Bubble column reactors approach

This study investigates the hydrodynamic behaviour of an aimular bubble column reactor with continuous liquid and gas flow using an Eulerian-Eulerian computational fluid dynamics approach. The residence time distribution is completed using a numerical scalar technique which compares favourably to the corresponding experimental data. It is shown that liquid mixing performance and residence time are strong functions of flowrate and direction. 

Known scale-up correlations thus may allow scale-up even when laboratory or pilot plant experience is minimal. The fundamental approach to process scaling involves mathematical modeling of the manufacturing process and experimental validation of the model at different scale-up ratios. In a paper on fluid dynamics in bubble column reactors, Lubbert and coworkers (54) noted ... 

Additional information on hydrodynamics of bubble columns and slurry bubble columns can be obtained from Deckwer (Bubble Column Reactors, Wiley, 1992), Nigam and Schumpe (Three-Phase Sparged Reactors, Gordon and Breach, 1996), Ramachandran and Chaudhari (Three-Phase Catalytic Reactors, Gordon and Breach, 1983), and Gianetto and Silveston (Multiphase Chemical Reactors, Hemisphere, 1986). Computational fluid mechanics approaches have also been recently used to estimate mixing and mass-transfer parameters [e.g., see Gupta et al., Chem. Eng. Sci. 56(3) 1117-1125 (2001)]. 

With this approach, even the dispersed phase is treated as a continuum. All phases share the domain and may interpenetrate as they move within it. This approach is more suitable for modeling dispersed multiphase systems with a significant volume fraction of dispersed phase (> 10%). Such situations may occur in many types of reactor, for example, in fluidized bed reactors, bubble column reactors and multiphase stirred reactors. It is possible to represent coupling between different phases by developing suitable interphase transport models. It is, however, difficult to handle complex phenomena at particle level (such as change in size due to reactions/evaporation etc.) with the Eulerian-Eulerian approach. 

If the values of local mean bubble diameter and local gas flux are available, a fluid dynamic model can estimate the required influence of mass transfer and reactions on the fluid dynamics of bubble columns. Fortunately, for most reactions, conversion and selectivity do not depend on details of the inherently unsteady fluid dynamics of bubble column reactors. Despite the complex, unsteady fluid dynamics, conversion and selectivity attain sufficiently constant steady state values in most industrial operations of bubble column reactors. Accurate knowledge of fluid dynamics, which controls the local as well as global mixing, is however, essential to predict reactor performance with a sufficient degree of accuracy. Based on this, Bauer and Eigenberger (1999) proposed a multiscale approach, which is shown schematically in Fig. 9.13. 

The fluid dynamics of bubble column reactors is very complex and several different CFD models may have to be used to address critical reactor engineering issues. The application of various approaches to modeling dispersed multiphase flows, namely, Eulerian-Eulerian, Eulerian-Lagrangian and VOF approaches to simulate flow in a loop reactor, is discussed in Chapter 9 (Section 9.4). In this chapter, some examples of the application of these three approaches to simulating gas-liquid flow bubble columns are discussed. Before that, basic equations and boundary conditions used to simulate flow in bubble columns are briefly discussed. 

This gas-liquid modeling approach has been used performing dynamic simulations of two-phase bubble column reactor flows operating at low gas holdups [201, 202, 19]. A major limitation revealed in these simulations is that there is some difficulties in conserving mass for the dispersed phases, so this concept is not recommended for the purpose of simulating chemically reactive flows. 

Fig. 23. Hydroformylation of liquid olefins (Cn-C12) with syngas (H2 and CO), (a) Configuration in existing commercial unit consisting of five bubble column reactors in series, (b) Improved configuration arrived at by systems approach, involving staged injection of hydrogen, (c) The yields of alcohols (desired product) and paraffins (undesired product) are compared for configurations (a) and (b).

The approach to analysis of reactors of this type depends to a large extent on the nature of the flow patterns. (Is this news ) In bubble-column reactors, which are of... 

Ellenberger, J., and Krishna, R. (1994), A unified approach to the scale-up of gas-solid fluidized bed and gas-liquid bubble column reactors, Chemical Engineering Science, 49(24B) 5391-5411. 

Great efforts have been devoted to development of reactor to satisfy the requirements of different GTL processes. Several reactor types are currently used for FTS. For example, reactors for FTS include the multitubular fixed-bed, gas-solid fluidized-bed, and slurry bubble column reactors (Flussain et al., 2015). The differences between these reactors are largely related to different approaches to temperature control and the choice of catalyst. 

In a recent study Jakobsen et al. [71] examined the capabilities and limitations of a dynamic 2D axi-symmetric two-fluid model for simulating cylindrical bubble column reactor flows. In their in-house code all the relevant force terms consisting of the steady drag, bulk lift, added mass, turbulence dispersion and wall lift were considered. Sensitivity studies disregarding one of the secondary forces like lift, added mass and turbulent dispersion at the time in otherwise equivalent simulations were performed. Additional simulations were run with three different turbulence closures for the liquid phase, and no shear stress terms for the gas phase. A standard k — e model [95] was used to examine the effect of shear induced turbulence, case (a). In an alternative case (b), both shear- and bubble induced turbulence were accounted for by linearly superposing the turbulent viscosities obtained from the A — e model and the model of Sato and Sekoguchi [138]. A third approach, case (c), is similar to case (b) in that both shear and bubble induce turbulence contributions are considered. However, in this model formulation, case (c), the bubble induced turbulence contribution was included through an extra source term in the turbulence model equations [64, 67, 71]. The relevant theory is summarized in Sect. 8.4.4. 

A new alternative approach for Stage I screening in liquid phase is the use of bubble column-type reactors. These parallel bubble columns can operate in batch and fed-batch mode regarding the reaction mixture, while a continuous stream of gas is used as reactant (H2, 02, or others) as well as for the intense agitation of the reaction mixture (Figure 11.39). 

This approach is proven for design and prediction of the performance of multiple-bed down-flow reactors. The complication, and a critical difference between this and a bubble column, is that the gas bubbles are formed in situ. The gas flux, and thus gas hold-up, will vary over the bed height. For the down-flow beds, a simplified linear gas hold-up profile was inherent in the design models, but with no apparent penalty in design accuracy. 

Figure 12-12 Sketches of possible flow patterns of bubbles rising through a liquid phase in a bubble column. Stirring of the continuous phase will cause the residence time distribution to be broadened, and coalescence and breakup of drops will cause mixing between bubbles. Both of these effects cause the residence time distribution in the bubble phase to approach that of a CSTR. For falling drops in a spray tower, the situation is similar but now the drops fall instead of rising in the reactor.

The relatively low conversions of the gaseous reactant in many processes, like the chlorination of toluene above, pose problems for the process design of such operations. One approach for the chlorine-toluene process would be simply to pass the C12-HC1 mixture through a downstream section of plant to separate the unreacted chlorine which would then be recycled to the reactor. In an alternative design chlorine might be passed from the first reactor into a second reactor in series, and then if necessary into a third reactor, and so on, as shown in Fig. 4.7. However, the problem arises because a bubble column with a low aspect ratio or a singleimpeller agitated tank behaves essentially as a well-mixed reactor (aspect ratio is... 

---