S~dhan~, Vol. 10, Parts 1 & 2, April 1987, pp. 247-259. (~) Printed in India.

Classification of three-phase reactors

A TSUTSUMI, Y H KIM, S TOGAWA and K YOSHIDA

Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Tokyo,
7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113, Japan

Abstract. Cocurrent upward three-phase reactors with discontinuous

gas phase can be classified into three types according to axial profile of
solid concentration. These are: gas-sparged slurry reactors, three-phase
bubble columns and three-phase fluidized beds. A map to characterize
these three types of reactors was olStained as a function of both particle
size and difference between densities of solid and liquid.

Keywords. Classification; three-phase reactors; gas-sparged slurry

reactor; three-phase bubble column; tt~ree-phase fluidized bed.

1. Introduction

GaS-liquid-solid three-phase reactions are of great importance in chemical,

petrochemical and biochemical processing and are carried out in various types of
reactors. All the reactors have been studied comprehensively to elucidate mixing
phenomena, heat and mass transfer mechanisms, and performance of some
chemical reactions. The data so far obtained showed that the hydrodynamic
characteristics of three-phase reactors are strongly dependent on flow directions,
gas and liquid flow rates, geometric aspects, and physical properties of the solids
and the liquids used.
This paper, therefore, proposes an idea for classifying various types of
three-phase reactors into three categories based on the differences in hydro-
dynamic behaviour and to test its validity by both experimental study and analysis
of published data.

2. Former studies

Epstein (1981) presented a taxonomy for three-phase fluidization according to the

difference in operation modes such as flow directions of gas and liquid and in
contacting patterns between particles and the surrounding gas and liquid, as shown
in figure 1. Three-phase fluidized beds are simply divided into two categories,
namely, cocurrent and countercurrent beds. Similar classification is possible for

A list of symbols is given at the end of the paper. 247

248 A Tsutsumi et al

three-phase f l u l d l z a t l o n

I
COCUrrent countercorrent
( oas-llquld fluldlzatJon )

bubble flow trickle flow trickle flow bubble flow

( turbulent bed c 0 n t a c t 0 r ) - , " ' ~ x

l i q u i d - supported bubble - supported stationary bubble - supported l i q u i d - supported

sollds sollds llquld sollds solids
( bubble - supported ( Inverse 3-phase
solids ) fluldtzatlon )
Figure 1. Taxonomy of three-phase fluidized beds (a~er Epstein 1981).

bubble column slurry reactors. This method is quite useful to pigeonhole many
papers concerned with three-phase reactors but gives little information about
mixing or transport properties.
It is very common to divide many types of reactors into two categori6s. The
criteria and the definition are listed in table 1.
Farkas & Leblond (1969) pointed out early that the bubble column reactor is to
be distinguished from the usual fluidized bed in that the gas does not lift and
suspend the solid particles merely by its upward motion.
Epstein (1981) stated that three-phase bubble fluidization is distinguishable from
bubble column slurry operation only in its use of large and/or heavier particles,
which are not subject to the hydraulic transport characteristics of slurry operation
when the liquid is moving.
Muroyama & Fan (1985) distinguished the three-phase fluidized-bed reactor
from the gas-sparged slurry reactor. In the gas-sparged slurry reactor, the size of
the solid particle is usually less than 100/xm in diameter, the volumetric fraction of
the solids is less than 0.1, and particles are maintained in a suspended state by
bubble agitation. In the three-phase fluidized bed, the particle size is relatively
large, normally greater than 200/zm, and the volumetric fraction of the solid
particles varies from 0-6 (packed state) to 0.2 (close to the dilute transport state).
The particles are supported by the liquid phase and/or tile gas phase. The bed of
particles may expand non-uniformly with elutriation as in gas-solid fluidized beds,
or it may expand uniformly without elutriation as in liquid-solid fluidized beds
while the bubbles intensify the mixing of the solid particles.
Pandit & Joshi (1986) stated that the three-phase sparged reactors should be
called gas-liquid-solid fluidized bed or slurry reactors, respectively, corresponding
to batchwise or continuous mode of operation for solid particles. They further
divided the behaviour of three-phase reactors into four regions according to the
effects of particle size and solid concentration on bubble diameter.
In this manner, considerable discrepancy can be recognized in spite of many
papers and the necessity of more definite criteria for classification remains.

3. Proposed method
For simplifying the discussion, only the case for cocurrent up-flow of both liquid
and gas with Ps > Pt > Pg is considered. Among many modes of operation, this case
appears to be the most important in industrial application.
 Classification of three-phase reactors 249

Table 1. Classification of three-phase reactors

Investigator(s) Reactor name and characteristics

~stergaard Bubble column slurry reactor Gas-liquid fluidized bed

(1968, p. 7i) Fine particles with diameter of
the order of 0.0! mm
Momentum is transferred to the
liquid phase by the movement of
gas bubbles
Relatively large particles < 6 mm
The liquid flows upwards through
a bed of solid particles which is
fluidized by the flowing liquid,
while the gaseous phase moves as
discrete bubbles through the
liquid-fluidized bed

Epstein Bubble column slurry reactor Three-phase fluidized bed

(1981)

Three-phase bubble fluidizafion is distinguishable from bubble column

slurry only in its use of larger and/or heavier particles.

Kojima & Asano Suspension-bubble column Gas-liquid fluidized bed

(1981, p. 79) dp< lmm dr = l - 6 m m
Uniform ~lid distribution in the bed

Deckwer & Schumpe Slurry bubble column Three-phase fluidized bed

(1984) Fluidization by gas induced liquid
motion alone
dp < 50/zm uniform distribution
model
50 < d p < 500 ~zm sedimen-
tatien-dispersion model
Fluidization of large and .heavy
particles additionally requires
cocurrent liquid flow
d p > 1 ran0

Muroyama & Fan Gas-sparged slurry column Gas-liquid-solid fluidized bed

(1985) dp< lO0 i~m
q5 < 0.1
Particles are maintained in
suspended state by bubble agi-
tation Particles are canied
in and out by the liquid stream,
dp > 200 ~m
~b=0.2-0,6
Particles are supported by the
liquid phase and/or the gas phase
Particles are suppfied or withdrawn
independently of the fiquid stream

Darton Slurry reactor Three-phase fluidized bed

(1985) d e, < 0.5 m m dp = 0 . 1 - 5mm
4~ > 0.1 ck = 0~1 - 0.5
Solid is suspended by flow of liqmcl Solid is suspended by flow of gas
Solid concentration gradient exists no solid concentration gradient

Kato et al Bubble column with suspended solid Three-phase fluidized bed

(1985) particles
Operation with continuous feed Batch operation of solid particles
and discharge of solid particles
The terminal velocity of solid The terminal velocity of solid
particles is smaller than bubble particles exceeds several c m - s l
rising velocity

Pandit & Joshi Slurry reactor Gas-liquid-solid fluidized bed

(1986) Solid phase is continuous Solid phase is batchwise
250 A Tsutsumi et al

3.1 Fluid dynamics

In table 1, there is general agreement that larger and/or heavier particles are used
in three-phase fluidized bed than in slurry bubble column reactors. In the case of
very large and/or heavy particles the bed consists of the upper dilute region
(freeboard) and the lower dense region where the solid distribution is uniform. As
the size and density of particles decrease, the entrainment of particles into the
freeboard due to the rising gas bubbles is appreciable and particles get dispersed
throughout the reactor, but the solid concentration, in general, decreases
exponentially with axial height. The particles are suspended by momentum
transferred from the gas phase to the solid phase via the liquid medium. When very
small and/or light particles are used, the effect of settling velocity becomes
insignificant. A uniform distribution over the reactor is expected and the solid
dispersion coefficient is very close to that of the liquid.
As mentioned above, according to the axial profile of solid concentration,
three-phase reactors may be divided into three categories: (a) gas-sparged slurry
reactors, (b) three-phase bubble columns, and (c) three-phase fluidized beds, as
shown in figure 2.
Most researchers used quite a few kinds of particles for studying hydrodynamic
behaviour, so that experimental conditions were not enough to distinguish between
three types of reactors, For instance, Kojima & Asano (1981, p. 79) and Deckwer &
Schumpe (1984) made no distinction between gas-sparged slurry reactors and three-
phase bubble columns, while Muroyama & Fan (1985) and Darton (1985, p. 495) did
not distinguish three-phase b,bble columns from three-phase fluidized beds.

3.2 D~cription of the three types of reactors

3.2a Gas-sparged slurry reactors: Particles are uniformly distributed over the
reactor even for low gas velocity and the relative velocity between liquid and solid
particles is almost zero. This system can be treated as a two-phase system by
regarding the suspension as a pseudo-homogeneous phase. The slurry is agitated by
turbulence induced by rising gas bubbles.

gas (a) gas (b) ~as (c)

! t t
•o "o.ql
slurry slurry 0.0o liquid
~..').o'.::'o :, 0 0.~ol o o ~° o

:o.:::?o: l • O, 0
~00, • 0
o o oo

: . . . o- .o ,
& o:. ~ ..]
:4
2 : . . , o ' . o :1
• eO e
,
,%o.. ~•
eOoe •
eeO

o :..:d-
• ".'0" "0
. ' 9 ' . . 5 • • . •.
o.. ~.. o'..~1
e • ee

eeeee ee~O~
:" : 6 : 1 .'.'.o

solid solid solid

concentration concen't ration concentration
gas slurry gas slurry gas liquid

Figure 2. Three types of three-phase reactors; a. gas-sparged slurry reac~ur; b. three-

phase bubble column; c. three-phase fluidized bed
 Classification of three-phase reactors 251

3.2b Three-phase bubble columns: Particles, on the average, tend to sink, but are
pushed upwards by the liquid flow which is also agitated by gas bubbles. Thus, a
gradual decrease of solid concentration is found from the bottom to the top of
reactor. The solid particles are suspended by the gas-induced liquid motion. The
three-phase bubble column is designed such that the movement of particles by
gravity is dominant in comparison with that by liquid turbulence due to the rising
gas bubbles. The particles can be operated in either a batch or continuous manner.

3.2c Three-phasefluidized beds: The bed is divided into two regions. One is a lower
dbnse region with concentrated solid particles and the otlier is an upper solid-flee
region. Solid distribution in the lower region is fairly uniform. Solid particles are
fluidized by the upward flow of both gas and liquid phases directly, although the
liquid phase is mainly responsible for maintaining the state of suspension.
The liquid flows upwards through the bed of solid particles which is fluidized by
the flowing liquid, while the gaseous phase moves as discrete bubbles through
the liquid-fluidized bed. The solid operation is usually batchwise.

4. Experimental
A flow diagram of the experimental setup is shown in figure 3. The main column made
of transparent acrylic resin was 0.186 m in diameter and 2.5 m in height. The gas
distributor was a copper perforated plate with 126 holes of diameter 1.0 mm. Taps
for taking slurry samples were located along the column wall at 0.1 m intervals.
Water and air were used as liquid and gas media respectively. Glass beads of 10 sizes
(Ps = 2500 kg.m -3) and alumina particles of 8 sizes (Ps = 1664-2053 kg.m -3)

1. r e a c t o r column
L/t- 2. gas distributor
k 3. compressor
b 4. pressure gauge

5. r o t a m e t e r
6 6. sampling tap

5
E -74
Figure 3. Flow sheet of experimental apparatus.
252 A Tsutsumi et al

were suspended. The superficial gas velocity ranged from 0-01 to 0.2 m- $-1. After
reaching a steady state slurry samples were taken out through the taps and weighed.
Then the solid concentration was determined by drying and weighing the residue

5. Results and discussion

5.1 Axial distribution of solid concentration

Figure 4 shows the representative solid concentration data as a function of axial
position of the column for glass beads of five particle sizes. Particles of diameter 17
and 88 ~m were distributed almost uniformly throughout the column. For particles
above 180/zm, gradual decrease of solid concentration from the bottom to top of
the reactor was observed, In the case of particles larger than 500 ~xm, there were
unsuspended particles even at large gas velocity and the concentration of solid at

I I I
glass beads
Ug = 0.1 m . s -1

0.8 -- @ = 0.2 dp,~m --

• 500
o 250
II 180
0.6 ~,~ /x 88 --
i

F 0.4 --

0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2m

Figure 4. Solid concentration profiles for glass beads.

 Classification of three-phase reactors 253

the top of the column was almost zero. The bed could be clearly divided into lower
dense and upper lean regions by visual observation. Thus the criteria for three
types of air-water-glass beads systems can be obtained as follows: gas-sparged
slurry reactor, de < 180/xm; three-phase bubble column 180 < dp < 500/xm;
three-phase fluidized bed, 500/xm <dp.

5.2 Effect of density

Figure 5 shows the profiles of solid concentration for alumina particles. A
three-phase bubble column was formed when the particle size was 700/zm as
compared to the occurrence of fluidization for glass beads of the same size. Particle
density was found to be an important factor for determining the type of three-phase
systems,

1.0
I 1 I
alumina p a r t i c l e
-1
Ug = 0.1 m.s

0.8 - - q) = 0.2 dp,:~m

o 700
• 170
n 90

0.6 -- ! 40

0.4

0 . 2 ~

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2m

Figure 5. Solid concentration profiles for alumina particles.

254 A Tsutsumi et al

1°° - I I I
m

1 0 - 1 ~ m

glass beads88#m u

0=0.2

Ug, m,,'-1
162 B

o 0.016 -
u

• 0.038 -
rl 0.087
m

B
_

B • 0.161 -

10-3 I I i _

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 rn
Z

Figure 6. Effect of gas velocity on solid concentration profile for 88/xm glass beads.

5.3 Effects of gas velocity and solid content

Solid concentration profiles are related to gas velocity, as shown in figures 6 and 7.
In the regime of the gas-sparged slurry reactor, solid concentration profiles were
little affected by gas velocity, as shown in figure 6. Even at low gas velocities all the
particles were well-suspended. On the other hand, as the loading of solid particles
incroased, an unsuspended zone was formed just above the distributor, when
particle size was larger than 180/~m and the gas velocity was low, as shown in figure
7. Besides, the increase of solid content reduced the settling velocity of particles,
resulting in more uniform concentration profile of solids, as shown in figure 8. The
transition, therefore, from bubble column regime to gas-sparged slurry regime is
expected to occur with increase in gas velocity and solid content. It is, however,
very hard to clearly distinguish between these two regimes only from the profiles of
solid concentration.
 Classification of three-phase reactors 255

lo° : I I I -

glass 250 _

10-1

~'~ _

15 _ m

) ~ o Ug, m.s -1
o 0.010
_ o • 0.067
a 0.102
• 0.165

lO -3 1 1 I
0 0.5 1 1.5 2m
Z

Figure 7. Effect of gas velocity on solid concentration profile for 250 pm glass beads.

5.4 Map Jor classifying reactor types

As described in the preceding sections, the size and density of solid particles have a
great effect on their axial distribution in the reactors. In addition, both the liquid
an6 gas velocities are relatively low in cocurrent upflow operations even in the case
of three-phase fluidization, and consequently have small influence on solid
dispersion. Thus, three regimes of reactor types may be characterized by density
difference (p~. - Pl) and mean particle size. Experimental data on the mode of solid
concentration profile of the present work were plotted in relation to these two
factors, as shown in figure 9. In this figure, the values 6~ these two factors obtained
from many authors who have commented on the mode of solid profile are also
plotted. It is shown that cocurrent upward three-phase reactors are classified into
three domains, where the boundary between (b) and (c) is clear, while the
boundary between (a) and (b) has some overlaps. They should be explained by
taking the effects of gas and liquid velocities and solid content into account.
Figure 10~hows the typical operation conditions used in industrial applications of
256 A Tsutsumi et al

1°°~ I I I -
w

glass b e a d s 180 pm
Ug = 0.1 m . s -I -

I il

161
_

0 II -

16 2 m

w
q~
w

o 0.05
• 0.10
m

0 0.15
- B 0.20

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 m
Z
Figure 8. Effect of solid content on solid concentration profile for 180 ~m glass beads.

three-phase reactors on the proposed classifying map. Figure 10 substantiates

information lacking in figure 9 and also indicates the areas needing further
research.

6. C o n c l u s i o n s

An idea for classifying cocurrent upward three-phase reactors is proposed. It is

shown that they can be divided into three types such as gas-sparged slurry reactors,
three-phase bubble columns, and three-phase fluidized beds by considering the
differences in solid concentration profiles appearing in the axial direction of
reactors. Experiments were carried out to find out substantial factors affecting the
solid concentration profiles, and a classification map of three-phase reactors was
drawn in the relation between the density difference ( P s - P/) and the mean
particle size.
 Classification of three-phase reactors 257

kg.m-3
A
10 4 I I ,,,ii, I , I l'l~ll I I I I~IIIII ~ F I iliil2.~
: ':i~:, II k O •
•:!!:, ":;::.
• a :::iiii •

10 3

10 2
(a) gas-sparged slurry reactor
a

(b) three-phase bubble column u

(c) three-phase fluidized bed a

101 I i iilliil i I i IIIIII I I I I Illll I I I i11!

10 ° 101 10 2 10 3 104#m
dp
Figure 9. Classiticati<m map for thrce-phasc reactors. (Open mid closed signs stand f~r
present work and d~,ta previously pubhshed, respectively). (a). Triangles - gas-~pargcd
slurry reactors. (Kawamura et al 1965: lmafuku e; al 1968; Deckwcr et a[ 1980; Sangcr &
Deckwer 1981; Kara et al 1982; Capudcr & Koloini 1984; Kclkar et a! 1984: Kojima et al
1984). (bL Squares - three-phase bubble column reactor~, (Roy et al 1964: Imafuku et al
1968; Farkas & Leblond 1969: Kato ct al 1972; Kojlma & Asan(~ 1~)8{), p. 79; Capudcr &
Koloini 1984: Koiima et al 1~,~84: Smith & Ructhcr lq85: Smith et al 1986L (et. Circles -
three-phase fluidizcd bed reactors. (Stewart & Davidson 196,4: Dakshinamurty et al 1971,
1972; Brucc & ReveL('hion 1974; Kim et al 1975: Blum & Toman Iq77: Baker et al 1978:
Begovieh & Watson 1978, p. 191); Dhanuka & Stepanek 1r478, p. 179: Lee & AI-Dabbagh
1978, p. 184; Soung 1978: Mt~rooka ct al 1982: Alvarez-('uenca et al t983: Kim & Kim
1983; Fan et al 1q84; Muroyama et al 1984: Catros & Bernard 1985: Chiu & Ziegler 1985:
Kato et al 1985: Sabcrmn-Broudjenm et al 1985).

List of symbols
dp particle diameter, /xm:
U~ gas velocity, m-s-";
z axlat distance from the distributor, m :
e holdup;
p density, kg. m-3:
4) volume fraction of solid.

Subscripts
g gas;
l liquid;
s solid.
258 A Tsutsumi et al

kg.rn-3
10 4
I I I
a catalytic reactions

\ \ °

10 3
-- . ..... .~.~.~..~.~i~i~ii~!~i~Siii~iiii!~:iiii!~iiiiiiiiiii~i!iiii:~.~i~:~i!iii!!iiii!!!i~i~ii!~

::::s;s~ssiillliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii/iiiii/!/i!iiiii:!!iiiiiiiiiiii~
:si~:::~\
i

10 2
\
fermentation l bioreactor ~

10 t
10 0 101 10 2 10 3 1 0 4 ~rn
dp
Figure 10. Relationship between reactor types and application field.

T h i s p a p e r is d e d i c a t e d to D r L K D o r a i s w a m y o n his sixtieth b i r t h d a y

References

Alvarez-Cuenca M, Baker C G .I, Bergougnou M A, Nerenberg M A 1983 Can. J. Chem. Eng. 61:58--63
Baker C G J, Armstrong E R, Bergougnou M A 1978 Powder Technol. 21:195-204
BegovJch J M, Watson J S 1978 Fluidization (eds) J F Davidson, D L Keairns (Cambridge: Univ. Press)
Blum D B, Toman J J 1977 AIChE Symp. Ser. 73 (1611:115-120
Bruce P N, Revel-Chion L 1974 Powder Technol. 10:243-249
Capuder E, Kolomi T 1984 Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 62:255-260
Catros A, Bernard J R 1985 Powder Technol. 44:159-168
Chiu T-M, Ziegler E N 1985 AIChE J. 31:15114-1509
Dakshinamurty P, Subrahmanyam V, Rao J N 1971 Ind. Eng. Chem., Process Des. Dev. 1(1:322-328
Dakshinamurty P, Rao K V, Subbaraju R V, Subrahmanyam V 1972 Ind. Eng. Chem., Process Des'.
Dev. 11:318-319
Darton R C 1985 Fluidization 2nd edn (eds) J F Davidson, R Cliff, H Harrison (London: Academic
Press)
Deckwer W-D, Louisi Y, Zaidi A, Ralek M 1980 Ind. Eng. Chem., Process Des. Dev. 19:699-708
Deckwer W-D, Schumpe A 1984 Ger. Chem. Eng. 7:168--177
Dhanuka V R, Stepanek J B 1978 Fluidization (eds.) J F Davidson, D L Keairns (Cambridge: Univ.
Press)
Epstein N 1981 Can. J. Chem. Eng. 59:649-657
Fan L-S, Hwang S-J, Matsuura A 1984 A1ChE Symp. Ser. 80 (234): 91-97
Farkas E J, Leblond P F 1969 Can. J. Chem. Eng. 47:215-217
Imafuku K, Wang T-Y, Koide K, Kubota H 1968 J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 1:153-158
 Classification of three-phase reactors 259

Kara S, Kelkar B G, Shah Y T, Carr N L 1982 Ind. Eng. Chem., Process Des. Dev. 21:584-594
Kato Y, Nishiwaki A, Fukuda T, Tanaka S 1972 J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 5:112-118
Kato Y, Morooka S, Kago T, Saruwatari T, Yang S-Z 1985 J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 18:a08--313
Kawamura K, Sasano T, Mifune A 1965 Kagaku Kogaku 29:693-699
Kelkar B G, Shah Y T, Carr N L 1984 Ind. Eng. Chem., Process Des. Dev. 23:308-313
Kim S D, Baker C G J, Bergougnou M A 1975 Can. J. Chem. Eng. 53:134-139
Kim S D, Kim C H 1983 J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 16:172-178
Kojima H, Asano K 1980 Kagaku Kogaku Ronbunshu 6:46-52
Kojima H, Asano K 1981 Ryudoso Kogaku (Japan: Gakkai Shuppan Center)
Kojima H, Iguchi A, Asano K 1984 Can. J. Chem. Eng. 62:346-351
Lee J C, AI-Dabbagh N 1978 Fluidization (eds.) J F Davidson, D L Keairns (Cambridge: Univ. Press)
Morooka S, Uchida K, Kato Y t982 J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 15:29-34
Muroyama K, Fan L-S 1985 AIChE J. 31:1-34
Muroyama K, Fukuma M, Yasunishi A 1984 Can. J. Chem. Eng. 62:199-208
Ostergaard K 1968 Advances in chemical engineering (eds) T B Drew, G R Cokelet, J W Hoopes,
T Vermulen (New York: Academic Press)
Pandit A I~, Joshi J B 1986 Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 64:125--157
Roy N K, Guha D K, Rao M N 1964 Chem. Eng. Sci. 19:215-225
Saberian-Broudjenni M, Wild G, Midoux N, Charpentier J C 1985 Can. J. Chem. Eng. 63:553-564
Sanger P, Deckwer W-D 1981 Chem. Eng. J. 22:179-186
Smith D N, Ruether J A 1985 Chem. Eng. Sci. 40:741-754
Smith D N, Ruether J A, Shah Y T, Badgujar M N 1986 AIChE J. 32:426-436
Sotmg W Y 1978 Ind. Eng./ Chem., Process Des. Dev. 17:33-36
Stewart P S B, Davidson J F 1964 Chem. Eng. Sci. 19:310-321