Solvent Extraction and Ion Exchange

ISSN: 0736-6299 (Print) 1532-2262 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lsei20

Hydraulic Performance of an Annular Pulsed Disc-

and-Doughnut Column

Jian-Quan Liu, Shao-Wei Li & Shan Jing

To cite this article: Jian-Quan Liu, Shao-Wei Li & Shan Jing (2015) Hydraulic Performance of an
Annular Pulsed Disc-and-Doughnut Column, Solvent Extraction and Ion Exchange, 33:4, 385-406,
DOI: 10.1080/07366299.2015.1010891

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07366299.2015.1010891

View supplementary material

Published online: 27 Feb 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 157

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 12 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lsei20
Solvent Extraction and Ion Exchange, 33: 385–406, 2015
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0736-6299 print / 1532-2262 online
DOI: 10.1080/07366299.2015.1010891

HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE OF AN ANNULAR PULSED

DISC-AND-DOUGHNUT COLUMN

Jian-Quan Liu, Shao-Wei Li, and Shan Jing

Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology, Tsinghua University, Beijing,
P. R. China

The annular pulsed disc-and-doughnut column (APDDC) is an important type of solvent-

extraction equipment used in the PUREX process. Though it has been used in several
commercial reprocessing plants in the world, there are few research results reported in the
literature. In the present work, experiments were carried out in a stainless steel annular
pulsed disc-and-doughnut column with aqueous phase and organic phase as the continuous
fluid separately. The air-purge method was used to measure parameters including the two-
phase densities, column weight, and two-phase interface location, which were fed back to a
computer for column control. The holdup and Sauter drop diameter, the latter of which was
calculated based on the gravitational settling model, are correlated as functions of the oper-
ating conditions (such as pulsation intensity, total flux, and flow ratio). Flooding holdup and
throughput were determined experimentally and found in good agreement with those pre-
dicted by the model of the Sauter drop diameter. Based on the experimental data, operating
regimes are divided referring to existing models. In addition, the effects of internal wettability
on the hydraulic characteristics are also discussed.
Keywords: Annular Pulsed Disc-and-Doughnut Column (APDDC), hydraulic perfor-
mance, air purge method, holdup, Sauter drop diameter, flooding, operating regimes, internal
wettability

INTRODUCTION
Solvent extraction is one of the most widely used unit operations in the chemi-
cal process industries, especially in nuclear fuel reprocessing. Proposed by van Dijck in
1935,[1] pulsed extraction columns were first introduced to the PUREX process in nuclear
fuel reprocessing by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in 1949 in the form
of the pulsed sieve columns (PSCs). Since then, with the development of nuclear fuel
reprocessing, research into pulsed extraction columns has progressed continuously, and
new types of pulsed extraction columns with higher separation efficiency and stronger
decontamination have been developed. Pulsed disc-and-doughnut columns (PDDCs) are
representative of these. With discs and doughnuts arranged at intervals along the column,
flow becomes unsteady andturbulent under mechanically imposed pulsation (as shown
in Fig. 1a), making the phases inside mix and contact, resulting in rapid mass transfer
between phases. This column has been applied extensively to the reprocessing of spent

Address correspondence to Shan Jing, Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology, Tsinghua
University, Beijing 100084, P. R. China. E-mail: s-jing@tsinghua.edu.cn

385
386 J.-Q. LIU, S.-W. LI, AND S. JING

(a) Pulsed disc-and-doughnut column

(b) Annular pulsed disc-and-doughnut column

Figure 1 Comparison of flow field in PDDC and APDDC.

nuclear fuel in France and Japan.[2–5] It has also been used in uranium purification by
the Western Mining Corporation (WMC) on an industrial scale at Olympic Dam, South
Australia.[6] Significant effort has been made by researchers from Iran, India, and China
for the employment of PDDC in nuclear fuel reprocessing in these countries.[7–12] In addi-
tion, the applications of this column to other fields, such as hydrometallurgy and treatment
of agro resources, were also reported in many articles.[13–15] Compared with the traditional
PSCs, PDDCs can not only eliminate the channeling effect and avoid unstable operation
due to changes of wettability of the internals, but can also unload solid particles and dirt
conveniently. They can even deal with material liquids that contain solid particles, while
retaining the advantages of PSCs (such as simplicity of design, smaller space consumption,
and no moving internals).
However, along with the deepening of nuclear fuel burnup from nuclear power plants
and the increasing disposing capacity, more criticality issues are being faced in use of
the PUREX process. The APDDC provides a particular geometry for neutron leakage to
prevent criticality phenomena. The inner core can also be filled with boron, cadmium,
and other neutron absorbers to ensure criticality safety. Unlike PDDCs, phases inside
 HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE OF AN APDDC 387

the APDDCs mix and contact in the annular gap, as shown in Fig. 1b which may lead
to a stronger impact of the internal components on the column hydraulics. Although the
APDDCs have been utilized in several commercial reprocessing plants in the world, such
as the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant in Japan,[3–5,16,17] there are few published data about
the hydraulic performance of this column, which is essential for scale-up design.
In the present work, the hydraulic performance of the APDDC was studied in a
stainless steel (SS) column. Extraction and stripping processes were simulated with the
organic and aqueous phase as the continuous fluid, separately. The dispersed-phase holdup
was measured using a sampling method at different operating conditions. The Sauter drop
diameter is calculated based on the holdup. Based on models presented in the literature,
holdup and Sauter drop diameter are correlated as functions of the operating conditions
in aqueous and organic-continuous systems. Flooding properties, mainly maximum holdup
and throughput at flooding, were measured and compared with predictions by reported
models. A partition of flow regime is also proposed for both systems. Moreover, the effects
of internal wettability on the hydraulic characteristics are discussed.

EXPERIMENTAL
Experimental Setup
The experimental setup is shown schematically in Fig. 2. The APDDC (5 in Fig. 2)
was designed based on a PDDC scaling-up method,[18,19] the dimensions of which are
shown in Table 1. The air-purge method was chosen for the parametric measurement[20–24]
including the two-phase interface location, which was fed back to the computer for column
control. Additional experimental details are described in the Supplementary Information.

Chemicals
Before conducting the experiments, the aqueous (3.0 mol/L HNO3 in demineralized
water) and organic (30% volume fraction tributyl phosphate in kerosene) phases were recir-
culated in the APDDC for five cycles, to ensure that equilibrium had been achieved between
phases. The physical properties of theliquid-liquid systems used in the experiments are
listed in Table 2.
The solution density was measured using a LEMIS Dendi densitometer (USA).
Viscosity was measured using a Brookfield LVDV-II + PRO viscometer (USA), and the
interfacial tension between the two phases was determined with a Krüss K100 tensiometer
(Germany) using a standard Pt ring with a 5.992-cm circumference.

Conditions
Organic- and aqueous-continuous systems were chosen to simulate the extraction and
stripping processes, relatively. Other experimental conditions with respect to theflow ratio
(R), total flux rate (F), and pulsation intensity (Af ) are shown in Table 3.

Operating Procedure
As a general procedure, the column was filled with the continuous phase, and then the
dispersed phase was introduced into the column under pulsation. The pulsation amplitude
388 J.-Q. LIU, S.-W. LI, AND S. JING

11 3
11
11
3 8
Compressed air

9 10
11
12 2 5
Compressed 14
air 7

13

5
11
6
11 13
11

13
Compressed air
3
3

2
10 1
3 4
3 4 3
4
3
1.Aqueous tank 2.Organic tank 3.Valves 4.Metering pumps 5.APDDC
6.Pulsation leg 7.Buffer 8.Ratary valve 9.Air purge equipments 10.Purge probes
11.Differential pressure transducers 12.Computer 13.Sampling points
Aqueous transfer pipeline Organic transfer pipeline
Air transfer pipeline Electric circuit

Figure 2 Schematic of experimental setup.

Table 1 Geometry of APDDC

Parameter Dimensions

Di (m) 0.075
D (m) 0.215
H e (m) 4.000
α 0.23
Da (m) 0.122
Dd (m) 0.192
h (m) 0.048

and frequency were adjusted to the desired values. As an important part of the operation,
a relatively stable interface position must be established to ensure extended steady state
during operation. The air-purge method was applied to judge the operating status in the
APDDC during the entire process from startup to stabilization. This method is analyzed in
 HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE OF AN APDDC 389

Table 2 Physical properties of chemicals (298 K)

ρ (kg/m3 ) μ (Pa·s) γ (N/m)

30% Tributyl phosphate/kerosene 828.3 0.00197 0.00959

HNO3 solution 1058.2 0.00103

Table 3 Range of operating variables studied

Variables Range

R 0.1–2
F (m/s) 0.0042–0.0111
Af (m/s) 0.003–0.020

detail in the Supplementary Information. Our hydraulics studies (mainly holdup measure-
ments and flooding status determinations under certain operating conditions) were carried
out under steady state.

Holdup Measurement
Sampling method was chosen to measure the holdup. Three sampling points were set
at the top, middle, and bottom sections of the APDDC.
After stable operation had been achieved in the APDDC, slow and stable sampling
was carried out at the three selected sampling points with cylinders, to avoid the influence
of sampling on the flow status within the APDDC. The average deviation of the holdup
values measured at different sampling points was within 10%.

Sauter Drop Diameter Calculation

As the experimental work was carried out in a SS APDDC, the internal droplet
diameter could not be measured directly, and calculations of the Sauter drop diameter
under appropriate operating conditions were made from the holdup data, based on Eq. (1)
proposed by Kumar and Hartland:[25]

4 d32 gρ 1−φ 24

= + 0.53 (1)
3 ρc Vslip 1 + 4.56φ 0.73 Reslip

where

Vd Vc
Vslip = + = V0 · (1 − φ) (2)
φ 1−φ

Flooding Determination
During the hydraulics experiments, the pulsation amplitude increased progressively
under a fixed total flux rate until flooding occurred. Stable operation was achieved for each
amplitude condition. The holdup was also measured using the previous method. Because
390 J.-Q. LIU, S.-W. LI, AND S. JING

of the SS APDDC, the operating status was not visible, so the Thornton equation[26] shown
as Eq. (3), the air-purge method for flooding judgment,[21] and the sampling method were
used to determine the flooding pulsation intensity and holdup accurately, as described in
the Supplementary Information.
√
R2 + 8R − 3R
φf ,rough = (3)
4(1 − R)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Holdup
The impact of pulsation intensity on holdup is shown in Fig. 3. For the organic-
continuous system R = 0.628 and 0.909 for the aqueous-continuous system. It can be
seen that the holdup increased with the increasing of pulsation intensity when Af >
0.0065 m/s for the organic-continuous system. And for aqueous-phase continuous sys-
tem, as the pulsation intensity increased, the holdup first decreased, reached a minimum at
about 0.0045 m/s, and then increased. As stated by Torab-Mostaedi et al.,[8] in the mixer-
settler regime at low pulsation intensity, layers of dispersed phase existed on the internal
components, and that caused a high holdup. With the increasing of pulsation intensity,
breakup of the dispersed phase was intensified, and the liquid layer on internals became
thinner, resulting in a decrease of the holdup. When the dispersed-phase layer disappeared,
the holdup reached a minimum, and the operating regime of the column changed from
the mixer-settler to the dispersion regime. In the dispersion and emulsion regimes, as the
pulsation intensity increased, the turbulence inside the column intensified, droplet break-
age was enhanced, the droplet diameter decreased, and finally an increase of the holdup
resulted.
The effect of total flux rate on the holdup is also visible from Fig. 3. As is shown,
holdup increased with the increasing of total flux rate for both systems. An increase
in the total flux rate at a fixed flow ratio meant the flow velocity of the two phases
increasing proportionally. As the dispersed-phase velocity increased, the number of
droplets increased, which led to an increase in the dispersed-phase holdup. While the
increasing of the continuous-phase velocity would increase the drag force of the con-
tinuous phase on the dispersed droplets, the velocity of the droplets would be reduced
so they would stay longer in the active section, also resulting in an increasing of
holdup.
The effect of the flow ratio on holdup is given in Fig. 4. It can be seen that the
holdup increases with the increasing flow ratio. When F = 0.0069 m/s, the increase in
flow ratio means an increase in the dispersed-phase velocity and an equivalent decrease
in the continuous-phase velocity. As discussed above, the increasing velocity of both the
dispersed and continuous phases would cause an increase of the holdup. Moreover, because
the effect of dispersed-phase velocity on holdup is larger than that of the continuous-phase
velocity, as mentioned by Torab-Mostaedi et al.,[8] the holdup increased with an increase
in the flow ratio.
The variations in holdup with the operating parameters of the APDDC discussed
above are consistent with that of the PDDC obtained by van Delden et al.,[27,28] Torab-
Mostaedi et al.,[29] and Jahya et al.[19] Furthermore, the impact of pulsationintensity on
holdup in these two different systems was compared in Fig. 5 to explore the effect of
 HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE OF AN APDDC 391

0.25

0.20

0.15
φ

0.10
F = 0.0042 m/s
F = 0.0056 m/s
F = 0.0069 m/s
0.05
F = 0.0083 m/s
F = 0.0097 m/s
F = 0.0111 m/s
0.00
0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018
Af (m/s)
(a) Organic-continuous system (R = 0.628)

0.30
F = 0.0042 m/s
F = 0.0056 m/s
0.25 F = 0.0069 m/s
F = 0.0083 m/s
0.20 F = 0.0097 m/s
F = 0.0111 m/s

0.15
φ

0.10

0.05

0.00
0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012
Af (m/s)
(b) Aqueous-continuous system (R = 0.909)

Figure 3 Effect of pulsation on holdup under different fluxes.

internal wettability. It can be seen that smaller pulsation intensity was needed for the
aqueous-continuous system than for the organic-continuous system to reach the same
holdup value and respective minimum value under the same total flux rate and flow ratio.
The slope of the curve for the holdup increasing with pulsation intensity is larger in the
aqueous-continuous system. For the organic-continuous system, the SS internals could be
wetted by the dispersed aqueous phase. It was easy for the dispersed phase to accumu-
late and form layers on the internals, which required more energy to be destroyed to reach
the minimum of holdup. Moreover, droplet coalescence could be promoted by the inter-
nals; more energy is needed to form droplets of the same size as the aqueous-continuous
system, which may mean the equivalence of holdup. For the aqueous-continuous system,
the internals could hardly be wetted by the dispersed phase. Therefore, only turbulence
played a major role in the dispersion and coalescence of dispersed droplets. So an increase
392 J.-Q. LIU, S.-W. LI, AND S. JING

0.35
R = 0.1
R = 0.23
0.30
R=1
R=2
0.25

0.20
φ

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018
Af (m/s)
(a) Organic-continuous system

0.35
R = 0.5
0.30 R=2

0.25

0.20
φ

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012
Af (m/s)

(b) Aqueous-continuous system

Figure 4 Effect of pulsation on holdup for different flow ratios (F = 0.0069 m/s).

in pulsation intensity would impact the droplets dispersion and increase holdup more
significantly.
A general equation, shown as Eq. (4), is applicable for the prediction of holdup in the
dispersed and emulsion regions for types of pulsed columns.[30]

φ =··· (4)
 HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE OF AN APDDC 393

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20
φ

0.15

0.10

0.05
Aqueous continuous system
Organic continuous system
0.00
0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016
Af (m/s)

Figure 5 Effect of pulsation on holdup in different systems (F = 0.0069 m/s, R = 2).

where
⎧    n1
0.25
⎪
⎪  = C +
g gγ ρc
⎪
⎪
⎪    n2 
⎪
⎪
⎨ 0.25  0.25
ρc ρc
 = Vd gγ exp n3 Vc gγ
⎪
⎪  n4  n5
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪  = C ρ μd
⎪
⎩
ρc μc
= C · α n6 · [h( ργc g )0.5 ]n7

 is the influence of the energy input, in terms of

, which is defined as 2/3·π 2 ·(1–
α 2 )·(2Af )3 ·h−1 ·C0 −2 ·α −2 for the pulsed columns. The constant C in  is positive because
the holdup cannot be ignored even when the energy input is zero.  is the effect of
two-phase flow velocity.  is the physical properties of the system, such as density and
viscosity of the two phases. The parameter C in  represents the effect of mass transfer,
which is taken to be unity for no mass transfer cases. And stands for the geometri-
cal characteristics of the column, such as the fractional free area and the height between
disc-and-doughnut. The parameter n6 in shows the effect of fractional free area and is
negligible for all types of pulsed columns. Other parameters for PSC were obtained by
Kumar and Hartland.[30] Parameters for PDDC, the internals of which were hardly wet-
ted by the dispersed phase, were obtained byvan Delden et al.[27,28,31] and Kumar et al.[11]
These parameters are presented in Table 4.
Correlations for PDDC were used to predict the holdup of APDDC in the present
work, the average relative deviations (ARDs) of which are listed in Table 4. It can be seen
that the holdup values predicted by these two correlations do not agree well with our exper-
imental results, possibly because of the effect of the inner core and material wettability on
the holdup. Therefore, correlations applicable to predict the APDDC holdup were estab-
lished by regressing parts of the parameters in Eq. (4) based on the holdup data obtained in
our hydraulics experiments for these two systems, respectively.
394 J.-Q. LIU, S.-W. LI, AND S. JING

Table 4 Parameter value list of holdup correlation (Eq. 4)

C C n1 n2 n3 n4 n5 n7 ARDO ARDA

Kumar and Hartland[33] (PSC) 0.27 6.87 0.78 0.87 3.34 −0.58 0.18 −0.39 (−) (−)
van Delden et al.[27,28,31] 2.39 0.45 0.34 0.87 3.34 −0.58 −0.08 −0.12 45.5% 29.1%
(PDDC)
Kumar et al.[11] (PDDC) 3.1054 0.45 0.6768 0.87 3.34 −0.58 −0.08 −0.12 46.3% 29.1%
Organic-continuous system 0.042 18.55 1.15 0.87 3.34 −0.58 −0.08 −0.12 16.4% (−)
(APDDC)
Aqueous-continuous system 0.012 91.43 1.28 0.87 3.34 −0.58 −0.08 −0.12 (−) 16.1%
(APDDC)

The two-phase flow rate range in this work was within literature values, so the values
of n2 and n3 , fitted by Kumar and Hartland[30] were used in the equation regression, to
reflect the impact of the flow rate of the dispersed and continuous phases, respectively. The
density range was within Kumar and Hartland’s[30] work, so the value of n4 was also used
to reflect the impact of density. The viscosity influence in the APDDC was closer to that
of PDDC compared with the PSE, so the value of n5 that was consistent with van Delden
et al.’s[27,28,31] work was used. There was only one APDDC involved in this work, which
provided a constant impact of geometrical characteristics, so n6 and n7 remained the same
as that in van Delden et al.’s[27,28,31] work. In a word, only the parameters C , C , and
n1 might differ for an APDDC. Because this equation was valid for the dispersion and
emulsion regimes only, parameters C , C , and n1 were determined by nonlinear fitting
of the holdup correlation using Matlab software with fixed parameters C = 1, n2 = 0.87,
n3 = 3.34, n4 = – 0.58, n5 = – 0.08, n6 = 0, and n7 = – 0.12, based on 49 groups of
holdup data measured in these two regimes for organic phase continuously and 43 groups
for the aqueous system. The parameters obtained and the prediction ARDs are also listed
in Table 4.
The predicted values of the holdup using the new correlations are compared with-
the experimental values in Fig. 6 for these two systems in the dispersion and emulsion
regimes. It could be seen that the holdup values predicted by the new correlations are
in good agreement with the experimental ones, which reduce the ARD to 16.1% for the
aqueous-continuous system and 16.4% for the organic-continuous one.
As shown in Table 4,

1. C > 0 for both systems. Moreover, the value C of 0.042 for the organic-continuous
system is greater than that of 0.012 for the aqueous-continuous system. The effect of
internal components wettability on the dispersed phase is dominant in the organic-
continuous system, and the dispersed phase could coalesce and form layers easily on
the internals with no energy input, which would lead to a larger holdup.
2. n1 > 0 for both systems, which means an increase of the holdup with the increas-
ing of energy input in the dispersion and emulsion regimes. The value n1 of 1.15 for
the organic-continuous system was slightly smaller than that of 1.28 for the aqueous-
continuous system. It meant a greater impact of energy input on holdup, which was
also caused by the difference of internal wettability in these two processes as discussed
above.
 HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE OF AN APDDC 395

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20 + 20%
– 20%
φcal

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
φexp
(a) Organic-continuous system

0.35

0.30

+ 20%
0.25

0.20
φcal

– 20%
0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
φexp
(b) Aqueous-continuous system

Figure 6 Comparison between experimental holdup data and predictions of our correlations.

3. The fitted values of C for the APDDC differed not only from those for othertypes of
columns as shown in Table 5,[30] but also from each other for these two continuous
systems, which may also be caused by the wettability and structure type of the APDDC.

Sauter Drop Diameter

The effect of pulsation intensity on the calculated Sauter drop diameter fordifferent
total fluxes is shown in Fig. 7. For the organic-continuous system R = 0.628 and 0.909 for
the aqueous-continuous system.
As shown in Fig. 7,
396 J.-Q. LIU, S.-W. LI, AND S. JING

Table 5 Best values of C for different types of columns[30]

Type of column C

rotating disk and asymmetric rotating disk 8.28

Kühni 4.35
Wirz-II 21.86
pulsed sieve plate 9.7
Karr reciprocating-plate 4.93
packed 3.33
spray 1.86

1.75

1.50

1.25
d32 (mm)

1.00 F = 0.0042 m/s

F = 0.0056 m/s
F = 0.0069 m/s
0.75 F = 0.0083 m/s
F = 0.0097 m/s
F = 0.0111 m/s
0.50
0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018
Af (m/s)
(a) Organic-continuous system (R = 0.628)

1.75
F = 0.0042 m/s
F = 0.0056 m/s
1.50 F = 0.0069 m/s
F = 0.0083 m/s
F = 0.0097 m/s
1.25 F = 0.0111 m/s
d32 (mm)

1.00

0.75

0.50
0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012
Af (m/s)
(b) Aqueous-continuous system (R = 0.909)

Figure 7 Effect of pulsation on calculated Sauter drop diameter under different fluxes.
 HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE OF AN APDDC 397

1. The calculated Sauter drop diameter ranged from 0.62 mm to 1.5 mm for the aqueous-
continuous system, and 0.75 mm to 1.6 mm for the organic-continuous system.
These results are consistent with those measured directly by van Delden et al.,[27]
Torab-Mostaedi et al.,[32] and Jahya et al.[19]
2. The Sauter drop diameter decreased as the pulsation intensity increased for a fixed
total flux and flow ratio. These results are consistent with the direct measured results
reported in literature.[19,27,32] As the pulsation intensity increased, turbulence in the col-
umn intensified, droplet breakage was promoted, and this resulted in a smaller drop
size.
3. The Sauter drop diameter increased with an increase of total flux rate for a fixed
pulsation intensity for the aqueous-continuous system, but for the organic-continuous
system, the effect was complex. It is also consistent with those measured directly in lit-
erature, that the impact of two-phase flow velocity on the Sauter diameter is negligible
compared with that of the pulsation intensity and interfacial tension.[19,27,32]

In summary, the results of the Sauter diameter calculated using Eq. (1) proposed by
Kumar and Hartland[25] were basically credible, which is the basis of the discussion on the
Sauter drop diameter in this work.
The correlation given by Kumar and Hartland[33] shown as Eq. (5), was used to give
a reasonable prediction of the Sauter drop diameter.

  m2 m3     0.25 
d32 ρ ∗ g μ d g0.25
γ m4 C3 Af ρ∗

= C1 α m1 h C2 + exp
γ σ∗ σ ∗0.75 ρ∗0.25 σ∗ α σ ∗g
ρg
(5)

In this correlation, pulsation intensity was used to characterize the effect of energy
input on the Sauter drop diameter. Besides, system properties such as ρ and μd , and
geometrical characteristics, such as h and α, were also involved. Parameters ρ∗ and σ ∗
represented the reference values of the density and surface tension of water at 298 K. Values
of the other parameters obtained for the PSC by Kumar andHartland[33] and for the PDDC
by van Delden et al.[27,28,31] and Kumar et al.[11] are listed in Table 6.
These two correlations for the PDDC as applied to calculate the Sauter drop diameter
in the present work did not provide an accurate prediction of the experimental Sauter drop
diameter in the present work, as listed in Table 6. Only the parameter C1 was calibrated by

Table 6 Parameter value list of Sauter drop diameter correlation (Eq. 5)

C1 C2 C3 m1 m2 m3 m4 ARDO ARDA

Kumar and Hartland[33] (PSC) 1.38 0.16 −2.5 0.30 0.18 0.14 0.06 (−) (−)
van Delden et al.[27,28,31] 2.84 0.16 −5.18 0.30 0.18 0.14 0.06 25.6% 47.5%
(PDDC)
Kumar et al.[11] (PDDC) 3.7557 0.16 −0.7517 0.30 0.18 0.14 0.06 172.2% 275.7%
Organic-continuous system 3.83 0.16 −5.18 0.30 0.18 0.14 0.06 11.1% (−)
(APDDC)
Aqueous-continuous system 1.94 0.16 −5.18 0.30 0.18 0.14 0.06 (−) 11.9%
(APDDC)
398 J.-Q. LIU, S.-W. LI, AND S. JING

2.00

1.75

1.50
d32,cal (mm) + 20%

1.25
– 20%
1.00

0.75

0.50
0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
d32,exp (mm)

(a) Organic-continuous system

1.75

1.50
+ 20%

1.25
d32,cal (mm)

1.00

– 20%
0.75

0.50
0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75
d32,exp (mm)

(b) Aqueous-continuous system

Figure 8 Comparison between experimental Sauter drop diameter data and predictions of our correlations.

the experimental data of the APDDC. All the other parameters were the same as those in
van Delden et al.’s correlation[27,28,31] as listed in Table 6.
The values of the Sauter drop diameter predicted from the new correlations arecom-
pared with the experimental values in Fig. 8 for these two systems. As can be seen, the
predicted values are in good agreement with the experimental values, which reduce ARD
to 11.9% and 11.1% for the aqueous and organic-continuous system, respectively. It will be
used to predict the flooding properties and even mass transfer performance of the APDDC.
The former is discussed in the section titled “Flooding Properties.”
It can be seen in Table 6 that C1 = 1.94 for the APDDC in the aqueous-continuous
system, which is smaller than that for the PDDC by van Delden et al.[27,28,31] Because of the
existence of the inner core in the APDDC, hydraulics within the column are subjected to a
 HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE OF AN APDDC 399

greater constraint by the internals, which leads to a higher frequency of collisions between
the flow and the internals of the APDDC, a more obvious vortex, a stronger crushing effect,
and smaller droplets, for the same pulsation condition and internal wettability (continuous
wetted) as the PDDC of van Delden.
Moreover, C1 = 3.83 for APDDC in the organic-continuous system, which is larger
than that in the aqueous-continuous system. Because the internals were wetted by the dis-
persed phase in the organic-continuous system, this could promote droplet coalescence and
yield larger droplets for the same pulsation intensity as the aqueous-continuous system.

Flooding Properties
A correlation for calculating the flooding holdup obtained by Kumar and Hartland[34]
shown as Eq. (6), was applied.
    
0 = (β3 − β1 ) φf 1 − φf (R − 1) + φf + R 1 − φf
  
  2β2 φf (1−φf ) −0.27
  (6)
· (β3 − β1 ) 1 − 2φf − 0.73 2
1 + 4.56φf + 3.33φf
0.73
1 − φf
β3 (1+4.56φf )

where

24μc 4d32 gρ 4β2 (1 − φf )
β1 = ; β2 = ; β3 = β12 +
0.53d32 ρc 1.59ρc 1 + 4.56φf0.73

This correlation links the flooding holdup with the Sauter drop diameter, the flow
ratio, and physical properties. Using Eq. (5) and the parameters of the APDDC in Table 6,
the Sauter drop diameter at flooding was calculated. Then a nonlinear equation about flood-
ing holdup was established after substituting the Sauter drop diameter of flooding and
physical properties by Eq. (6). This equation was solved using Matlab software to obtain
the flooding holdup. The predicted values of flooding holdup based on Sauter drop diameter
correlation are compared with the experimentalvalues in Table 7.

Table 7 Comparison between experimental flooding holdup data and predictions based on Sauter
drop diameter correlation

Organic-continuous system Aqueous-continuous system

φ f exp φ f cal RD φ f exp φ f cal RD

0.235 0.210 11% 0.254 0.255 0%

0.226 0.212 6% 0.262 0.257 2%
0.232 0.214 8% 0.269 0.258 4%
0.238 0.221 7% 0.277 0.261 6%
0.330 0.276 16% 0.207 0.208 1%
0.275 0.238 14% 0.310 0.299 3%
0.163 0.145 11% 0.243 0.245 1%
0.108 0.102 5% 0.235 0.242 3%
0.234 0.206 12%
0.224 0.204 9%
400 J.-Q. LIU, S.-W. LI, AND S. JING

From Table 7, it could be seen that the flooding holdup calculated from Eq. (6) is in
good agreement with the experimental data. The ARD is 10% for the organic-continuous
system, and 3% for the aqueous-continuous system.
By substituting the Sauter drop diameter calculated from Eq. (5), the flooding holdup
calculated by Eq. (6), and the physical properties into Eq. (1), the flooding slip velocity
was estimated. Then the flooding throughput was calculated from Eq. (3) and the flow
ratio. The predicted and experimental values of the flooding throughput arecompared in
Table 8 for these two systems. It could be seen that the calculated flooding throughput is
in good agreement with the experimental one. The ARD is 10% for the organic-continuous
system, and 7.6% for the aqueous-continuous system.

Operating Regimes
The operating regimes, initially proposed for the PSC, were also observed in the
PDDC by Chouai et al.,[35] Jahya et al.,[19] and Torab-Mostaedi et al.[7,29,32] Mathematical
models were proposed to judge the operating regimes in the PDDC, as shown below.[27,31]
The lower limit of the operational regimes, flooding because of the insufficient
pulsation (Flooding 1), is described by Eq. (7).

Vd + Vc = 2Af (7)

The transition from the mixer-settler (MS) to the dispersion (D) regime is described
by Eq. (8).

 0.33
γ · ρ 0.25 · α
(Af )MS−D = k1 (8)
μ0.75
d

The transition from the dispersion (D) to the emulsion (E) regime is described by
Eq. (9).

Table 8 Comparison between experimental flooding throughput data and predictions based on
Sauter drop diameter correlation

Organic-continuous system Aqueous-continuous system

(V c +V d )f cal (V c +V d )f exp RD (V c +V d )f cal (V c +V d )f exp RD

0.0060 0.0069 12% 0.0069 0.0069 0%

0.0066 0.0083 20% 0.0073 0.0083 11%
0.0071 0.0096 26% 0.0077 0.0096 20%
0.0089 0.0110 19% 0.0082 0.0110 25%
0.0041 0.0069 41% 0.0071 0.0069 4%
0.0050 0.0069 27% 0.0054 0.0069 21%
0.0067 0.0069 3% 0.0056 0.0055 2%
0.0088 0.0069 28% 0.0051 0.0041 22%
0.0048 0.0055 13%
0.0043 0.0041 5%
 HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE OF AN APDDC 401


0.96 · α 2
(Af )D−E = 0.25 · 3
(9)
ρc

The upper limit of the operational regimes is flooding caused by an excessive

pulsation intensity (Flooding 2), which was discussed in the section titled “Flooding
Properties.”
Because the experimental work was carried out in an SS APDDC, the operating
regime could not be determined by direct observation, but was determined by the varia-
tion of sampling measured holdup and the pressure records taken by the air-purge system,
on the basis of the above equations.
For the aqueous-continuous system, for R = 0.909, the operating window is shown
in Fig. 9.
It can be seen that

1. Most of the experimental points of the APDDC are located below the dashed line, as
predicted by Eq. (7), while there are still points locating above the lower limit of the
operational regimes. However, it was observed by the air-purge method that the APDDC
operated at steady state for all experimental points, including that at Af = 0.003 m/s
and V c + V d = 0.011 m/s. In other words, the flooding line calculated by Eq. (7) is
undervalued. Based on the experimental data, the lower limit of the operational regimes
is adjusted to be Eq. (7a), as the solid line shown in Fig. 9.

Vd + Vc = 4Af (7a)

0.014

0.012

0.010 Flooding 2
Flooding 1
Vc+Vd (m/s)

0.008

0.006 Eq. 7a Eq. 7 Eq. 8 Eq. 9a Eq. 9

0.004 MS D E

0.002

0.000
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012
Af (m/s)

Figure 9 Operating regimes for aqueous-continuous system (R = 0.909).

402 J.-Q. LIU, S.-W. LI, AND S. JING

2. The transition pulsation intensity from MS to D is characterized by the minimum value

of the holdup, as discussed in the section titled “Holdup,” is 0.0045 m/s for the aqueous-
continuous system. Therefore, the value of k1 in Eq. (8) is 1.3 × 10−3 for the aqueous-
continuous system, as shown in Fig. 9.
3. The transition line from D to E calculated by Eq. (9) is shown as a dashed line in
Fig. 9 at Af = 0.0091 m/s. The flooding operation point, when V c + V d = 0.011 m/s,
0.0096 m/s, 0.0083 m/s, and even 0.0069 m/s, are all within the line; that is to say,
this line is overvalued. An adjustment from Eq. (9) to Eq. (9a), shown as a solid line in
Fig. 9, is required.

0.96 · α 2
(Af )D−E = 0.18 · 3
(9a)
ρc

4. The upper limit of the operational regimes is described well by the method in the section
titled “Flooding Properties.”

As discussed above, this is because the existence of an inner core led to a stronger dis-
persed effect under the same pulsation condition for the internal components of the APDDC
with the same wettability as that of the PDDC studied by van Delden et al.[27,31]
For the organic-continuous system, R = 0.628, the operating window is shown in
Fig. 10.
It can be seen from Fig. 10 that,

0.014

0.012

Flooding 2
0.010
Flooding 1
Vc+Vd (m/s)

0.008
Eq. 7 Eq. 8 Eq. 9

0.006

0.004 MS D E

0.002

0.000
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.020
Af (m/s)

Figure 10 Operating regimes for organic-continuous system (R = 0.628).

 HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE OF AN APDDC 403

1. All experimental points of the APDDC are located above the line predicted by Eq. (7).
2. The transition from the MS to the D regime occurred when Af = 0.065 m/s, as
discussed in the section titled “Holdup.” The parameter k1 was 1.8 × 10−3 for the
organic-continuous system.
3. The transit pulsation intensity from D to E can also be predicted by Eq. (9).
4. The upper limit of the operational regimes is described well by the method in the section
titled “Flooding Properties.”

Because the internal components were wetted by the dispersed phase in the
organic-continuous system, as mentioned above, more energy was required in the organic-
continuous system than in the aqueous-continuous system to achieve the same dispersed
state.

CONCLUSIONS
This article presents an experimental study on the hydraulic performance of APDDC
in a stainless steel column with aqueous phase and organic phase as the continuous fluid
separately. The air-purge method is used to measure some of the parameters and control
the column automatically. The study shows that an APDDC performs with hydraulic char-
acteristics qualitatively like those of the PDDC. Using the existing correlations for the
PDDC, new parameters applicable for the APDDC are estimated to describe the holdup,
the Sauter drop diameter, and the operating regimes accurately. Experimental results for
flooding holdup and flow throughput are in good agreement with the calculations based
on the existing correlations. Moreover, the differences between the hydraulic performances
of the organic- and aqueous-continuous systems indicate an obvious effect of the internal
wettability. A quantitative study of the wettability effect will be an interesting issue in our
future research.

NOMENCLATURE

A Pulsation amplitude m
D Outer diameter of APDDC m
Di Inner diameter of APDDC m
d32 Sauter drop diameter m
Da Doughnut aperture diameter m
Dd Disc diameter m
f Pulsation frequency Hz
F Total flux m/s
g Gravitational constant 9.81 m/s2
h Height between disc-and-doughnut m
He Effective height of the column m
P Pressure kPa
R Flow ratio R= V d / V c
Re Reynolds number Rei =V i ·d32 ·ρ c /μc
404 J.-Q. LIU, S.-W. LI, AND S. JING

t Time s
V0 Characteristic velocity m/s
Vi Superficial velocity of phase i m/s
V slip Slip velocity m/s

Greek Symbols

α Fractional free area

γ Interfacial tension N/m
 Differential
μ Dynamic viscosity kg/(m·s)
μ∗ Reference dynamic viscosity of water at 298 K 0.001 kg/(m·s)
ρ Density kg/m3
ρ∗ Reference density of water at 298 K 997.0 kg/m3
φ Dispersed-phase holdup

Power dissipated per unit mass m2 /s3

σ∗ Reference surface tension of water at 298 K 0.0728 N/m

Subscripts

A Aqueous-continuous system
c Continuous phase
d Dispersed phase
D Dispersion operating regime
E Emulsion operating regime
f Flooding condition
MS Mixer-settler operating regime
O Organic-continuous system

Abbreviations

APDDC Annular pulsed disc-and-doughnut column

ARD Average relative deviation
D Dispersion operating regime
E Emulsion operating regime
MS Mixer-settler operating regime
PDDC Pulsed disc-and-doughnut column
PSC Pulsed sieve column
SS Stainless steel

FUNDING
We gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (21376132) for this investigation.
 HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE OF AN APDDC 405

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website

REFERENCES
1. van Dijck, W. J. D. Tower with internal perforated plate suitable for extracting liquids by
treatment with other liquids and for similar concurrent processes. US Patent, 1935, 2011186.
2. Angelov, G.; Journe, E.; Line, A. Simulation of the flow patterns in a disc and doughnut column.
Chem. Eng. J. 1990, 45(2), 87–97.
3. Iseki, T.; Takahashi, N.; Tanaka, Y. Uranium Test on the Separation Facility at Rokkasho
Reprocessing Plant, in Global 2005, Tsukuba, Japan.
4. Iseki, T.; Tsujimura, A.; Nitta, T. Active Test of Purification Facility at Rokkasho Reprocessing
Plant, in Global 2007, Boise, Idaho.
5. Nitta, T.; Matsuda, T. Uranium Test on the Purification Facility at Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant,
in Global 2005, Tsukuba, Japan.
6. Movsowitz, R. L.; Kleinberger, R.; Buchalter, E. M. Application of Bateman pulse columns for
uranium solvent extraction. Bateman Projects Ltd., Israel, 1997.
7. Torab-Mostaedi, M.; Jalilvand, H.; Outokesh, M. Slip velocity in pulsed disc and doughnut
extraction columns. Chem. Ind. Chem. Eng. Q. 2011, 17(3), 333–339.
8. Torab-Mostaedi, M.; Jalilvand, H.; Outokesh, M. Dispersed phase holdup in a pulsed disc and
doughnut extraction column. Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 2011, 28(2), 313–323.
9. Torab-Mostaedi, M.; Ghaemi, A.; Asadollahzadeh, M. Mass transfer performance in pulsed disc
and doughnut extraction columns. Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 2011, 28(3), 447–456.
10. Torab-Mostaedi, M.; Ghaemi, A.; Asadollahzadeh, M. Flooding and drop size in a pulsed disc
and doughnut extraction column. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2011, 89(12), 2742–2751.
11. Kumar, R.; Sivakumar, D.; Kumar, S. Modeling of hydrodynamics in a 25 mm ϕ pulsed disk and
doughnut column. ISRN Chem. Eng. 2013, 1–10.
12. Wang, Y. Studies on performance of a pulsed extraction column with discs and doughnuts. Ph.D.
Thesis, Tsinghua University, P. R. China, 2005 (in Chinese).
13. Prat, L.; Wongkittipong, R.; Angelov, G. Fast batch to continuous transposition: Application to
the extraction of andrographolide from plants. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2006, 29(3),401–407.
14. Martin, G. Extraction from viscous polymer solutions. Chem. Eng. Prog. 1987, 83(8), 54–59.
15. Kleinberger, R. Zinc Sulfate Extraction by Bateman Pulsed Column Technology. In Proceedings
of the Copper, Cobalt, Nickel and Zinc Recovery Conference, South African Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy: Johannesburg, 2001; pp K1–K13.
16. Tsuyuki, T.; Tanaka, C.; Shimauchi, H. Extraction Demonstration Test of Annular Pulsed
Column: I. Confirmation of Equipment Performance. In International Solvent Extraction
Conference, York, UK, 1993.
17. Tsuyuki, T.; Tanaka, C.; Shimauchi, H. Extraction Demonstration Test of Annular Pulsed
Column: II. System Test. In International Solvent Extraction Conference, York, UK, 1993.
18. Jahya, A. B.; Pratt, H. R. C. Comparison of the performance of a pulsed disc and doughnut
column with a pulsed sieve plate liquid extraction column. Solvent. Extr. Ion. Exch. 2005, 23,
307–317.
19. Jahya, A. B.; Stevens, G.W.; Pratt, H. R. C. Pulsed disc-and-doughnut column performance.
Solvent. Extr. Ion. Exch. 2009, 27(1), 63–82.
20. Jing, S.; Wang, Y.; Wu, Q. On-line determination of pulsed parameters for pulsed extraction
column with discs and doughnuts by air-purge method. At. Energy. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41(6),
716–721 (in Chinese).
21. Jing, S.; Wu, Q. Determination of flooding in discs and doughnuts pulsed extraction column by
air purge method. At. Energy. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42(8), 711–714 (in Chinese).
406 J.-Q. LIU, S.-W. LI, AND S. JING

22. Jing, S.; Wu, Q. On-line measurement of pulsed amplitude for standard spray-sieve-plate pulsed
extraction column. At. Energy. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42(4), 292–295 (in Chinese).
23. Jing, S.; Wu, Q.; Wang, Y. Effect of air purge on the measurement of pulsed amplitude for pulsed
extraction column. At. Energy. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41(5), 537–539 (in Chinese).
24. Li, S.; Zeng, X.; Jing, S. Effect of tube length on measurement of instantaneous pressure drop of
column weight in pulsed extraction column. At. Energy. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48(3), 395–400 (in
Chinese).
25. Kumar, A.; Hartland, S. Gravity settling in liquid/liquid dispersions. Can. J. Chem. 1985, 63(3),
368–376.
26. Thornton, J. D. Spray liquid-liquid extraction columns: Prediction of limiting holdup and
flooding rates. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1956, 5(5), 201–208.
27. van Delden, M. L.; Vos, G. S.; Kuipers, N. J. M. Extraction of caprolactam with toluene
in a pulsed disc and doughnut column—Part II: Experimental evaluation of the hydraulic
characteristics. Solvent. Extr. Ion. Exch. 2006, 24(4), 519–538.
28. van Delden, M. L.; Vos, G. S.; Kuipers, N. J. M. Extraction of caprolactam with an alternative
benign solvent in a pulsed disc and doughnut column. Solvent. Extr. Ion. Exch. 2007, 25(5),
639–664.
29. Torab-Mostaedi, M.; Jalilvand, H.; Outokesh, M. Dispersed phase holdup in a pulsed disc and
doughnut extraction column. Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 2011, 28(2), 313–323.
30. Kumar, A.; Hartland, S. A unified correlation for the prediction of dispersed phase hold-up in
liquid-liquid extraction equipment. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1995, 34, 3925–3940.
31. van Delden, M. L.; Kuipers, N. J. M.; de Haan, A. B. Extraction of caprolactam with toluene
in a pulsed disc and doughnut column—Part I: Recommendation of a model for hydraulic
characteristics. Solvent. Extr. Ion. Exch. 2006, 24(4), 499–517.
32. Torab-Mostaedi, M.; Ghaemi, A.; Asadollahzadeh, M. Flooding and drop size in a pulsed disc
and doughnut extraction column. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2011, 89(12), 2742–2751.
33. Kumar, A.; Hartland, S. Prediction of drop size in pulsed perforated-plate extraction columns.
Chem. Eng. Commun. 1986, 44(1–6), 163–182.
34. Kumar, A.; Hartland, S. Prediction of dispersed-phase holdup and flooding velocities in Karr
reciprocating-plate extraction columns. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1988, 27(1), 131–138.
35. Chouai, A.; Cabassud, M.; Le Lann, M. V. Use of neural networks for liquid–liquid extraction
column modelling: an experimental study. Chem. Eng. Process. 2000, 39(2), 171–180.