Chemical Eng~nee~ngScience Vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 741-754. 1985 0009-2509/U $3 DO + .

M)
Printed in Great Britain. o 1985 Pergamon Press Ltd.

DISPERSED SOLID DYNAMICS IN

A SLURRY BUBBLE COLUMN

DENNIS N. SMITH* AND JOHN A. RUETHER

Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center, U.S. Department of Energy, Pittsburgh, PA 15236, U.S.A.

(Received 22 February 1983; in revbed form 16 January 1984, accepted 23 March 1984).

Abstract-New data and theory are presented for describing dispersed solids in slurry bubble columns.
Axial solids concentration distributions were measured in a 0.108 m i.d. slurry bubble column apparatus
operated at steady-state conditions. Slurry and gas superftcial velocities ranged from 0.0 to 0.02 m/s and
0.03 to 0.20 m/s, respectively. The liquid-phase was either water or ethanol, and the solid-phase. consisted
of narrow-sized fractions of glass spheres.
With a one-dimensional sedimentation-dispersion model, the data have been used to develop a method
for predicting average solids loading and axial distribution of solids in a bubble column. Correlations arc
given for the hindered settling velocity, the solids dispersion coefficient, and the solids concentration at
the top and bottom of the column. A solids distribution function is derived using one parameter that
contains the hindered settling velocity and the solids dispersion coefficient. The new method is applied
to data from the literature for three slurry bubble columns with diameters in the range of 0.0664.286 m.
The new method predicts axial distribution of solids with improved accuracy over existing methods,
especially for non-aqueous systems and for those with low slurry feed concentration or high settling
veiocity.-

lNTRODUCX’ION Yamanishi[5] and later Kato et al.[6] reasoned that

Use of bubble column reactors is widespread in the solids concentration at the top of the column does
petro-chemical and coal processing [ 11. In particular,not necessarily equal the effluent solids concen-
coal conversion via liquefaction or chemical coal tration.
cleaning in a slurry bubble column reactor has advan- In regards to the particle settling velocity, Cova[2]
tages over other types of reactor configurations. chose the terminal settling velocity associated with
These advangates are offset to some degree by the the solid and liquid phases. Imafuku et aZ..[7] chose
difficulty of scaling-up from laboratory to commer- the hindered settling velocity function given by
cial reactors. Shirai[8]. More recently, Kato et aZ[6] performed a
Particle behavior in a tubular reactor is influencedregression analysis to obtain values of the hindered
by the slip velocity between the solid phase and the settling velocity and solids dispersion coefficient using
liquid phase and by the solids mixing. Previous the sedimentation-dispersion model given by Sug-
workers have described the behavior of solids by a anuma and Yamanishi[5]. This was an important
sedimentation-dispersion model. Several variations advance, as it treated the sedimentation-dispersion
of the model have been proposed for steady-state model as having two parameters to be fitted to the
conditions. Cova[2] and Yamanaka et a1.[3] em- data-the dispersion coefficient and the settling ve-
ployed a hindered settling velocity relative to the locity. A comparison of the settling velocities given
slurry-phase, whereas Parulekar and Shah[4] have by preceding correlations was made by Kojima and
expressed the hindered settling velocity relative to Asano [9] for batch-slurry operation; the terminal
stationary coordinates. Most investigators[2, 3,5] settling velocity of the single particle was the most
have used solids dispersion coefficients that are basedrepresentative of their experimental observations.
on the cross-sectional area occupied by the slurry, Knowledge of the solids dispersion coefficient and
although recently Parulekar and Shah]41 used solids of the relative velocities of the three phases is required
dispersion coefficients that are based on the cross- to evaluate the residence time and residence time
sectional area of the column. Boundary values for the distributions of the solids in the reactor[2,3]. The
analytical solution of the sedimentation-dispersion accumulation of solids in the bubble column can have
model are consistent among previous workers with several influences on the reactor performance. If the
the exception of the boundary condition at the top of solids are catalytic, higher solids concentrations will
the column. Cova[2] and Yamanaka et aZ.[3] held decrease liquid residence time but increase the cata-
that the solids concentration at the top of the column lyst surface area. The mixing of solids will determine
is the same as in the effluent. Suganuma and the residence time distribution of the particles, which
could influence the degree of selectivity and product
distribution if the catalyst deactivates rapidly. In the
*Author to whom correspondenceshould be addressed. case of the dispersed solids being a reactant, it is

741
742 DENNIS N. SMITHand JOHN A. RUETHER

obvious that solids holdup and dispersion would
strongly influence conversion.
In this communication, new data are presented for
dispersed solids in bubble columns with aqueous and
non-aqueous (i.e. 95% ethanol) systems. Also
presented is a new method for computing axial
distribution of solids. Our purpose has been to
broaden the data base for dispersed solids in bubble
columns and to develop improved correlations for
predicting particle settling velocities, particle dis-
persion coefficients, and axial distribution of solids.
Analysis of soli& distribution
The spatial solids concentration distribution in a
cocurrent upward flow slurry bubble column oper-
ated at steady-state conditions has been described by
several investigators[2,4, 51. The motion of the par-
ticles appears to be well-described by a one-
dimensional sedimentation-dispersion model. A gen-
eral differential mass balance is given in eqn (1).
The solution of eqn (3) requires reference to some
concentration of slurry within the column. Ovious
choices are Cao,the concentration at the bottom of the
column, or C,‘, the concentration at the top. For
steady-state continuous operation, neither of these
concentrations is equal to the feed or product concen-
tration, which are equivalent.
For batch operation the r.h.s. of eqn (3) reduces to
zero, as does U,, the slurry velocity. With use of CSO,
integration yields the expression:
C,= C,Yexp[ -‘y]
For continuous operation, note that US!=
o,/(l - 6. Equation (3) may be integrated in two
equivalent forms:

(1)
Equation (1) is similar to the expression given by
Parulekar and Shah[4] with the exception of the
dispersion term. The dispersion coefficient is based on
Equations (5a) and (Sb) indicate the information
the cross-sectional area of the slurry rather than the
required to permit prediction of the axial distribution
cross-sectional area of the column and is consistent
of solids, C,(X). For any particular case, several
with most of the dispersion coefficients reported in
parameters are set: L, OS,, and Ci. To compute Us{,
the literature. The hindered settling velocity is defined
4 is needed. Also needed are either C,O or C,’ and the
as the velocity of solids relative to the slurry velocity,
other parameters appearing- in eqns (5a) and (5b).
which is consistent with the extensive work on two-
Kato et aL6 computed a value for the hindered
phase transport phenomena by Barnea and
settling velocity, Up, and the solids dispersion
Mizrahi[l2].
coefficient, ES, for each solids concentration profile
For steady-state flow conditions, the r.h.s. of eqn
that was measured in continuous operation. This was
(1) is reduced to zero. A further simplification can be
done by use of two points taken from a smoothed
made from the observation, shown below, that the
plot of concentration versus position. Correlations
gas holdup fraction does not vary significantly with
were developed for &,, Up, ES and Ci. Equation (5b)
axial position. Since the particle density is always
is then used to predict the axial distribution of solids.
much greater than the solids concentration, the frac-
A somewhat different approach has been taken in
tion of liquid in the slurry may be assumed to be
this work. Non-linear least squares regression was
independent of axial position and to be given as a
used to compute values of C,‘, Up, and E, for each
function of average solids concentration in the col-
solids concentration profile measured. For each com-
umn, as defined in eqn (2).
putation the six measured slurry concentrations were
used, and the values of the three parameters were
determined to minimize the residual sum of squares
between the observed and calculated solids concen-
The value of this mean liquid fraction was always
trations using eqn (5a). The objective function em-
within 10% of the actual liquid fraction measured
ployed was
anywhere in the column for the entire range of
flow conditions. Incorporation of the preceding
simplifications into eqn (1) gives, upon integration, F = 5 [C, (calculated) - C,(observed)]:. (6)
the following expression for steady-state flow condi- i= 1
tions.
A search method described by Ahrendts and
Baehr[l l] was used to obtain the minimum value of
- E, dC,
-__ OJ, - OK,/ F. For all conditions reported herein, the average
-*JJ, C, = <1- (3)
L dX + (1 -%J 1 relative difference betweem measured and calculated
 Dispersed solid dynamics in a slurry bubble column
concentrations was less than 5 percent for all posi-
tions in the column.
Correlations for C’,O,UP, and E, were developed for
the values obtained via eqn (6). The correlating
variables are solid and liquid properties and control-
lable operating variables. The concentration C,’ was
correlated in terms of the feed concentration, CJ (vi&
in&z, eqn 14). In addition, equations for $, were
developed in terms of the above mentioned variables
(eqns 2 and 16 or 19). Thus a method is presented for
determining all the terms on the right hand side of
eqns (5a) and (5b) to permit computation of the axial
solids concentration profile, C,(X).
EXPERIMENTAL
A schematic diagram of the slurry bubble column
apparatus is shown in Fig. 1. The bubble column is
a transparent acrylic cylinder having an inside dia-
meter of 0.108 m and length of 1.94 m. Average bulk
fluid temperature was measured in the center of the
column with a 0.0016 m dia. type-E thermocouple. A
single bubble cap distributor was located at the
bottom of the column and used to introduce the
slurry and gas streams. The bubble cap consists of a
0.00775 m dia. by 0.25 m length inner orifice tube and
a 0.025 m dia. by 0.038 m length hollow concentric
cap. The bottom of the cap has 0.00159 m equilateral
triangular openings around the circumference and is
fixed 0.00318 m above a support plate at the bottom
of the column.
The solid, liquid, and gas phases were mono-
dispersed glass spheres, water or aqueous ethanol
(95%), and nitrogen, respectively. The narrow-sized
solids fractions were either minus 210 pm plus
177 pm, minus 105 pm plus 88pm, or minus 53 pm
plus 44pm in diameter. The density of the glass
spheres was either 2420 or 3990 kg/m3. All solids used
Thermocouple
___A
I port
Temperature Heater
Controller
Fig. 1. O.lOSm i.d. slurry bubble column apparatus.
743
in this study were specified as greater than 90 percent
true spheres.
The axial solid concentration distributions were
measured in both batch and continuous modes of
operation. In the batch mode of operation, known
amounts of solids and liquid were introduced into the
column. Subsequently, gas was metered and intro-
duced at the bottom of the column through the
bubble cap distributor. A 30-degree tapered cone
section just below the distributor was used to estab-
lish a smooth transition from feed lines to the bubble
column. After steady-state conditions were estab-
lished in the column (experimentally verified as re-
quiring less than one hour for the entire range of
esperimental conditions), samples of slurry were
withdrawn through six sampling ports located at
0.35 m intervals along the column axis. All six sam-
ples were taken simultaneously with electronically
actuated sample valves connected in parallel to a
single switch.
In the continuous mode of operation, slurry from
a recirculation tank was introduced into the column
with the gas feed stream. The desired temperature of
the slurry in the recirculation tank and bubble col-
umn was maintained with a heating/cooling element
and a temperature controller located on a loop
around the recirculation tank. The slurry flow rate
was measured with a venturi meter. The venturi meter
was calibrated by timing the slurry discharge volume
and measuring the corresponding differential pres-
sure drop. A discharge coefficient for the range of
flow conditions employed in this investigation was
calculated to be between 0.982 and 1.03. The repeat-
ibility of the calibrations was less than 5%. The
slurry was pressurized with a progressive cavity pump
having a synthetic rubber stator to avoid particle
disintegration. Slurry velocities were maintained
D/P
Sample
744 DENNISN. SMITHand JOHNA. RUEZTHEFC

above the saltation velocities in the feed line. The

slurry flowed upward through the column, and the
slurry overflow was returned to the recirculation Symbol dp.mxlO-e iI,,, m/s

tank. The nitrogen was disengaged at the top of the CI

.
48.5
96.5
0.090
0.090
column in an expansion chamber and vented. Uni- n 193.5 0.090
A 48.5 0.03 I
formity of the slurry in the recirculation tank was
provided by continuously pumping slurry from the
bottom of the tank to the top and withdrawing slurry
into the feed stream from the bottom of the tank.
After the solid concentration in the apparatus
reached a steady state, samples were withdrawn in a
similar manner to that described in batch operations.
The solids concentrations were obtained from the
measured slurry sample weight, dried solids weight,
and liquid and solid densities. In addition to the
solids concentration measurements, gas holdup was
calculated from the column height and the settled
slurry level in the column after sudden interruption of
flows. Differential pressure was also measured with
diaphragm cells along the column axis. This enabled
the calculation of gas holdup as a function of axial
position. The total solids content in the column could
X
be measured by stopping all flows and recovering the
retained solids in the feed tank. The solids content in Fig. 3. Axial solids concentrationin batch mode operation.
the column was calculated from the difference be- System: water-glass beads-nitrogen.
tween the solids initially charged into the slurry
bubble colunm apparatus and the retained solids in
Axial solids concentration distribution : dependence on
the feed tank. Solids content thus calculated agreed
independent variables
with that calculated from an integrated solids concen-
Experimental information on axial solids concen-
tration profile obtained with the six sampling ports
tration distributions has been obtained for batch and
with an average absolute relative error of 7.1%.
continuous modes of operation. In the batch mode,
the solids concentration was well-described by an
RESULTS exponential function of axial position. Typical data
Data that justify ignoring the axial variation of the are shown in Fig. 3, where measured solids concen-
gas void fraction, .+ in eqn (1) are shown in Fig. 2. trations are shown as a function of axial position for
In the following, first, data are presented showing three particle sizes. With reference to eqn (4), it is
the effects of several independent variables on axial seen that the concentration of slurry at the column
distributions of solids (C,(X)). Next, correlations are bottom, C,O, and the exponential term Up&l/E, can be
developed for the parameters needed to predict evaluated from the intercept and slope, respectively,
CL-0 of such plots. The line drawn through each distribu-

0.4- I I I I I I
I I I
Symbol ug. m/s
. 0031 -
. 0.200

03-
I
.
.
.
.

,” oz-

0 I -
. .
. .
.

I I I I I I I I I
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 I.0
X

Fig. 2. Gas holdup fraction is independent of axial position.

 Dispersed solid dynamics in a slurry bubble column 745

4~ =0.090 m/s
IJQ =0.959

Fig. 4. Exponential constant of eqn (4) as a function of terminal settling velocity for a water-glass
beads-nitrogen system.

tion is obtained from a least squares regression of eqn In the continuous mode operation, the axial solids
(4). The absolute values of the slope and intercept concentration distributions were well-described by
increase with an increase in particle size. Figure 4 the sedimentationdispersion model as given by eqn
shows the exponential constant given in eqn (4) as a (5). Some solid concentration distributions obtained
function of the terminal velocity of a single particle from the continuous mode of operation are shown in
as given by Barnea and Mizrahi[lO] and later ex- Figs. 5-8. Figure 5 shows the effect of gas velocity on
pressed analytically by Zigrang and Sylvester[ 121. the axial solids distribution. For the range of gas
The gas velocity, bed height, and average solids velocities that has been used in this study, the effect
concentration were held constant for all experimental of increasing gas velocity was to slightly reduce the
conditions shown in Fig. 4. Since only the particle axial variation of solids concentration.
size was varied, the hindered settling velocity should Figure 6 shows the effect of slurry velocity on the
be related directly to the change in settling velocity of axial solids distribution. Increasing the slurry velocity
a single particle. the slope of the line in Fig. 4, the had a smaller effect on axial distribution of solids
hindered settling velocity was found to be propor- than did a comparable change in gas velocity.
tional to the settling velocity of a single particle to the
0.80 power. This compares with a value of the 0.75 I I I I I
power found by Kato et al. [6] for comparable flow
Symbol ti,, m/s u,r. m/s C,,!q/m3
conditions and particle characteristics. . 0.03 I 0.0071 120
A 0.031 0.0 I22 127
. 0.031 0.0200 123
L I

Particle Size =(88-105)X 10e6 m

Symbol up, m/a Es. kg/m3
0 0.03 I 130
400 2 0.090 I20
0.15 150
. 0.20 150

Slurry velocity = 0.012 m/s

VI 300 Particle sizs-(88-105)x10~6m i
E Particle density= 2420 kg/m3
,”
. 4
A
,- R .
A
200 .
b q
0 ii
Q
A

Q . .

100 4
t 8
Cl

I I I I I I I 1 I I
0 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 I. 00 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 I .o
X X

Fig. 5. Effect of gas superficialvelocity on solids concen- Fig. 6. Effect of slurry velocity on axial solids distribution
tration profile. for water-glass beads-nitrogen system.
 746 DEZNNISN. SMITH and JOHN A. RIJETHER

500 follow this relationship is the terminal velocity of a

I I I I I
single particle.
Figure 8 shows the effect of fluid properties on the
axial solids concentration distribution. Aqueous eth-
anol and water are compared at two corresponding
400
Symbol
gas velocities. The axial solids distribution in ethanol
P %. kg/m3 dem
has a greater variance than the distribution in water.
;: 2420 96.5
48.5 For a given solids feed concentration, the axial
. 2420 193.5
. 3990 48.5 variation in solids concentration is greater in the
A 3990 96.5 ethanol system than in the water system. This obser-
300 Slurry velocily= 0 0071 m/s vation is not consistent with the lower settling veloc-
Gas velocity= 0.090 m/s ity in the ethanol system. The mixing intensity in the
% ethanol system is therefore suspected to be lower than
P
A
in the water system as a result of a lower ratio of
;
inertia1 to viscous forces and is consistent with finings
I
200 of another investigator [ 131.

Gas hoi&p fraction, &E

Average gas holdup fractions obtained for
gas-liquid and gas-liquid-solid systems are shown in
IO0 Fig. 9. For the gas-liquid system, the measured gas
holdup fraction was compared with several cor-
relations in the literature[l4-161. The best agreement
between observed and predicted gas holdup was
obtained with the correlation proposed by
I I I Hughmark[l6], as given in the following equation.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 I .o
X
4 = [2 + (0.35/~,)@,~/72)“~] - I. (7)
Fig. 7. EEects of particle size and particle density on axial
solids distributionin a water-glass beads-nitrogen system. The maximum deviation between observed and pre-
dicted gas holdup in the gas-liquid system was less
Figure 7 shows the effects of particle size and than lo%, with an average deviation of 5.2%. The
density on the axial solids concentration profile. average deviations for the gas holdup correlations of
Increasing either particle size or density greatly in- Akita and Yoshida[l4] and Hikita et al. [IS] were
creased the overall change in axial solids concen- 12.4% and 8.1%, respectively. For the
tration. The particle characteristic that appears to gas-liquid-solid system, the gas holdup fraction was
lower than for the gas-liquid system. The incorpor-
40
I I I I I
Symbol l& , m/s us&, m/s Liquid Type C,,hg/n
0.’
0
.
0.03
0.03
I
I
0.0071
0.0071
Water
Ethanol
120
122
‘l- Symbol
I
Liquid
I
es. kg/m3
I I I I

A 0. I 5 I 0.007 I water 139 0 Water 0

A 0. I5 I 0 0071 Ethanol 139 . Water 100
30 A Ethanol 0

0.: 3-

tNitrogen-Ethanol System
L

“E
$ 20
.&T-0.1
;

- HUGHMARK (1967)

IO1 0.1

I I I I I
( 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 I.0 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.24 0.
X &. m/r

Fig. 8. Comparison of solids distributions for ethanol- Fig. 9. Gas void fraction in 0.108 m i.d. bubble column with
slurry and water-slurry systems. suspended solids.
 Dispersed solid dynamics in a slurry bubble column 747

ation of the slurry density rather than the liquid

density for eqn (7) reduced the residual error between
observed and predicted gas holdup in a slurry bubble Symbol Liquid Type
1.0 - o
column to an average deviation of 7.2 percent. The Water
. Ethanol
range of variables for the correlation of gas holdup
fraction were: surface tension (0.0234.072 kg/s’), 0.8 -
liquid density (808-998 kg/m3), and slurry density z
(870-l 150 kg/m’). -0
_= 0.6-
z
Solids dispersion coeficient, E,
u”
Axial solids backmixing or dispersion is character- a
0.4 -
istic of slurry bubble columns. The dispersion of
solids has been shown to be proportional to the
dispersion of liquid and to approach liquid dispersion
behavior for small particle Reynolds numbers[6]. A
quantitative description of the solids backmixing is
obtained from the solids dispersion coefficient. Figure
10 shows the change in the dispersion coefficient with Fe, (observed)
the gas velocity for several particle Reynolds numbers
and illustrates the correlation given by Kato et al. [6]. Fig. 11. Comparisonof observed and calculated Peclet
numbers using eqn (8).
At constant hydrodynamic conditions, a slight de-
crease in solids mixing is observed with an increase in
particle Reynolds number and is consistent with the FrK = o,/(gD)‘/z, (0.030 -C Frg < 0.20)
parametric variation of solids dispersion coefficient
reported by Kato et al. [6]. Also, an increase in Re, = d,,plU,/pi, (0.1 -C Re,, < 5.6)
kinematic viscosity decreases the solids dispersion
coefficient, as exemplified by the ethanol slurry data, Peclet numbers computed with values of E, obtained
and is consistent with the trends reported by other through regression of the data via eqn (6) are shown
investigators[l3, 171. A dimensionless analysis of the as a function of gas Froude and Reynolds numbers
solids Peclet number as a function of the Froude in Fig. 11.
number, gas Reynolds number, and particle Rey-
nolds number similar to the expression developed by Settling velocity, U,
Riquarts [ 133 gives the following relationship: The settling velocity, U,, for a slurry bubble col-
umn has been defined by eqn (1) and represents the
Pep = 9.6(Fr,6/Re,)0.“‘4 + O.O19Re,‘-’ (8) slip velocity between the solid and liquid phases. It
follows from eqn (4) and (?I), the integrated form of
where eqn (l), that a means for predicting U, must be
available to permit prediction of the axial solids
Pe, = op/E,, (0.3 < Pe+, < 1.2) concentration profile. A comparison of the hindered
settling velocity obtained from regression analysis of
Re, = ~~pllpl, (2100 < Re, c 29000) eqn (5) with the terminal settling velocity of a single

0.02

0.01
$
E
:
lAJ 0.005 i
l- Symbol Re, Liquid
0 0.15 Waler
. I.0 water
A 6.0 water
0 002
. 0.7 Ethanol

-‘K
‘ ate et al. (1972)
1

Fig. 10. Solids dispersion coefficient as a function of superficial gas velocity.

748 DENNISN. SWTH and JOHN A. Ru~nre~

particle is shown in Fig. 12. The hindered settling
velocities obtained in this investigation are predicted
well with the correlation given by Kato ef aL[6]. A
regression analysis of the hindered settling velocity as
a function of terminal settling velocity, gas velocity,
and average liquid holdup fraction in the slurry has
given the following equation:
u, = 1.10 t7g0.026
Q-&-.
Equation (9) is of the same form as that used by Kato
et aI.[6]. The power dependencies reported by those
workers for D=, U,, and Gj are 0.25, 0.75 a_nd 2.5,
respectively. The ranges for V, and JI, were
0.002-0.23 m/s and 0.903-0.988, respectively. The
average absolute relative deviation for all points with
eqn (15) is 9.1%. The hindered settling velocity is
larger than the terminal velocity of a single particle
for all flow conditions encountered in this study. In
this sense it is a misnomer to refer to it as “hindered”.
As can be seen from eqn (9), however the hindered
settling velocity is strongly dependent on the solids
fraction in the slurry, which implies a hindrence
effect. This apparent anomaly between large hindered
settling velocities and hindrance effect of the solids
fraction in the slurry has not been thoroughly ad-
dressed in previous investigations. An increase in
terminal velocity with an increase in circular motion
has been reported for centrifugal sedimentation [ 181
and may account for the increase in hindered settling
velocity with increased solids mixing, as indicated
from the positive dependence of hindered settling
velocity on the superficial gas velocity in eqn (9).
Other workers have explained similar phenomena in
two-phase systems on the basis of particle clustering.
However, no evidence was found for particle clus-
tering in the glass bead system used in this study.
Zigrang and Sylvester [ 121 have given a correlation
for calculating hindered settling velocity in
solid-liquid systems. The accelerating force on a
particle is taken to be that of gravity alone. In the
case of a bubble column reactor, particle motion is
affected both by gravity and by eddies generated by
the gas and slurry flows, which are more pronounced
than the eddies generated in solid-liquid systems.
(9) Consider a particle to be in an eddy of cell length h
and moving with speed V,. The net field force it
experiences is the sum of gravity and the centripetal
force arising from eddy circulation.
a =f(g, V:jlh). (10)
The unitary vector, j, varies with time due to the
changing position of the particle in the eddy.
To use the approach of Zigrang and Sylvester [ 121
to describe hindered settling in bubble columns, it is
desired to replace the gravitational force, g, in their
equation with the net force, a, of eqn (10). Doing this
in a rigorous fashion is not possible for now. The
simplest approach, which has been taken here, is to
assume that j is constant and parallel to g, giving a
net field force that is the arithmatic sum of the
gravitational and centripetal components.
The liquid circulation velocity in a bubble column
has been estimated by Joshi[l9] as the following:
v, = 1.4[gD(08 - sU,)]“‘_ (11)
As explained by Joshi[19], the cell length, h, is taken
as the distance from the eye of the vortex to the
column wall, (0.142 D). The bubble rise velocity, U,,
is calculated from the expression given by
Ostergaard[20]. Use of the expression for a in place

Ug =O.ZO m/s w
/ i

/
/ / --- Zigrang (19el).q/1
and
=0.975
Sylvester

/
- Koto et al. (1972)
/
0 002 - / Gas L$l;city
/ Symbol
0.03 I
,’
/ : 0.20
r I II I I~II~I I I II Illlll
0.001 0 002 0.005 0 01 0 02 0.05 0.10

Fig. 12. Comparison of hindered settling velocity with terminal settling velocity. IJo= 0.975.
 Dispersed solid dynamics in a slurry bubble column 749

of the gravitational constant, g, in the equation of that further work may show that eqn (12) is the more
Zigrang and Sylvester[lZ], together with eqn (1 l), dependable for scale-up.
gives the following expression for hindered settling
velocity:
Calculation of concentration distribution C,(X) in
batch mode
u,= P,-Jm (12) In batch mode operation the average solids con-
centration, C?,, is known at the outset. Equation (4)
Where
can be integrated along the length of the column to
give an expression for C,O in terms of C,:
P, = 1/2(2P, + P32)

(13)
p2 = 1.83@, - &_d,(l - L&%(1 + ~~;‘“))I
p, = 7.62L exp [51(1,/3(1 - ~,3l/@~Jl where

In the correlations presented by Zigrang and

Sylvester [ 121 for hindered settling velocity, their pa-
rameter, a, which corresponds to P2, has a typo-
graphical error in sign and has been corrected in eqn
(12).
Figure 13 shows data for the hindered settling
velocity obtained by regression analysis for eqn (5)
and as predicted by eqn (12). The average absolute
relative deviation of all points is 19.0%. For the data
shown, the force component V,‘/h ranged from
80400% of the magnitude of g. The circulation
velocity ranged from 0.34-0.80 m/s, which is consis-
tent with liquid velocities measured at the column
axis in a bubble column of approximately the same
diameter [2 11.
The power-law correlation for the hindered settling
velocity given by eqn (9) correlates the data with
roughly half the average error obtained with eqn (12).
Thus for the present, eqn (9) is preferred. However,
in contrast to eqn (9), which has four fitted constants,
there are no constants in eqn (12) that have been
fitted to data taken in this study. Thus it is possible
Thus for batch mode operation, all equations
necessary to predict the solids concentration profile
are in hand. Concentrations are calculated using eqns
(2) (4), (7H9) or (12) and (13).
Calculation of concentration distribution C,(X) in con-
tinuous mode
(a) Soliak concentration at the top of rhe column, C,‘.
The solids concentration at the top of the column, C,‘,
is larger than the solids concentration in the effluent
for all experimental flow conditions. Although the
solids concentration measured in the slurry re-
circulation tank and feed lines are the same, the solids
concentration at the top of the column is larger due
in part to the slip velocity between the solids and
liquid. An analogy of this phenomena is given by the
discontinuity of solids concentration between the
freeboard and lluidized sections in a liquid/solid
fluidized bed. The following equation is used to
calculate C,’ from the sedimentation-dispersion

0.07

0.06

Symbol up. m/s

0 0.0 I 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07

Up. m/s (experimental)
Fig. 13. Comparison of observed and calculated hindered settling velocity using eqn (12).
7.50 DENNISN. SMITHand JOHNA. RUETHER
model and experimental data:
(14)
All the quantities on the r.h.s. of eqn (14) are either
directly measured or are determined by multiple
regression for each solids concentration profile mea-
sured in the continuous mode.
An empirical correlation was developed to describe
the relationship of C,’ with operating parameters that
is similar to the relationship obtained by Kato et
aZ.[6]. The solids concentration at the top of the
column is well-correlated with the solids feed or
effluent concentration. The effects of gas and slurry
velocities used in this study were negligible. The
empirical expression for C,’ is given as
C: = 1.27C,/. (15)
The range of C;’ is S kg/m’ to 140 kg/m3. Figure 14
shows the relationship of C,’ with C*f. Data in the
figure were taken with both water and ethanol liquid
phases for all gas velocities reported. The concen-
tration of solids at the top of the column is approx-
imately 30% greater than the feed concentration for
the conditions tested. This is graphic evidence of the
effect of sedimentation and dispersion on the solids
concentration near the top of the column.
(b) Average soiia!~ concentration, c,, and average
liquid fraction, G,. For the case in which the sus-
pended solids are catalytic as well as that where the
particles are reactants, the average solids concen-
tration, C$,, is an important parameter in its own
right. In addition, Cs is linked to the average liquid
fraction in-the slurry, &);, through eqn (2). The
parameter $, is used in the correlation for Up.
Two correlations are presented for Cs. One rig-
orously follows the sedimentation-dispersion model,
Cs’. kg/m3
Fig. 14. Solids concentration at top of column as a function
of solids feed concentration.
i.e. it may be derived from eqn (5) with no further
assumptions. A disadvantage is that it gives es im-
plicitly, requiring access to a computer to use it
conveniently. Its is the more accurate correlation.
The second correlation for C, is semitheoretical.
However it yields C, explicitly. It use permits direct
computation of the solids concentration profile with-
out iterative calculations, as is required with the first
correlation or with the method of Kato et a1.[6].
The expression for Cs obtained by integration of
eqn (5) is
(16)
where
Equation (16), when applied to all 83 continuous
runs of this study, reproduced C, with a standard
error of 0.10. Standard error is defined for n mea-
surements of any quantity y as the following:
STD. ERROR = Y,, measured
where
RSS = 5 (vi, measured -_vy, predicted)2.
i=l
The explicit correlation for cs was obtained by first
noting two limitin_gconditions relative to the velocity
difference, UsI - t,bJl,.
As this difference approaches zero, the following
equation is obtained from the sedimentation-
dispersion model:
Cs,= C~+~(u~,-&cf,,)~o. (17)
5
As the difference approaches infinity, the following
expression is valid:
cs = c,/; (U, - $,U,)+ao. (18)
Using these two limiting conditions, the following
general expression for I?~ has been obtained for all
experimental conditions in this study:
s 9 1t
U&C,
Cs= 1.2 c”I+T + 0.91 + &(U,- U,)
L ‘I [
(19)
The standard error for eqn (19) with all continuous
runs performed in this study is 0.17.
Equation (19) contains two constants that were
obtained from regression of the experimental data. A
basic assumption in the development of Eq. (19) is
 Dispersed solid dynamics in a slurry bubble column 751

that the hindered settling velocity is proportional to tion can be shown to be concave upwards for values
the terminal velocity of a single particle. The values of B less than zero. In the limit as B approaches zero,
of the two constants imply that this assumption is the function F(B) approaches 0.5. This implies
reasonable, since their values are within 30% of the c, = 1/2(C’,” + C,?, as it would if C’, were a linear
expected values for both limiting conditions to be function of axial position. These observations on the
satisfied. dependence of the shape of the solids distribution
(c) Soli& concentration at the bottom of the column, function on the parameter B may also be derived
C,“. By combining eqns (5a) and (5b) with eqn (16), using eqn (5).
an equation can be derived for CSo in terms of the (d) Solid concentration at arbitrary position in the
previously correlated variables CJ and c,: column, C,. With correlations available for the solids
concentration at the top of the column, C,‘, and at the

1 (20)
Cs,-C,l exp (B) bottom of the column, CSO,it is possible to correlate
c,o-c,‘= - ‘+ 1 - exp (B) the solids concentration variable C,(X) in terms of
[ B
these parameters.
where B is given in eqn (16).
Equation (20) has the form of a complementary C,- C,l exp (BX) - exp (B)
function, where the following relationship holds.
(23)
c/-c,‘= I-exp(B) .

F(B)-F(-B)=
where
C, -
F(B) =
csO -
Experimental data representing the range of solid and
fluid properties used in this study are plotted in Fig.
15 according to eqn (20). Inspection of the curve
reveals some interesting properties of eqn (20). If B
is positive, the following inequality is established:
1 (21) Equation (23) is derived from equation (5). Its use is
shown in the next section.
DISCUSSION
c, As noted previously, the sedimentation-dispersion
c, theory, as embodied in eqns (5), (20), or (23),
identifies the quantity B as a key determinant of
dispersed-solids distribution. For B negative, zero,
and positive, the axial concentration profiles are
predicted to be concave upward, linear, and convex
downward, respectively. Data from three continuous

CS > 1/2(C,” + C,?. (22) I I I I I

Symbol 6 fi,.m/s fisI.m/s dp.~m p,.kg/r

Equation (22) implies that the shape of the axial

: --0.017
3.78 0.090
0.200 0.0077
0.0122 196.5
48.5 2420
3990
solids concentration distribution is convex down- . n 1.66 0.031 0.0122 48.5 3990
ward. By similar reasoning, the shape of the distribu-

I.< 3- I I ! I

0.1 S-

6-
’ If--
l - Experimental
-- Theory

I
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
I I I I I I
50 -20 -10 0 IO 20 30 4
6
Fig. 16. Concentration distributions with positive, negative
Fig. 15. Dimensionless solids concentration function. and near zero values for the parameter E.
CES40.5-E
 752 DENNISN. SMITHand JOHNA. Rusrt-rsa

runs are shown in Fig. 16 to illustrate this behavior. 5oc

I I I I
As was evident from Fig. 15, both positive and Aqueous System

negative values of B are encountered experimentally. B Ug,m/s U,l,m/s dp,pm ps,kg/m3

) -3.29 0.200 0.012 193.5 2420
The curves drawn in Fig. 16 were generated by the 4oc

method described in the previous section. Average -This work

--- Kate et al. (1972)
solids concentration C, was computed using eqn (16),
as were all other illustrations of our method con- l.Y
3oc
\
tamed in this section. Figure 16 shows qualitative c
agreement between theory and experiment for all s
three conditions. 0” 2oc

Another check of the proposed method is its ability

to predict solids distributions in non-aqueous sys-
tems. Solids distributions for two runs using ethanol ioa

are shown in Fig. 17. Also shown are the predicted

distributions by the method of Kato et aZ.[6]. Not
surprisingly, since the data of Kato et al. were 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 I .o
exclusively for aqueous systems, the proposed X

method gives better results. This was generally true

Fig. 18. Solids cdncentration distribution for low slurry
for all continuous runs with ethanol. For 11 such feed concentration/high settling velocity in nitrogen-
runs comprising 66 measured concentrations, the water-glass beads system.
standard error with the proposed method was 0.14
and with the method of Kato et al. was 0.28.
Another condition in which the proposed method When eqn (19) was used for cs, the standard error
performs well relative to that of Kato et a1.[6]. is for was 0.27.
systems with low slurry feed concentrations and/or It is also of interest to check the proposed method
high settling velocities. These are systems with large with data taken by other investigators. Data for
negative values for parameter B. Such a system is continuous operation in an air-water-glass beads
illustrated in Fig. 18. system in a 0.66 m dia. bubble column reported by
Figure 18 is not representative of the relative Kato et al. [6] are shown in Fig. 19. For these data the
accuracies of the proposed method and that of Kato correlation of Kato et al. is superior.
et oZ.[6]. In general, differences between the two In Fig. 20, data are shown for continuous oper-
methods are smaller. For all 83 runs conducted in this ation in an air-water-sand system in a 0.286 m dia.
study, comprising 498 measured concentrations with bubble column as reported by Parimi and
aqueous and alcohol liquid phases, the standard error Pitchford[22]. The proposed method describes the
for the method of Kato et a1.[6]. was 0.20. With the data fairly well. This suggests the proposed method
may be used for describing larger column.
proposed method, when the more accurate eqn (16)
was used to compute f?_ the standard error was 0.15.
200
I I I I

= 0.036 m/s
3oc
I I I I
iymbol Ug,,m/s &g.mh U+,m/s dp,,un pa,kgl
0 0.03 I 0.0077 0.0070 96.5 242
250 _I 0.200 0.0077 0.0070 96.5 242

- This work
I ---Katoctal.(l972)
200

I 50

100 - This work

--- Kato etal. (1972)
50 -

50

t I I I I I I I 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 I. 0
X X

Fig. 17. Solids concentration distributions for nitrogen- Fig. 19. Solids concentration distribution for 0.066m i.d.
ethanol-class beads system. bubble column after Kato et al.[6]_
 Dispersed solid dynamics in a slurry bubble column 753

F(B) solids distribution parameter defined in

eqn (21)
-0.0 147 m/s froude number defined in eqn (8)
Ut -0.0 106 m/s gravitational acceleration, m/s*
Characteristic length of circulation cell, m
- This work ith measurement
--- Kalo et al. (1972)
unitary vector
length of bubble column, m
total number of measurements
parameters defined in eqn (12), m/s
peclet number defined in eqn (8)
gas Reynolds number defined in eqn (8)
particle Reynolds number defined in eqn
(8)
t time, s
IO -
u actual linear velocity, m/s
0 superficial linear velocity, m/s
I I I I
U, bubble rise velocity, m/s
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.0
X u, hindered settling velocity, m/s
u, terminal settling velocity of single particle,
Fig. 20. Solids concentration distribution for 0.286m id.
bubble column after Parimi and Pitchford (1982).
m/s
V, liquid circulation velocity, m/s
X dimensionless axial position, (z/L)
Z axial position from bottom of column, m
Recap of proposed method for predicting axial dis-
persed solids concentration profile Greek symbols
eg gas holdup fraction
(a) Batch mode viscosity, kg/m-s
Compute cg using eqn (7) with the feed slurry volume fraction in slurry
$
density. p density, kg/m3
Compute E, using eqn (8). o surface tension, kg/s2
Compute U, using eqns (9) or (12) with eqn (2).
Compute CSOusing eqn (13). Subscripts
Compute C,(X) using eqn (4).
g gas
2 liquid
(b) Continuous Mode S solid
Compute Q and E, as for batch mode. sl slurry
Compute C,’ using eqn (15).
If the less accurate, more convenient eqn (19) is to Superscripts
be used to compute CS, do th_efollowing. Use eqn - average
(2) to convert the result to til_ Compute UP using f feed
eqn (9) or (12). Compute CSO using eqn (20). I top of column
Compute C,(X) using eqn (23). o bottom of column
If the more accurate eqn (16) is to be used to
calcualte cS, use it with eqns (2) and (9) or (12) in
REFERENCES
an iterative process to determine c.V, $!;, and U,,.
Compute CXOusing eqn (20) and C,(X) using eqn 111 Shah Y. T.. Kelkar B. G.. Godbole S. P. and Decker
W. D., A.I.kh.E.J. 1982 %I 353.
(23). PI Cova D. R., Ind. Enana
-- Chem.. Proc. Des. Dew. 1966
5 20.
131 Yamanaka Y., Sekizawa T. and Kubota H., J. Chem.
Engng Japan 1970 3 264.
NOTATION
141 Parulekar S. J. and Shah Y. T., Chem. Engng J. 1980
a acceleration, m/s2 20 21.
A dimensionless parameter defined in eqn 151 Suganuma T. and Yamanishi T., Kagaku Kogaku 1966
30 1136.
(15)
B dimensionless parameter defined in eqn [61 Kato Y.. Nishiwaki A.. Fukuda T. and Tanaka S.. J.
Chem. Ehgng Japm 19?2 5 14.
(16) PI Imafuku K., Wang T.-Y., Koide K. and Kubota H.. J.
C concentration, kg/m3 Cttem. Engng J&n 1968 1 153.
D column diameter, m Pl Shirai T., Ryudoso (Fluid&d Bed), Kagaku-
gijyutsusha 1958.
db particle diameter, m
[91 Kojima H. and Asano K., Int. Chem. Engng 1981 21
E dispersion coefficient, mZ/s 473.
F objective function defined by eqn (6) DOI Bamea E. and Mivahi J., Chem. Engng J. 1973 5 171.
754 Dms N. Smm and JOHN A. RUETHER

[ll] Ahrendts J. and Baehr H., Innl. Chem. Engng 1981 21
572.
[12] Zigrang D. J. and Sylvester N. D., A.LCh.E.J. 1981 27
1043.
[13] Riquarts H.-P., Ger. Chem. Engng 1981 4 18.
1141 Akita K. and Yoshida F., Ind. Engng Chem. Proc. Des.
Dev. 1973 12 76.
[15] Hikita H., Asai S., Tanigawa K., Segawa K. and Kitao
M., Chem. Engng J. 1980 20 59.
[16] Hug&mark G. A., Ind. Engng Chem. Proc. Des. Dev.
1967 6 218.
[17] Hikita H. and Kikukawa H., Chem. Engng J. 1974 8
191.
[18] McCabe W. L. and Smith J. C., Unit Operations of
Chemical Engineering. McGraw-Hill, New York 1967.
[19] Joshi J. B., Trans. Inst. Chem. Engrs 1980 58 155.
[ZO] Ostergaard, K., Chem. Engng Sci. 1965 20 165.
[21] Hills J. H., Trans. Inst. Chem. Engrs 1974 52 1.