clrcmical &z~inrcrhg

Science. Vol.
Printed in Great Britain.

47. No.

13/14. pp. 3557-3564.

1992.

oam-2509i92
01992klpunon

HYDRODYNAMICS
AND MASS TRANSFER
CHARACl-ERISTICS
REACTOR
WITH A DOWNFLOW
LIQUID
JET
P.H.M.R.

Cramers.

Department
DSM

A.A.C.M.

Beenackers

and

L.L.

of Chemical
Engineering,
University
Netherlands
9747 AG Groningen,

Research,

PO Box

18, 6160 MD

Geleen.

ss.oo+o.oo
PressLd

OF A LOOP-VENTURI
EJECTOR

van
of

Dierendonck
Groningen

Netherlands

ABSTRACT

The hydrodynamics
and mass
transfer
characteristics
of a loop-venturi
reactor
have
been investigated
using
a downflow
liquid
jet
ejector.
The specific
interfacial
area
of the ejector
and the main holding
vessel
were
determined
separately.
The cobalt
catalyzed
sulfite
oxidation
was used as a model system.
T@e measured
values of the
interfacial
area were in the range of 40.000 to 70.000 m*/m
in the ejector
and 500 to
2500 in the total system.
From this it can be concluded
that the Loop-venturi
reactor
is particularly
suitable
for
very
fast
reactions,
in which
the
liquid
phase
mass
transfer
is the reaction
limiting
step
of the process.
Further
it was
demonstrated
that
the flow
regime
in the ejector
has a huge
influence
on the .mass transfer
characteristics
of
the total
system.
From
the results
it is concluded
that
for
a
proper
design
of
a loop-venturi
reactor,
the ejector
and
the main
holding
vessel
should be considered
as two reactors
in series. which require
individual modeling.
KEYWORDS
Ejector,

venturi,

jet,

mass

transfer,

flow

regime,

modeling.

INTRODUCTION
In many chemical
processes,
the overall
production
rate
is often
limited by gas-liquid
mass
transfer.
Recently
gas-liquid
contactors
with
ejector-type
of
gas
distributors
have been recommended
for chemical
processes
if the interfacial
mass transfer
is the
rate-controlling
step
of the process.
Ejectors
are
devices
which
utilize
the kinetic
energy of a high velocity liquid jet in order to entrain and disperse
the gas phase.
transfer
of
loop-venturi
reactors
Investigations
on the hydrodynamics
and the mass
(LVR1 with liquid driven ejectors
have been reported
by several
authors
{Zahradnik
et
al.
(19821, Dutta
et al.
(19871 and van Dierendonck
et al.
(19881). Comparison
of
these
literature
data
is difficult,
since
different
ejector
configurations
and ranges
Until
now only one author
studied
the mass
of gas-liquid
flow
ratios
were
applied.
transfer
rates
of the ejector
and the vessel
separately
[Dirix
and van de Wiele.
19901. They demonstrated
that the mass transfer
of both the ejector
and vessel
are
From this it can be concluded that there
influenced
by the .flow regime
in the ejector.
is a need
to study
the
local
hydrodynamics
in ejectors,
rather
than
lumping
its
properties
with those of the reactor
volume.
The present
work
presents
an experimental
study on the influence
of the gas/liquid
flow
ratio
on the hydrodynamics
and the mass transfer
characteristics
of both the
the influence
of the initial
liquid
ejector
and the main holding
vessel.
Besides
that,
volume in the vessel was studied on the overall reactor
performance.
THEORETICAL
CONSIDERATIONS:
BASIC PRINCIPLES
OF TURBULENT
The

structural

cts 47:13/14-z

element

through

which

the

DISPERSION
initial

3557

dispersion

of

the

gas

takes

PlaCe

iS

Characteristicsof loop-venturireactor

Cl0

3559

The mass transfer

rates
in the loop-venturi
reactor
were studied by using the cobalt
catalyzed
sulfite
oxidation
as a model system.
Applying
air at ambient
pressure
and
sulfite
concentrations
higher
than its critical
value,
the reaction
orders
of oxygen,
sulfite
and cobalt
concentration
0 and
1 respectively
(Linek et al.,
1981).
are 2.
it is not
Since the reaction
rate constant
is very sensitive
to traces
of impurities,
Therefore
the reaction
rate
allowed
to adopt
kinetic
constants
from
the literature.
constant
(kr)
was
determined
for
each
charge
of
sulfite
solution
used
in
the
experiments_
The oxidation
rate of the sulfite
solution
was measured
with a standard
flat interface
stirred cell reactor.
Experimentally
it was verified
that all interfacial
area measurements
In
under
the
conditions
of
so-called
fast
reaction
(Ha
> 2).
interfacial
area can be calculated
with Eqs. (3) and (4)

Further,
the gas flow
both through
the ejector
and
assumed to be plug flow.
A more detailed
description
and procedures used, is given by Cramers (1993).
EXPERIMENTAL

RESULTS

in
of

the
the

were carried
this
regime,

out
the

main holding
vessel
iS
experimental
techniques

& DISCUSSION

regimes in the eiector

different
flow
regimes
have been
observed
in the ejector
depending
on the
If the gas
phase
dispersion
gas-liquid
flow
ratio,
i.e.
bubble
flow
and jet
flow.
occurs
in the mixing
tube of the ejector,
bubble flow
occurs.
If on the other hand
dispersion
takes place in the diffuser
or draft tube jet flow is observed.
Bubble flow
This flow
regime
is characterized
appears
if Iow gas-liquid
flow
ratios
are applied.
by the formation
of very small bubbles in a continuous
liquid phase (Fig. 3aI. Under
of the holding vessel
is relatively
small.
these flow
conditions
the dispersed
section
from
bubble to jet flow.
In the jet
At higher gas flow
rates
there is a transition
straightly
through
the mixing
flow
regime
the gas and the liquid phase are ejected
tube
into
the diffuser
(Fig.
3b)
or draft
tube,
depending
on the gas-liquid
flow
ratio. Visual observations
showed that in case the ejector
entrains the maximum amount
of gas, the mixing zone is located near the outlet of the ejector.
In this flow regime
the dispersed section in the column is large.
by the liquid
velocity
through
The transition
from
bubble to jet
flow
is influenced
transition
the nozzle
as shown in figure
4. It is seen that the flow
ratio
at the
This corresponds
well with the data
point decreases
by using higher liquid flow rates.
of Dirix and van de Wiele (1990).

TWO

DisDersion behavior in the main holding vessel

i.e. the dispersed
Fig. 2 shows that the holding vessel can be divided into two zones,
in the column are given
and the clear liquid zone. In Fig. 5 the clear liquid heights
that
the clear
the gas-liquid
flow
ratios.
Experimantally
it has been verified
vs.
liquid heig-ths in the column . It shows that the clear liquid height at the bottom of
This
is caused
by the
the column
decreases
with
increasing
liquid flow
velocities.
from the ejector.
For a
increasing
momentum of the faster
two phase jet discharging
nearly
constant
up to a
constant
liquid flow
rate,
the clear
liquid height
remains
certain
gas
flow
rate,
where
after
the clear
liquid
level
rapidly
decreases.
This
These
sudden change is also caused
by the change in flow
regime
in the ejector.
observations
prove that the flow regime in the ejector
has a significant
effect
on the
hydrodynamics
in the main holding vessel.
loop-venturi
total
area
and
eas
hold-un
of
Overall
averaeed
snecif ic
interfacial
reactor system
6
shows
the
the
influence
of
the
gas
flow
rate
on
the
overall
specific
Fig.
of the liquid
interfacial
area and gas hold-up
of the system
as a whole as function
increases
with both the gas flow
rate and the liquid
flow rate.
It is seen that a
flow rate. At the lower
are almost
proportional

gas gow
rates the
to the superficial

gas
gas

hold-ups
velocity.

and specific
interfacial
areas
For the higher
liquid flow

Cl0

P. H. M. R. CRAM~RSet al.

3560

rates
this linear dependency
vanishes
rather
regime as mentioned in the previous sections.
Further
it is seen
influence
systematic

from
Fig.
on either

abruptly,

caused

by

the

change

in

flow

6 that
the initial
diplength
the overall
gas
hold-up
and

of
the
ejector
has no
Visual
observations
a
ov
indicated
the
the
bubbles
discharging
from
the
ejector
vessel
did not
the
into
coalescence
(the
sulfite
solution
is a coalescence
inhibited
system 1. The
gas
and
liquid formed
a stable
dispersion;
a swarm
of
spherical
bubbles
of a steady
size.
Therefore
it can be concluded that the bubble swarm velocity
remains
nearly constant.
The latter
suggest
that under the homogeneous
bubble flow
conditions
the gas hold-up
the
dispersed
in
section
is
proportional
to
independently
of
the
cis .swarm;
dispersion height (as will be shown in the next sections).
Svecif ic interfacial
a
h m
e iector
The variation
of the specific
interfacial
area
in the ejector
with
the jet
velocity
and the gas-liquid
flow ratio
is shown in Fig. 7. In this, the total ejector
volume is
used as reactor
volume.
Since very small bubbles
are formed
in the ejector
(in the
range of 25-60
~1,
it is permissible
to disregard
the slip between
both phases,
so
that the gas hold-up can be calculated
from the gas and liquid throughputs.
Fig. 7 shows that extreme
high specific
interfacial
areas
are created
in the ejector
section.
Further is seen that both the jet velocity
and the change in flow regime have
a significant
effect
on the specific
interfacial
area of the ejector.
In the region of
lower gas flow
rates,
an increase
in gas flow
rate
results
in a larger
number of
bubbles
without
appreciably
Increasing
the
bubble
diameter,
thereby
proportionally
increasing
the interfacial
area.
In the region of higher gas flow
rates,
however,
due
to the
formation
of
larger
bubbles
and bubble
coalescence,
increase
of
the
the
specific
contact
area with gas flow rate decreases
and eventually
the specific
contact
area even starts
to decrease
with increasing
Q,.
The latter
effect
however
is caused
by a decrease
in reactor
volume (change in flow regime).
In fact
in this regime the
actual reactor
volume becomes
smaller
than the ejector
volume,
causing
the dramatic
decrease
of the total
interfacial
area
in the ejector
and thus is the specific
area
which is based on the total ejector volume.
Fig. 8 shows that Eq. (21 correlates
the experimental
data within
10 7. accuracy
for
C=19500.
It is seen that the theoretical
value of 0.4
indeed can be used as exponent
for
the energy
dissipation
rate,
is locally
indicating
that
the flow
in the ejector
isotropic.
This is also in agreement
with the results
of Nagel (19761. who studied the
two-phase
pipe flow
nozzle
which
is also
an ejector-type
of
digtri$utog.
Further.
Nagel (19761 measured
also mass transfer
areas of the order of 10
using the
m /m
sulfite oxidation as a model system.
Soecific
interfacial
area in the main holding vessel
The gas hold-up
and specific
interfacial
area of the dispersed
section
of the holding
vessel are shown in Fig. 9. It is seen that the power
supplied by the two-phase
jet
discharging
from
the ejector
has no effect
on either
Ed and adIs. This
implies that
the mass transfer
in this section
is only influenced
by the gas
that this section behaves like a bubbIe column, were the ejector
gas distributor.
Further
it follows
that
1 relative
to
areas (a
dls

flow rate,
confirming
is used as a special

the dispersed
section
of the LVR has much higher
interfaciai
conventional
bubble columns
in which gas distributors
such aS

of the ejector
sparger
rings and perforated
plates
are used. Therefore
the benefits
in the ejector
section,
but it
are not restricted
to a larger
rate of mass transfer
particularly
for
non-coalescing
also generates
smaller
bubbles
in the holding
vessel,
systems.
The specific
interfacial
area
on the
clear
liquid
volume.

of the column
As
mentioned,

(including
the clear
liquid zone) depends
liquid
level
decreases
using
the
clear

Characteristicsof loop-venturireactor

Cl0
higher

liquid

flow

rates,

resulting

in

higher

acol

3561

values.

The

decrease

of

the

clear

liquid level is attributed

to the higher two-phase
jet momentum
with increasing
liquid
circulation
rate,
causing
the bubbles
to penetrate
deeper
into the column.
For free
submerged
turbulent
jets
it
is known
that
the
penetration
depth
of
the
jet
is
proportional
to ,,t&e discharging
velocity
(Davies.
19721.
For
liquid
jets
this
length
is equal to (P
* .

,.a

Our data

empirically
a

which

is shown
P

More

co1

let

existing

=(P

correlate

as

1
Jet

in Fig.

(51
10. The two-phase

jet

power

is defined

as

= x/8*oL*(1-e
correlations

for

and

co

contain

the

energy

dissipation

per

unit

time

and per unit reactor

volume (kW/rn?.
Our results
however
indicate
that this approach
is unsuccessful
here,
since
the
column
characteristics
are
not
influenced
by the
volume
of
the holding
vessel.
Changing
the
reactor
volume
by varying
the
vessel
diameter
was studied
by Dutta et al. (19871. He noted that the mass transfer
of a
larger tank is more localized
near the ejector
than in a smatler
tank, indicating
that
the mass
transfer
rates
of the column
will
be influenced
by the vessel
geometry.
Further,
in the
literature
on looo-venturi
reactors
with
the
down-f low
ejectors,
penetration
depth
of
the
bubble
-dispersion
in the
main
holding
vessel
is never
mentioned,
though this is a very important
design and scale-up
parameter.
Therefore,
additional
research
on
vessel
the
bubble
ejector
to
depth
and
on
penetration
geometries
is required
to learn its influence
on the mass transfer
characteristics
of
the column section.

Effective
eiector
contribution
to the overall interfacial
area
Fig. 11 gives an impression
of the magnitude
of the effective
ejector
contribution
to
the overall
specific
interfacia1
area created
in the LVR. From this figure
it is seen
that in the bubble flow
regime
a large part of the overall
gas-liquid
mass transfer
takes place in the ejector.
Therefore,
in this flow
regime
it should be considered
as
a separate
reactor.
i.e. the loop-venturi
reactor
should be modeled as two reactors
in
series.

CONCLUSIONS

-.

In ejectors
extreme
high specific
contact
areas
are
created
and
in case
of
fast
reactions
the
ejector
should
be considered
as two
reactors
in
and holding
vessel
series,
which require separate
modeling.
Further it was shown that the flow regime in
the ejector
strongly
influences
the mass transfer
characteristics
of both the ejector
transfer
capacity
of the
and dispersed
section
of the holding vessel.
The high mass
Loop-venturi
reactor
makes
this
reactor
particularly
suitable
for
fast
reactions,
in
which the liquid phase mass transfer
is the reaction
limiting
step of the process.
In
case of downflow
ejectors,
the clear
liquid height
in the holding
vessel
is a very
important design parameter.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The
authors
gratefully
acknowledge
the
technical
and
Research
(Geleen.
Netheriands)
and Buss
AC
(Pratteln,
without
the contributions
would
not have
been possible
Hartholt and C. van de Hek.

financial
support
from
DSM
Switzerland).
This
research
students
G.
of
graduating

REFERENCES
Dirix

C.A.M.C.

and

K.

van

der

Wiele

(19901,

Mass

tranfer

in

jet

loop

reactors,

Chem.

P. H. M. R. CRAMERS

3562

Cl0

er ol.

Eng.
Ski.. 45(8), pp. 2333-2340
Dierendonck
van
L-L..
G.W.
Meindersma
and
and
G.
Leuteritz
(19881,
Scale
up
of
Gas-Liquid
reactions
made
simple
with
loop
reactors,
6th
European
Conference
on
Mixing,
287-295
Dutta
N-N.
and K-V.
Raghavan
(19871,
Mass Transfer
and Hydrodynamic
Characteristics
of
Loop Reactors
with Downflow
Liquid
Jet Ejector,
Chem.
Eng.
J., 36,
Pp. 111-121
Evans
(19911,
PhD
thesis,
A
study
of
a
Plunging
Jet
Bubble
Column,
University
of
Newcastle,
N.S. W.
Henzler
H. J.
Stoffsystem:
Das
fiir
das
Sogverhalten
von
Strahlsaugern
(1981).
flilssig-gasfbrmig.
Vt-Verfahrenstechnik,
lS(lO),
738-749
Hesketh
R-P.,
Russel
(19871,
Bubble
Size
in
Horizontal
A. W.
Etchells
and
T.W.F.
Pipelines,
AIChE Journal,
a.
663-667
Levich
V. G., Physicochemical
Hydrodynamics
(1962).
Prentice
Hail.
New York
Linek
V.
and
V.Vacek
(19811.
Chemical
Engineering
use
of
Catalyzed
Sulfite
Oxidation
Kinetics,
Chem.
Eng. Scl.,
36, pp.1746
Rylek
M.
and
J.
Zahradnik
(19871:
Chisa,
9th
International
Congress
of
Chemical
Engineering,
Praha,
August
31-September
4
Jets,,
water
Sande
van
de
E.
PhD
thesis,
Plunging
Air
entrainment
by
(1976).
University
of
Delft,
Netherlands
Mech.,
36(41,
pp. 639-655
Witte
J.H. (19691,
Mixing
Shocks
in two-phase
flow,
J. fluid
Hedrodynamic
Zahradnik
J..
F.
Kastanek,
J.
Kratochvil
and
M.
Rylek
[19821.
Characteristics
of
Gas-Liquid
beds
in Contactors
with
Ejector
type
Gas
Distributors,
Coil.
Czech,
Chem.
COmrfL, 47. pp.1939-1949

NOMENCLATURE

Ii

cat
C
d
D
E
J
kr
:
[I
V
We
E
P
Q

specific
interfacial
area
interfacial
area
concentration
concentration
at interface
diameter
diffusion
coefficient
power-input
per unit volume
molar
flux
reaction
rate
constant
power
volumetric
flow
rate
velocity
volume
Weber-number
hold-up
density
surface
tension

-3
m%.m
m
kmol.mm3
kmol.mm3
m
2 -1
m .s
W.mv3
kmol.m-2.s-1
m3. kmol-. s-l
w
-1
m3.s
-1
mb
m

kg. m3
N.m-

Subscriots:
A
b,j
:
co1
d
D
ej
G
jet
L
max
N
S
tot

oxygen
two-phase
jet
continuous
phase
critical
column
dispersed
phase
draft
tube
ejector
gas phase
liquid
jet
liquid
phase
maximum
nozzle
sauter
total

Cl0

Fig.

3563

Characteristics of loop-venturi reactor

Scheme of the hydrodynamics and

pressure distribution across the
ejector.
(a) nozzle; (b) gas
suction chamber; (cl mixing tube;
(d) diffuser;
(e) draft tube.

Fig.

Schematic
set-up.

dia&am

ot experlmental

2.o
I

1.6 *

Jet

flow

Bubble

0.0

1.

Fig. 3

2
QL

(b)
(a)
Flow regimes
in the ejector:
(1) liquid jet;
(2) mixing
zone;
(3) bubbly flow.

Fig.

flow

(ml/h)

Transition
from
bubble
flow
regime
in ejector.

100000
~~~~

to

jet

&

80000

20000

0.0

0.3

Qe,=4

oU=s

0.9

1.2

area

in the

0.6
QGQ,

Fig.

Clear liquid heights

vessel.

in holding

Fig.

Specific
ejector.

interfacial

1.5

P. H. M. R. CRAMIW

kxrk/s)

Fig.

Cl0

et al.

Effect
of the liquid flow rate,
gas flow
rate and initial
liquid
the overall
specific
interfacial
area of the total
system;
(0: gashold-up:
o: VL= 62.4 1; .VZ V = 70 1.; A: VL= 80 1.).

volume

on

01

0.0

aFig.

1500

(m-7

Predicted
a-values
mental
a-values.

vs.

the

0.5

Fig.

2.5

0.0

01
0.00

0.02

0.04

0.05

01

0.06

lb

1.5 2.0

Specific
interfacial
area
and
gas
hold-up
in the dispersed
section
of the column.

500

Fig.

caw-4

kmk.)

experi-

1.0

Specific
interfacial
are of the
total column section
(including
the clear
liquid section).

Fig.

11

bnLs)

Effective
ejector
contributio
to
the
overall
interfacial
area
based
on total
system
volume