Reactions and Separations

Designing Multistage
Agitated Reactors
Gregory T. Benz, P.E. This article bridges the gap between
Benz Technology International, Inc.
theory and practice for the design of
continuous-flow mechanically agitated reactors,
with a focus on mechanical and hydraulic issues.

M
ixing is essential for many chemical reactions.
Although it may be technically possible to per-
form a continous-flow reaction in a single mixed
reactor, the large size required for such a vessel often makes
this approach uneconomical. Therefore, chemical engineers
typically consider a variety of practical reactor schemes to
find the overall economic optimum.
This article discusses one way to achieve an economi-
cally optimal design — multistage reactors. It reviews com-
mon vessel configurations to create stages in a single reactor,
explains interstage backmixing, outlines some of the design
details that depend on vessel size, provides equations for
calculating blend time requirements and the degree of back­
mixing, discusses the effects of backmixing on residence-
time distribution and stage efficiency, and comments on
reaction conversion. The emphasis is on mechanical and
hydraulic issues rather than reaction kinetics.
Idealized reactors
The classic textbook by Levenspiel (1) describes two
idealized continuous-flow reactors: the plug flow reactor,
in which all fluid elements remain in the reactor for exactly
the same time, with zero axial (or temporal) mixing; and the
perfectly mixed, or ideal, reactor, which instantly mixes the
reactants such that the entire reactor has a uniform com-
position that matches the outlet concentration. Levenspiel
explains why multiple perfectly mixed reactors connected in
series require less retention time than a single mixed reac-
tor for most reaction kinetics, and why their performance
approaches that of a plug-flow reactor as the number of reac-
tors approaches infinity.
A reasonable physical embodiment of a mixed reactor is
the common agitated tank (Figure 1). It is sometimes referred
to as a continuous stirred-tank reactor (CSTR), although the
term “stirred” implies tangential flow, which is not capable

Inlet
t Figure 1. A mixed reactor can be represented as a simple agitated tank.
q Figure 2. Mixed reactors in series can be characterized as agitated tanks in series.

Baffle Inlet

Outlet
Outlet

30  www.aiche.org/cep  January 2014  CEP Copyright © 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
 M M M M
Inlet

Liquid Level

Stage Opening Inlet

(backmixing can
occur here)

Stage Divider
Partition Impeller
Outlet
Half-Pipe Interstage Opening
Impeller

t Figure 3. An agitated vertical cylinder is a common type of staged reactor.

p Figure 4. A horizontal tank separated into compartments is another type of staged reactor.

lower capital costs and maintenance costs than tanks in

Outlet
of good mixing. Thus, we do not use that term here.
Similarly, agitated tanks in series (Figure 2) serve as a
good approximation of mixed reactors in series.
Although it is possible to construct a functional reactor
system using tanks in series as shown in Figure 2, it is often
more economical to create compartments or stages within a
single vessel. The next section discusses some of the myriad
ways to do this.
series, but generally have higher maintenance costs than a
single vertical column.
Many other configurations can be envisioned, but these
illustrate the most common.
Interstage backmixing
Because an opening exists between consecutive stages of
a multistage compartmented tank, it is possible for random
turbulence created by the agitator to cause interstage flow
in addition to the flow produced by process throughput.
Generally, this interstage, or backmix, flow is expressed as a
fraction of the process feed flowrate:

General vessel configurations β = FB/F (1)

Probably the most common design for a staged reactor is
the vertical cylindrical agitated column shown in Figure 3. where β is the backmix ratio, FB is the interstage backmix
This configuration replaces multiple tanks and agitators with flowrate, and F is the net feed flowrate. β is a function of
a single tank and agitator, reducing both capital and mainte- agitation parameters, process flow, and construction details,
nance costs, and saving valuable plant space. all of which will be covered later in the article.
When plant layout considerations prohibit the height of Modeling such a system, for example in terms of
a traditional agitated column, a horizontally compartmented residence-time distribution (RTD) and reaction conversion,
tank, such as the one illustrated in Figure 4, can
be used. This approach replaces multiple tanks
Elevation View
with one tank, but it still requires multiple
M M
agitators. Its capital cost is less than that of
Plan View Inlet
multiple individual tanks in series, but higher (not to scale)
Outlet
than that of a vertical agitated column. Its Vertical
Partitions
maintenance costs are similar to those of tanks Horizontal
Partitions
in series.
For very large tanks that must be field-
fabricated (typically larger than 5 m dia.), it Inlet Outlet Impeller

is possible to compartmentalize in both the

horizontal and vertical directions, as shown in
Figure 5. The illustrated configuration has 12 Stage Openings
Stage
Opening
stages but only four agitators. Such designs
replace multiple tanks with one tank, and have
fewer agitators than stages. Thus, they have p Figure 5. Very large field-fabricated tanks can be divided both vertically and horizontally.

Copyright © 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) CEP  January 2014  www.aiche.org/cep  31
Reactions and Separations
M M M individual terms. The diametric tolerance stack-up
Inlet
Flow = F
Flow = ßF Flow = ßF
p Figure 6. Backmixing can be accounted for by treating each stage as perfectly
mixed with recycle streams between stages.
typically treats each stage as perfectly mixed with recycle
streams between stages (Figure 6).
To minimize the number of physical stages needed, the
value of β must be kept as low as possible. In practice, this
is done by minimizing the open area between stages and,
where practical, including a standpipe (i.e., a short vertical
length of pipe projecting above or below the stage divider).
When setting clearances between stationary vessel parts
and rotating agitator parts, it is essential to account for the
additive tolerances between parts (called “stack-up”) as well
as shaft and vessel head deflections under load. For example,
consider a 10-m-tall vessel with the following tolerances:
vessel eccentricity of ±3 mm, agitator mounting structure
eccentricity of ±1 mm, shaft straightness of 0.25 mm/m
(or 2.5 mm over the 10-m length), shaft deflection under
load of 40 mm, nozzle angularity tolerance of 0.25 deg.
(44 mm over 10 m), and nozzle deflection under load of
0.1 deg. (17.5 mm over 10 m). The potential misalignment
of the shaft relative to the theoretical tank centerline could
Small Cylindrical Column
(T < 0.4 m)
Backing
Plate
Vessel
Wall
Elastomer Stage Divider Shaft
Seal
(attached to baffle
assembly, not shown)
p Figure 7. The internals of a small column must be assembled outside
the vessel and dropped in from above.
32  www.aiche.org/cep  January 2014  CEP
be as much as 108 mm, the sum, or stack-up, of the
is double the radial stack up, or 216 mm. Thus, the
interstage opening should be at least 250 mm larger
than the shaft diameter to provide a reasonable safety
Outlet
cushion in the design.
Flow = F
Stage divider construction details
The ability of a person to work inside a vessel dur-
ing its construction and assembly depends on the size
of the vessel. Thus, the construction details vary with
vessel size.
Small columns (< 0.4 m dia.). It is impossible for
a person of average size to enter a small vessel for
fabrication or assembly. The stage dividers, baffles,
and shaft/impeller assembly must therefore be assem-
bled outside the vessel and dropped in from above,
as shown in Figure 7 (for simplicity, baffles and impellers
are not shown).
For this design to work, the elastomeric seal between
the stage dividers and the vessel wall must have no leaks
— any leakage at the wall can cause the impellers to pump
liquid in a circuit between the wall and the center opening,
drastically increasing backmixing. The top vessel head must
be of a body-flanged type (i.e., the entire head is attached to
the straight side of the vessel by a flange) so that when the
head is removed, the vessel opening is equal to the vessel’s
internal diameter and there is sufficient clearance to allow
the internals to be dropped in. The baffle/stage-divider
cage is usually attached to this head for ease of assembly,
although it is sometimes attached to a mounting ring that
is sandwiched between two gaskets and the vessel/head
body flange.
Medium columns (0.4–1.5 m dia.). For medium-size
columns, the stage dividers can be welded to the vessel
wall with an opening large enough to permit the impellers
Medium Column, and Large Column — Option 1
(T > 0.4 m)
(Baffles not shown)
Rotating Disc Shaft
Vessel
Stage Divider Wall
Impeller
p Figure 8. Stage dividers can be welded to the wall of a medium-size
column and the impellers dropped in from above.
Copyright © 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
to pass through when dropped in from above, as shown in
Figure 8. To reduce the interstage area and thus backmixing,
an optional rotating disc can be added. Such a disc is often
placed slightly above or below the vessel opening, where it
cannot hit the stationary stage divider.
This design is also an option for large columns. Although
the stage efficiency is usually somewhat lower than other
methods for large columns (described next), it is easier to
assemble, and the lower efficiency can often be offset by
additional stages.
Large columns (>1.5 m dia.). If a person can work
inside the vessel to assemble shaft couplings and impellers,
several more options are available. Figure 9 illustrates a
construction method in which the stage divider is welded
to the vessel wall, and its opening around the shaft is as
small as possible (respecting all deflections and tolerances)
to minimize backmixing. In this construction, a manway
is required in each stage, so that impeller parts can be
assembled onto the shaft in each stage. If the opening is too
small to pass the impeller hubs (the component onto which
the blades are attached), the hubs must either be split and
installed in two pieces, or the hubs must be placed in each
stage before the shaft is inserted and the shaft threaded
down through the column while a person at each stage
guides the shaft through the hubs.
To avoid the need for a manway at each stage, the stage
dividers can be split (Figure 10). In this design, the internals
are assembled sequentially from one end of the column to
the other using a fastening system that has either tapped
holes or welded nuts on the side of the stage divider facing
away from the assembler. The worker assembles the impel-
ler in one stage, moves to the next stage and installs the two
sections of the split stage divider, then assembles the next
impeller, and so on until the assembly is finished. Some-
Large Column (T > 1.5 m) — Option 2
Shaft
Vessel
Manway
Wall
at
Each
Stage
Stage Divider
(Baffles not shown)
Impeller
p Figure 9. A large column can be assembled stage-wise through the
manway in each section.
Copyright © 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
times this is done with the column in a horizontal position
before the vessel is turned upright. If the opening in the
stage divider is large enough to pass the impellers before
the split pieces are installed, the shaft and impellers may
be dropped in as a unit (as long as the agitator mounting
flange will accommodate it); then the work inside the vessel
involves only assembling the stage dividers. A variation of
this procedure is to install a flange-like ring at the vessel
wall with two or more split stage-divider pieces per stage.
For any design built according to Figure 10, a manway
large enough to pass all stage divider and impeller parts is
required at each end of the vessel.
With any of these construction methods, regardless of
column size, backmixing can be reduced, sometimes even
eliminated, by using a standpipe instead of a simple circular
opening in the stage divider, as illustrated in Figure 11.
Such a design should be used only when the column con-
tents are a single phase. For two-phase systems (gas/liquid,
solid/liquid, or liquid/liquid), phase separation and material
buildup around the standpipe are potential problems.
Article continues on next page
Large Column (T > 1.5 m) — Option 3
Plan View
(not to scale)
Threaded
Nut Opening
large
enough Split Stage Divider
to allow a person
Impeller to pass through
p Figure 10. Split stage dividers avoid the need for a manway at
each stage.
Vessel
Wall
Stage
Divider
Standpipe
Shaft
p Figure 11. A standpipe reduces, sometimes eliminates, backmixing.
CEP  January 2014  www.aiche.org/cep  33
Reactions and Separations
Minimum mixing requirement
For the model presented in Figure 6 to be valid, each
stage must be perfectly mixed — that is, the composition
throughout the stage is equal to the outlet concentration of
that stage. This requires a blend time of zero — which, in
practice, is not possible.
A reasonable approach for design purposes is to require
that the blend time to reach 99% uniformity in each stage
be equal to or less than the mean retention time in each
Nomenclature
A = interstage opening, m2
CF = throttling factor for process flow (dimensionless)
C I = impeller factor (dimensionless)
CT = throttling factor for a standpipe if one is present
(dimensionless)
Cμ = throttling factor for viscosity (dimensionless)
D = impeller diameter, m
DH = hole diameter in stage or stand pipe, m
E(t) = exit age distribution function, sec–1
E(Θ) = dimensionless exit age distribution function
F = process flowrate, m3/sec
FB = interstage backmixing flowrate, m3/sec
k = empirical throttling factor constant that depends
on the type of impeller (dimensionless)
L = standpipe height or length, m
N = shaft rotational speed, rev/sec
NRE = impeller Reynolds number = D2Nr/m
(dimensionless)
n = number of stages
nideal = equivalent number of ideal stages
S = standard deviation (dimensionless)
T = vessel diameter, m
t = time or blend time, sec
t99 = blend time to 99% attenuation of a concentration
disturbance, sec
V = reactor or stage volume, m3
VB = backmix mean velocity, m/sec
VB0 = backmix velocity at zero process flow, turbulent
conditions, m/sec
VF = feed velocity through stage opening, m/sec
X = reaction conversion (dimensionless)
Z = stage height, or compartment or liquid level in a
single tank, m
Greek Letters
β = backmix ratio (dimensionless)
γ = backmix variable = β/(1+β) (dimensionless)
ρ = liquid density, kg/m3
μ = liquid viscosity, kg/m-sec
τ = space time = V/F, sec
Θ = dimensionless time, t/τ
34  www.aiche.org/cep  January 2014  CEP
stage. Many papers (e.g., Ref. 2), have been written on the
topic of agitated blend time. For turbulent conditions only,
Eqs. 2–4 can be used with reasonable accuracy. For laminar
or transition flow at the impeller, consult Ref. 2 or 3.
For 3-blade, axial-flow, square-pitch turbines (commonly
known as marine propellers because they have their roots in
the marine-propulsion industry):
t99N = (Z/T)0.5 × 12.4/(D/T)1.73 (2)
where t99 is the blend time to 99% attenuation of a con-
centration disturbance (sec), N is shaft speed (rev/sec), Z is
liquid height (m), T is tank diameter (m), and D is impeller
diameter (m).
For radial turbines (such as Rushton turbines):
t99N = (Z/T)0.5 × 4.8/(D/T)2.3 (3)
For 4-blade, 45-deg. pitched-blade turbines:
t99N = (Z/T)0.5 × 6.3/(D/T)2.3 (4)
If two phases are present, agitation must be sufficient to
promote near uniformity of dispersion; otherwise, one of the
phases might accumulate preferentially in the column. This
can be a serious problem in slurry reactors.
Although increasing agitation will improve the approxi-
mation to a perfectly mixed stage in each compartment, it
can also increase backmixing, which can render the column
less efficient. Thus, it is best to use no more agitation than
needed in each stage.
Calculating the degree of backmixing
The backmix velocity, rather than backmix flowrate, is
determined by the characteristics of the impeller (among
other factors). For convenience, the backmixing ratio (Eq. 1)
can also be defined in terms of velocity:
β = VB/VF (5)
where VB is the backmix velocity and VF is the feed velocity,
which is defined as:
VF = F/A (6)
where A is the interstage open area.
The backmix velocity is a function of stage construc-
tion, impeller characteristics, and impeller Reynolds number
(NRE), as well as the process feed velocity. Increasing the
feed velocity decreases the backmix velocity, which ulti-
mately becomes zero at a high enough flowrate (4).
The actual backmix velocity is determined by first
Copyright © 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
calculating the backmix velocity at a feed flowrate of zero
and turbulent conditions (VB0), and then multiplying that by
throttling factors that account for process flow (CF), viscos-
ity (Cµ), and a standpipe if there is one (CT):
where L is the height or length of the standpipe (m),
DH is the hole diameter in the stage or standpipe (m),
k is an empirical constant that depends on impeller type
with an approximate value of 0.591 for Rushton turbines
and 0.178 for axial hydrofoils, and CI is another empiri-
cal factor that depends on the impeller type. CI has a value
between 0.1 and 0.17 for most common impellers; it is
about 0.142 for a traditional Rushton turbine, and less for
hydrofoils.
Equations 7–11 are based on a central opening no larger
than 50% of the tank diameter. They were derived by fitting
curves to data presented in Ref. 4. Do not extrapolate beyond
the limits shown (i.e., 2,000 < NRe < 100,000 and L/DH < 5).
Effect of backmixing on RTD and stage efficiency
The performance of a reactor scheme is commonly char-
acterized by its residence-time distribution, which is often
expressed in terms of the exit age distribution:
where E(t)dt is the fraction of the fluid that spends time
t (sec) inside the reactor.
The exit age distribution (as well as other types of
residence-time distributions) is often expressed in dimen-
sionless time, Q, or t/τ (where τ is space time and is
equal to V/F).
For a constant-density system in a single
ideal mixed reactor, the exit age distribution is
given by Eq. 13.
Copyright © 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
1.2
E(Θ) = Dimensionless Impulse Response
1
β = 0.2, 5 Stages
0.8
5 Ideal Stages (β = 0)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
–0.2
Θ = Dimensionless Time
p Figure 12. Exit age distribution depends on the degree of backmixing;
these curves are for a five-stage system with a backmixing ratio of β = 0
and β = 0.2.
For a constant-density system in ideally mixed tanks in
series with zero backmixing (5):
The equations used to determine the exit age distribution
for tanks in series with backmixing are complex and beyond
the scope of this article. Reference 6 provides the calculation
methodology. An iterative version is included at the end of
the online version of this article (www.aiche.org/cep).
Figure 12 (known as an E-curve) illustrates the effect of
backmixing on the exit age distribution by comparing five
ideal stages to five stages with a backmix ratio of 0.2.
Another way to evaluate performance is to compare the
number of ideally mixed stages that would be achieved with
and without backmixing. For convenience, the variable γ is
defined to simplify the standard deviation equation, as:
γ = β/(1+β) (15)
The standard deviation (S) of the dimensionless
E-curve representing the exit age distribution can be
expressed by Eq. 16:
Article continues on next page
CEP  January 2014  www.aiche.org/cep  35
Reactions and Separations
12
10 10 Ideal Stages
5 Ideal Stages
Equivalent Ideal Stages
8 2 Ideal Stages
6
4
2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
β = Backmix Ratio
p Figure 13. The number of ideal stages is a function of backmixing;
these curves are for two, five, and ten ideal stages.
where n is the number of stages, and the number of equiva-
lent ideal stages (nideal) is the reciprocal of the standard
deviation:
nideal = 1/S (17)
Figure 13 illustrates the effect of the backmix ratio on
the number of ideal stages.
Conversion
Reaction conversion is relatively straightforward for
perfectly mixed tanks in series, which is discussed in some
detail in Ref. 1. When backmixing is introduced, things get
more complicated.
Just as in ideal reactors, early versus late mixing can
affect the conversion for any reaction other than first order.
The completely segregated model, which assumes that
each microelement retains its identity as it reacts, calculates
reaction conversion as the integral of rate multiplied by the
E-curve [E(t), not the dimensionless form, E(Q)]. For gener-
alized kinetics, this is:
For first-order reactions, the degree of mixing does
not affect the results. For reaction orders greater than 1,
Eq. 18 represents the upper bound of conversion, and will
be approached only in two-phase systems where the reaction
takes place exclusively in the dispersed phase and there is
little or no mixing between droplets.
Conversely, for reaction orders less than one, Eq. 18
represents the lower bound for conversion. For single-
36  www.aiche.org/cep  January 2014  CEP
phase systems, it is best to assume that the fluid is micro-
mixed, i.e., each element is mixed with its neighbors
immediately upon contact.
The details of kinetic calculations are beyond the scope
of this article.
Closing thoughts
Many physical embodiments approach the classic case
of ideal mixed tanks in series. Factors to consider in the
design of mixed reactors include capital costs, the ability to
assemble and install the equipment, mechanical details, and
the influence of interstage backmixing on residence-time
distribution and reaction conversion.
Careful selection of the reaction scheme, combined with
either direct kinetic calculations or the simpler approach of
calculating the number of ideal stages and then using more
actual stages to closely approximate the number of ideal
stages, can produce considerable savings in both capi-
tal and operating costs compared to tanks in series. CEP
The online version of this article (www.aiche.org/cep)
includes two pages of supplemental material that presents
an interative procedure for evaluating exit age distribution
for tanks in series with backmixing.
Literature Cited
1. Levenspiel, O., “Chemical Reaction Engineering,” 2nd ed.,
John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY (1972).
2. Fenic, J., and P. Fondy, “Application of Similarity Analysis to
Blending of Miscible Liquids,” Paper 4d, presented at the AIChE
National Meeting, Atlantic City, NJ (Sept. 18–21, 1966).
3. Paul, E. L., V. A. Atiemo-Obeng, and S. M. Kresta, eds.,
“Handbook of Industrial Mixing: Science and Practice,” Wiley-
Interscience, Hoboken, NJ (2004).
4. Fasano, J., et al., “Design and Scale-up of Compartmented,
Staged Process Equipment with Emphasis on Interstage Back-
mixing,” presented at the 14th Biannual Engineering Foundation
Mixing Conference, Santa Barbara, CA (June 20–24, 1993).
5. Perry, R. H., and D. Green, eds., “Perry’s Chemical Engi-
neers’ Handbook,” 7th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY,
page 23-19 (1997).
6. Roemer, M., and L. Durbin, “Transient Response and
Moments Analysis of Backflow Cell Model for Flow Systems
with Longitudinal Mixing,” IE&C Fundamentals, 6 (1),
pp. 120–129 (Feb. 1967).
Gregory T. Benz, P.E., is President of Benz Technology International, Inc.
(2305 Clarksville Rd., Clarksville, OH 45113; Phone: (937) 289-4504;
Fax: (937) 289-3914; Email: g.benz@benz-tech.com), which provides
general engineering services and mixing and reactor design consulta-
tion, including equipment specification and bid evaluation. Benz has
over 37 years’ experience in the design of agitation systems, special-
izing in fermentation, bioreactors, and continuous flow reactors. He
received his BSChE from the Univ. of Cincinnati in 1976, and has taken
a course on fermentation biotechnology at the Center for Professional
Advancement. He is a member of AIChE, the International Society for
Pharmaceutical Engineering (ISPE), the Society for Industrial Micro­
biology and Biotechnology, and the American Chamber of Commerce
in Shanghai, and he is a Subject Matter Expert (SME) with ISPE. He is a
registered Professional Engineer in Ohio.
Copyright © 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
Copyright © 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
Copyright © 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)