distri-
bution. The heterogeneous (churn turbulent) flow re-
gime is characterized by large bubbles moving with high
rise velocities in the presence of small bubbles. Het-
erogeneous flow is typically characterized by a nonuni-
form radial gas holdup profile. The third regime (slug
flow) occurs only in small diameter columns (up to 0.15
1254 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 37, No. 4, 1998

Figure 2. Local gas holdup and mean gas holdup vs superficial

gas velocity in the riser.

m). At high gas flow rates the large bubbles are

stabilized by the column wall, leading to the formation
of bubble slugs. Krishna and Ellenberger (1996) re-
ported a transition regime between homogeneous and
heterogeneous regimes.
The same characterization is used for airlift reactors
(Verlaan, 1987; Chisti, 1989). Verlaan (1987) identified
a transition point between two regimes (at approxi-
mately 0.05 m/s) in airlift reactors by the presence of a
discontinuity in a plot (double logarithmic scale) of the
superficial liquid velocity vs the superficial gas velocity.
He also showed that the two-phase drift model of Zuber
and Findlay (1965) was only applicable up to a maxi-
mum value of the total flow and beyond this value the
required plug flow behavior (i.e., bubbles distributed
homogeneously in a radial sense) no longer existed. This
maximum value also corresponded to Verlaan’s transi-
tion point. This was not in contradiction with the
conclusion of Merchuk and Stein (1981) who reported
that the two-phase drift model of Zuber and Findlay
satisfactorily fitted all their experimental data for the
whole range, but a careful analysis of their range of
experimental data as well as their value of the distribu-
tion coefficient (1.03) show clearly that their experi-
mental range of parameters is below the transition point
(i.e., in the bubbly flow regime).
Joshi et al. (1990) proposed different criterion to
differentiate between the homogeneous and the hetero-
geneous flow regimes. They detected a sharp increase
in the slope of the drift flux vs the gas holdup plot. This
sharp increase was taken as the transition between
regimes. They also showed that the location of the
transition point depends upon several factors such as
sparger design, superficial liquid velocity, reactor ge-
ometry, and the fluid physical properties.
The local gas holdup profiles for the three sections in
the riser are shown in Figure 2. The overall gas holdup
is also shown by a dotted line. Three separate flow
regimes are both suggested by the data and also
confirmed by visual observation, namely the bubbly flow
(homogeneous), transition, and heterogeneous (churn
turbulent) flow regimes are identified. The flow regimes
cannot be sharply identified in this figure, but the data
Figure 3. Superficial liquid velocity vs superficial gas velocity
in the riser: (a) normal scale and (b) double logarithmic scale.
is more suggestive of three, rather than two regimes
with a single transition.
Figure 3 shows plots of ULr vs Ugr used by many
workers to identify the transition point. Figure 3a
shows that the plot of the power law dependence is not
of much help in this respect. In the double logarithmic
plot (Figure 3b) there are clear discontinuities in the
slope of the function and the function itself. These
discontinuities represent the transition points (i.e., the
start and the end of the transition regime). Transition
is clearly over a range.
Figure 4 shows that the two-phase drift model of
Zuber and Findlay fits the experimental data rather
well until some transition begins. The simplest form
of the drift model used to fit our experimental data up
to the start of transition (using the method of least
squares) is
Vgr ) 1.07(Ugr + ULr) + 0.538
0 e (Ugr + ULr) e 0.8 (26)
The value of the distribution coefficient (1.07) confirms
that there must be relatively flat radial profiles of the
velocity and the gas holdup (homogeneous regime) in
the column before the transition starts. Some values
for the drift flux parameters found by other investiga-
tors for external loop airlift reactors are compared with
 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 37, No. 4, 1998 1255

Figure 4. Linear gas velocity vs the total flux in the riser. Figure 5. Local gas holdup profiles in the riser for various
superficial gas velocities.
Table 2. Parameters for the Drift Flux Model
drift
distribution velocity
system dr (m) coefficient (m/s) ref
air-water 0.225 1.07 0.538 this work
air-water 0.200 1.20 0.260 Verlaan (1987)
air-water 0.240 1.13 0.280 Nicol and Davidson (1988)
air-water 0.140 1.03 0.330 Merchuk and Stein (1981)

our measurements in Table 2. Apparently, the consid-

eration of the change in the flow pattern reported in
this study may be responsible for this deviation.
Our estimates of superficial gas velocity at the start
and end of the transition regime are 0.02 and 0.043 m/s,
respectively. This data may be compared with the
single transition point measurement of 0.05 m/s re-
ported by Verlaan (1987) and Joshi et al. (1990). It is,
of course, not really possible to compare the exact
location of the transition, since it is profoundly affected
by the geometry of the reactor, fluid properties, and
operating conditions.
Another important result is that the local gas holdup
profile measured in the second (middle) section of the
column intersects and becomes lower than the local gas Figure 6. Mean gas holdup vs the overall gas holdup in the riser.
holdup profile for the first section of the column. It is
interesting that this crossover occurs in the vicinity of
the start of the transition regime, as shown clearly in other physical factors such as the location of the sparger
Figure 2. This strange behavior is as a result of the and of course the physicochemical properties of the
minimum in the gas holdup which is observed along the fluids which will affect the bubble dynamics.
length of the riser, as shown in Figure 5. This minimum 4.2. Gas Holdup Correlations. Figure 6 shows
in the gas holdup along the riser may be explained by that, despite the axial variation of the gas holdup, the
considering the balance of the two opposing influences arithmetic mean of the local gas holdup for the three
of the hydrostatic pressure and bubble coalescence. The sections is approximately equal to the overall gas holdup
decrease of hydrostatic pressure along the column in the riser. However, we now propose separate cor-
increases the bubble size and thus the total bubble relations to predict the overall gas holdup in the riser
volume and consequently the gas holdup. But the for each of the three regimes rather than correlating
increase of the bubble size due to coalescence acts to the whole range by a single equation. The form of the
increase bubble velocity, and this decreases the resi- correlations is arrived at from the drift gas model as
dence time and hence tends to decrease the gas holdup.
follows:
Of course, these complicated interrelated factors happen
simultaneously, but the dominant one gives the overall
result. It is the change in the balance of these factors ro(C1ULr + C2)
that possibly contributes the start and finish of the Ugr ) (27)
transition regime. Clearly, the balance is affected by (1 - roC1)
1256 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 37, No. 4, 1998

Figure 7. Parity plot for the overall gas holdup in the riser. Figure 8. Gas holdup in the downcomer vs the overall gas holdup
in the riser.
The Maclaurin expansion of the term 1/(1 - roC1) is
holdup in the riser is shown in Figure 8. The following
1 correlation is obtained:
) 1 + roC1 + (roC1)2 + (roC1)3 + ... (28)
(1 - roC1)
do ) 0.174ro 0.007 e ro e 0.06 (35)
Definitely this expansion is singular at roC1 ) 1.
A similar linear relationship with a slope of 0.79 and
Assuming a power law dependence as shown in eq 29,
intercept of -0.057 was reported by Bello et al. (1985).
The differences between eq 35 and the correlation of
ULr ) aUbgr (29) Bello et al. (1985) is due to the fact that the overall gas
holdup in the downcomer depends on the geometry and
then eq 27 becomes the efficiency of the disengagement tank.
4.3. Models Application. These gas holdup cor-
Ugr ) (C3Ubgr + C2)(ro + ro2C1 + ro(roC1)2 + relations developed in this study for the three flow
regimes are now implemented, mainly in model I.
ro(roC1)3 + ...) (30) 4.3.1. Model I (Chisti et al., 1988). The reactor
geometry affects the values of Kb and Kt. In this study
Neglecting the high-order terms (since ro is typically the friction coefficients at the bottom and the top of the
rather small) and also the term roC2 gives reactor are estimated using the engineering correlations
as Kb ≈ Kt ) 1.8 (Streeter and Wylie, 1979). Different
ro ) RUβgr (31) values of Kb are reported in the literature, but this value
(1.8) is almost the same as the value obtained by
The coefficients (R, β) are obtained for all flow regimes Verlaan (1987). Figure 9a shows a comparison between
by analyzing our experimental data using nonlinear experimental and predicted values of the superficial
regression analysis. A correlation for each regime is liquid velocity in the riser using model I (eq 19). The
obtained as follows: developed correlations (eqs 32-34) for the gas holdup
(a) homogeneous regime are implemented in this model. It is clearly shown in
Figure 9a that this model predicts the superficial liquid
ro ) 0.29U0.74 0 e Ugr e 0.02 (32) velocity in the riser with satisfactory accuracy and the
gr
difference between experimental and predicted values
is lower than (10%. Figure 9b shows the prediction of
(b) transition regime
model I when the well-known gas holdup correlation of
Hills (1976) is used for the different flow regimes.
ro ) 0.37U0.81
gr 0.02 < Ugr e 0.043 (33)
Ugr
(c) heterogeneous regime ro ) ULr > 0.3 m/s
0.24 + 1.35(Ugr + ULr)0.93
(36)
ro ) 1.58U1.232
gr Ugr > 0.043 (34)
Substitution of this correlation in eq 19 allows the
Figure 7 shows the predicted values of the overall gas calculation of the superficial liquid velocity in the riser
holdup from these correlations vs the experimental (ULr) for each value of the superficial gas velocity in the
values. The power law correlations are in good agree- riser (Ugr). The resulting nonlinear algebraic equation
ment with the experimental values ((5%). The plot of is solved numerically by an IMSL (International Math-
the gas holdup in the downcomer vs the overall gas ematics and Statistics Library) subroutine called ZSPOW

Figure 9. Parity plot for the superficial liquid velocity in the riser
(model I): (a) using different gas holdup correlations for various
flow regimes from this work and (b) using gas holdup correlation
of Hills (1976) for various flow regimes.
based on a variation of Newton’s method which uses a
finite difference approximation to the Jacobian and
takes precautions to avoid large step sizes or increasing
residuals. It is obvious that the deviation of the model
prediction becomes significant ((21%) as shown in
Figure 9b and the overall predictiveness is unacceptable.
The prediction of model I is very sensitive to the value
of ro.
4.3.2. Model II (Garcia Calvo, 1989). Hsu and
Dudokovic (1980) developed a relation between gas
holdup and the liquid velocity based on momentum
balance in which the pressure difference between the
riser and the downcomer is considered to be due to the
friction losses in the reactor.
Kf
ro ) U 2 (37)
2gh Ld
This relation has been used by many workers (Verlaan,
1987; Merchuk and Stein, 1981). Figure 10a shows the
experimental measured gas holdup in the riser vs the
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 37, No. 4, 1998 1257
Figure 10. (a) The overall gas holdup in the riser vs the square
superficial liquid velocity in the downcomer and (b) parity plot
for the superficial liquid velocity in the riser (model II).
square of the superficial liquid velocity in the down-
comer. The best fit was made by using the method of
least squares. From the slope of the line the total
friction coefficient (Kf) was found according to eq 37 to
be equal to 4.43. From this figure, as far as the linear
relationship exists, the total friction coefficient is inde-
pendent of the liquid velocity and the gas holdup. A
comparison between the total friction coefficient (Kf) and
the total value of Kb and Kt (Kb + Kt ) 3.6) shows that
most of the energy losses due to the friction between
the fluids and the reactor are dissipated at the top and
the bottom of the reactor.
The slip velocity was calculated according to Har-
mathy’s equation (1960):
[σLg(FL - Fg)
]
1/4
Vs ) 1.53 (38)
FL2
where the surface tension of the water (σL) is 0.075 N/m.
Equation 24 is a nonlinear algebraic equation. Know-
ing Kf and Vs this equation is solved by ZSPOW to
1258 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 37, No. 4, 1998
predict ro for each value of the superficial gas velocity
(Ugr) and the corresponding superficial liquid velocity
is obtained from eq 25. Figure 10b shows that the
difference between the experimental and the predicted
values of the superficial liquid velocity in the riser is
less than (16%. It is obvious that model I is more
accurate than model II; this may be due to consideration
of energy dissipated by the wakes behind the bubbles
and then may be considered different for very different
flow regimes. Despite the lower accuracy of model II
in this study, it still has an attractive feature of
predicting the liquid superficial velocity and the gas
holdup on the basis of the total friction coefficient (Kf),
the slip velocity (Vs), and the superficial gas velocity
(Ugr).
5. Conclusions
Three flow regimes, rather than two flow regimes
separated by a transition point, have been observed in
an ALR. New correlations for gas holdup in the riser
in the three regimes are proposed.
Measurements in the riser show that there is an axial
variation in the gas holdup and a minimum may exist.
This minimum may be as a result of the competing
influences of hydrostatic pressure vs bubble coalescence.
The model of Chisti (1989) is used to predict the
measured liquid circulation rates. The predictions are
very sensitive to the value of ro used, and the predic-
tions of this model are considerably enhanced by using
the separate correlations for the gas holdup for the three
flow regimes. Chisti’s model is a better fit to the present
data than Calvo’s model.
Further studies are needed to develop a method of
estimating the transition points in ALRs.
Nomenclature
a ) coefficient in eq 29
A ) cross-sectional area, m2
b ) coefficient in eq 29
C1, C2, C3 ) constants in eqs 27-30
Ein ) rate of energy input due to isothermal gas expansion,
W Joshi, J. B.; Ranade, V. V.; Gharat, S. D.; Lele, S. S. Sparged Loop
Ë ) rate of energy dissipation due to internal turbulence
and friction between the gas-liquid interface, W
Ê ) rate of energy losses due to friction between the fluids
and the reactor, W
g ) gravitational acceleration, m/s2
h ) dispersion height, m
K ) friction coefficient, dimensionless
Kf ) total friction coefficient, dimensionless
m̆ ) mass flow rate, kg/s
Ph ) reactor headspace pressure, Pa
U ) superficial velocity, m/s
V ) linear velocity, m/s
Vs ) slip velocity, m/s
Z ) dimensionless height of three sections
Greek Symbols
R ) coefficient in eq 31
β ) coefficient in eq 31
 ) local gas holdup, dimensionless
ro ) overall gas holdup in the riser, dimensionless
do ) overall gas holdup in the downcomer, dimensionless
j ) mean gas holdup, dimensionless
F ) density, kg/m3
σ ) surface tension, N/m
Abbreviations
ALR ) airlift reactor
Subscripts
b ) bottom of the reactor
d ) downcomer
g ) gas
L ) liquid
o ) overall
r ) riser
s ) slip
t ) top of the reactor
Literature Cited
Al-Masry, W. An Experimental Investigation of Mass Transfer in
External Loop Air-Lift Reactors, Ph.D. Thesis, University
College Dublin, 1993.
Bello, R. A.; Robinson, C. W.; Moo-Young, M. Gas Holdup and
Overall Volumetric Oxygen Transfer Coefficient in Airlift Con-
tactors. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 1985, 27, 369.
Chisti, M. Y. Airlift Bioreactors; Elsevier Applied Science: New
York, 1989.
Chisti, M. Y.; Halard, B.; Moo-Young, M. Liquid Circulation in
Air-lift Reactor. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1988, 43 (3), 451.
Garcia Calvo, E. G. A Fluid Dynamic Model for Air-Lift Reactors.
Chem. Eng. Sci. 1989, 44 (2), 321.
Garcia Calvo, E. G.; Leton, P. A.; Fluid Dynamic Model for Bubble
Columns and Air-Lift Reactors. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1991, 46 (11),
2947.
Garcia Calvo, E. G.; Leton, P. A.; Arranz, M. A. Prediction of Gas
Holdup and Liquid Velocity in Air-lift Loop Reactors Containing
Highly Viscous Newtonian Liquids. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1991, 46
(11), 2951.
Harmathy, T. Z. Velocity of Large Drops and Bubbles in Media of
Infinite or Restricted Extent. AIChE J. 1960, 6, 281.
Hatch, R. T. Experimental and Theoretical Studies of Oxygen
Transfer in an Air-Lift Fermentor, Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, 1993.
Hills, J. H. The Operation of a Bubble Column at High through-
puts I. Gas holdup measurements. Chem. Eng. J. 1976, 12, 89.
Ho, Ch. S.; Erickson, L. E.; Fan, L. T. Modeling and Simulation of
Oxygen Transfer in Air-lift Fermentors. Biotechnol. Bioeng.
1977, 19, 1503.
Hsu, Y. C.; Dudukovic, M. P. Gas Holdup and Liquid Circulation
in Gas-Lift Reactors. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1980, 35, 135.
Reactors. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 1990, 68, 705.
Krishna, R.; Ellenberger, J. Gas Holdup in Bubble Column
Reactors Operating in the Churn-Turbulent Flow Regime.
AIChE J. 1996, 42 (9), 2627.
Lee, C. H.; Glasgow, L. A.; Erickson, L. E.; Patel, S. A. Liquid
Circulation in Air-Lift Fermentors. Paper 8d presented at
AIChE Annual Meeting, Miami Beach, November 2-7, 1986.
Merchuk, J. C.; Stein, Y. Local Hold-up and Liquid Velocity in
Airlift Reactors. AIChE J. 1981, 27 (3), 377.
Merchuk, J. C.; Stein, Y. A Distributed Parameter Model of an
Air-Lift Fermentor. Effect of Pressure. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 1981,
23, 1309.
Merchuk, J. C.; Stein, Y.; Mateles, R. I. A Distributed Parameter
Model of an Air-Lift Fermentor. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 1980, 22,
123.
Moresi, M. Optimal Design of Air-Lift Fermentor. Biotechnol.
Bioeng. 1981, 23, 2537.
Nicol, R. S.; Davidson, J. F. Gas Hold-up in Circulating Bubbles
Columns. Chem. Eng. Res. Dev. 1988, 66, 152.
Richardson, J. F.; Higson, J. A Study of the Energy Losses
Associated with the Operation of an Airlift Pump. Trans. Inst.
Chem. Eng. 1962, 40, 169.
Ruff, K.; Pilhofer, T.; Mersmann, A. Ensuring flow through all the
openings of perforated plates for fluid dispersion. Int. Chem.
Eng. 1978, 18, 395.

Shah, Y. T.; Kelkar, B. G.; Godbole, S. P. Design Parameters
Estimations for Bubble Column Reactors. AIChE J. 1982, 28
(3), 353.
Streeter, V. L.; Wylie, E. B. Fluid Mechanics; McGraw Hill: New
York, 1979.
Verlaan, P. Modeling and Characterization of an Air-lift-Loop
Bioreactor, Ph.D. Thesis, Agricultural University at Wagenin-
gen, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1987.
Wallis, G. B. One-Dimensional Two-Phase Flow; McGraw-Hill:
New York, 1969.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 37, No. 4, 1998 1259
Young, M. A; Carbonell, R. G.; Ollis, D. F. Analysis of Local Two-
Phase Hydrodynamics. AIChE J. 1991, 37 (3), 403.
Zuber, N.; Findlay, J. A. Average Volumetric Concentration in
Two-Phase Flow Systems. J. Heat Transfer 1965, 87, 453.
Received for review July 2, 1997
Revised manuscript received November 14, 1997
Accepted November 15, 1997
IE9704612