You are on page 1of 8

Availableonlineat

AssociationoftheChemicalEngineersAChE

www.ache.org.rs/CICEQ
ChemicalIndustry&ChemicalEngineeringQuarterly16(4)379386(2010) CI&CEQ


379
AOYIOCHIENG
1
MAURICES.ONYANGO
2

1
VaalUniversityofTechnology,
PrivateBagX021Vanderbijlpark,
1900,SouthAfrica
2
DepartmentofChemicalandMe-
tallurgicalEngineering,Tshwane
UniversityTechnology,Pretoria,
PrivateBagX680Pretoria,0001,
SouthAfrica
SCIENTIFICPAPER
UDC 66.06:532.51
DOI 10.2298/CICEQ100211040O

CFDSIMULATIONOFTHEHYDRODYNAMICS
ANDMIXINGTIMEINASTIRREDTANK
Hydrodynamicsandmixingefficiencyinstirredtanksinfluencepowerdrawand
arethereforeimportantforthedesignofmanyindustrialprocesses.Inthepre-
sentstudy,bothexperimentalandsimulationmethodswereemployedtodeter-
mine the flow fields in different mixing tank configurations in a single phase
system. Laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV) and computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) techniques were used to determine the flow fields in systems with and
withoutadrafttube.Therewasreasonableagreementbetweenthesimulation
andexperimentalresults.ItwasshownthattheuseofadrafttubewithaRush-
tonturbineandhydrofoilimpellerresultedinareductioninthehomogenization
energyby19.2and17.7%,respectively.Thisindicatesthatareductioninthe
operatingcostcanbeachievedwiththeuseofadrafttubeinastirredtankand
therewouldbeagreatercostreductioninasystemstirredbytheRushtontur-
binecomparedtothatstirredbyapropeller.
Keywords:Drafttube;CFD;solidsconcentration;stirredtank;simulation.


The performance of a stirred tank depends on
mixing,whichinfluencesmanychemicalreactionrates
as well as the product quality. For this reason, many
mixing studies have been conducted in different tank
configurationsstirredbyvarioustypesofimpellers.In
mostofthesestudies,conventionalimpellerssuchas
theRushtonturbine[1,2]pitchedbladeimpellershave
beenemployed[3,4].Relativelyfewstudieshavebeen
carried out using round or dished-bottomed tanks fit-
tedwithdrafttubes[5,6].
A draft tube is typically employed to enhance
axialmixinginstirredtanksandthispromoteshomo-
geneity.Inmultiphaseprocesses,itisimportanttoat-
tain bed homogeneity in order to promote interphase
heat and mass transfer. It has been reported [5] that
draft tubes improve mixing efficiency without causing
toomuchshearorturbulenceintensitythatcouldlead
toparticleattrition.Inthisregard,efficientmixingcan
be achieved by specifying optimum operating para-
meterssuchasimpellerspeedandphaseholdupas
wellasdesignparameters.Inparticular,thebulkfluid
flow is influenced by the liquid level above the draft
tube.Itwasearlierreported[7]thatthedrafttubebot-
tom clearance should be at least one draft tube dia-

Correspondening author: A. Ochieng, Vaal University of Tech-
nology,PrivateBagX021Vanderbijlpark,1900,SouthAfrica.
E-mail:aoyio@yahoo.com
Paperreceived:11February,2010
Paperrevised:10July,2010
Paperaccepted:13July,2010
meterandthatthehighestflowperpowercanbeob-
tainedbythisdevice,especiallyifusedinafullybaf-
fled tank. A small draft tube cross-sectional area re-
sultsinahighervelocityinthecorethantheannulus.
This leads to an increase in head loss, which is a
function of the square of the fluid velocity in the draft
tube [7]. Ochieng [8] reported that the bottom clear-
ance of the draft tube should be the same as that of
theimpeller,especiallyiftheimpellerisaradialpump-
ingone.
In recent studies, the revelation of many salient
mixingfeaturesofmultiphasesystemshasbeenpos-
sible due to the use of computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) and laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV) techni-
ques [8,9]. The information obtained from the CFD
simulation of the flow field, mixing time and power is
necessary for the identification of the tank dead zo-
nes, which affect mixing efficiency in a stirred tank.
The mixing efficiency can be determined from homo-
genization energy, which is the product of the mixing
time and the corresponding power dissipated [10]. A
remarkable effort has been expended in simulating
mixing time and power in flat-bottom tanks stirred
using the Rushton turbine [1114]. Such efforts have
been constrained by the available computational po-
wer.Inparticular,simulationofmixingtimeiscompu-
tationally expensive and modelling curved surfaces
such as those of propeller and elliptically bottomed
tank just makes the modelling work more complex.
The previous authors studied the effect of draft tube
A.OCHIENG,M.S.ONYANGO:CFDSIMULATIONOFTHEHYDRODYNAMICS CI&CEQ16(4)379386(2010)

380
onflowfieldinasystemstirredusingeithertheRush-
ton turbine or a propeller. Most of the studies were
doneusingflatbottomedtanksand,tothebestonour
knowledge, no comparison was made between flow
field in such systems and in elliptical bottomed tanks
withregardstoimpelleranddrafttubeinfluence.Asa
result, a lot of work still needs to be done in simu-
latingsuchsystemsinordertogetaninsightintothe
mixingfeaturestherein.
More recently, Ochieng et al. [14] reported that
at a low impeller clearance and a draft tube can im-
provemixinginatankstirredbyaRushtonturbinein
a flat bottomed tank. It is of interest, therefore, to
compare the performance of this impeller with the
axial one in the same configuration and in elliptical
bottomtank.Theaimofthepresentstudiesistoem-
ploy both CFD and LDV techniques to study mixing
time and power draw in flat and in an elliptically bot-
tomedtankstirredbyaxialandradialimpellers.
MODELLING
The hydrodynamics of a stirred tank are gover-
nedbytheinteractionbetweenthebulkphase(liquid)
flowandthetankgeometry,bothofwhichaffectmix-
ing time andenergy draw. The flow fieldis represen-
ted by the mass and momentum balance governing
equations. In the present work, the governing equa-
tionsaregiveninatime(Reynolds)averagedformof
the Navier-Stokes equations, for which the conser-
vationofmassis:
( ) 0 U = (1)
whereandUarethedensityandthemeanvelocity
vector, respectively. The momentum conservation
equationisgivenby:
B
( )
[ ( ) ]
T
U
U U p
t
U U F

+ = +

+ + +
(2)
where p is the pressure, is the dynamic molecular
viscosity,F
B
representsbodyforcesincludingCoriolis
andcentrifugalforces.Mixingtimewascalculatedfrom
the transport equation in which the transport quantity
()wasthetracermeanvolumefraction:
( )
T
T
i
U
t

( | |
+ = +
( |

\ .

(3)
where and
T
are the molecular and turbulent dif-
fusivities, respectively,
T
is the turbulent Schmidt
number. The value of
T
is lies between 0.5 and 1,
dependingontheflow.Inthiscase,afterafewtrials,
thevalueof
T
wastakenas0.7.
Power(P)exertedonthebaffleswascalculated
as:
2 P MN = (4)
where M is the torque and the mean kinetic energy
dissipationrateisgivenby:
T
P
V

= (5)
where V
T
is the fluid volume. The homogenization
energy () was calculated as a product of the kinetic
energydissipationrateandmixingtime:
90
= (6)
where
90
is the time required to achieve 90% homo-
genization. The mixing time required to achieve 90%
homogenization(
90
),forexample,isthetimeittakes
for the fluctuation of the response signal to be below
10%oftheconcentrationachievedatperfectmixing.
METHODOLOGY
Hydrodynamicsandmixingstudieswerecarried
outinanellipticallybottomedtankwithandwithouta
draft tube, using CFD and LDV techniques in single
phase system. Detailed configuration of the mixing
tankisshowninFigure1.Thefluidwaswateratroom
temperature and simulations were run using CFX-
-ANSYS codes [15,16]. Figure 2 shows the setup of
the tank stirred by the standard Rushton turbine and
the hydrofoil propeller previously employed by Ochi-
eng [8]. The impeller diameter (D) was the same
(0.33T)forboththeturbineandthepropeller,andthe

Figure1.Reactorconfiguration.
A.OCHIENG,M.S.ONYANGO:CFDSIMULATIONOFTHEHYDRODYNAMICS CI&CEQ16(4)379386(2010)

381
impeller speed (N) was 5 rps, which corresponds to
an impeller Reynolds number (Re) of 7.81x10
4
. The
tank diameter (T) was 0.38 m and the fluid level (H)
was 1.3T. The top and bottom clearance was 0.15T,
and the bottom clearance was the same for both im-
pellers. The bottom clearance was taken as the dis-
tance from the centre of the hub (or the level of the
disc,fortheRushtonturbine)tothetankbottom.
In the configurations studied, the Rushton tur-
bine(RT)orthehydrofoilimpeller(HI)wasemployed
with and without a draft tube. These configurations
arehereafterdenotedbyR15TfortheRushtonturbi-
ne stirred tank, in which the impeller clearance is
0.15T. Similarly, H15T represents the hydrofoil pro-
peller located at 0.15T from the bottom. The respec-
tive systems with a draft tube (DT) are denoted by
R15T-DTandH15T-DT.
EXPERIMENTAL
Figure 2 shows the LDV experimental setup for
which a detailed experimental procedure has been
described by Wu and Pullum [17]. The LDV probe
was mounted on a robotic arm as shown in Figure 2
and the measurements of the three velocity compo-
nentsweretakeninthemiddleoftwobaffles(=0
o
).
DetailsoftheflowfielddeterminedusingtheLDVand
mixing time determined using both decolourization
and conductivity methods for similar configurations
havebeenpresentedelsewhere[14,18].Theworking
vessel was encased in an outer transparent trough
with a square cross-section, and both filled with tap
water to a required depth. A conductivity meter [14]
wasemployedtomeasurethemixingtimesthatwere
used to validate the simulated ones. Consequently,
themixingtimespresentedinthisworkarethesimu-
latedones.
CFDSimulation
A quarter of the tank was simulated in the case
ofH15TwhileforthecaseofR15T,ahalfofthetank
was simulated. For both cases, three grid sizes cor-
respondingtohalftankwereused,withthetotalnum-
ber of cells being 216000, 436000 and 700000, for
the coarse, base and fine grids, respectively. The si-
mulationswererunontwoP4,2GBmemory,3GHz
PCs using CFX5.7 codes [15,16]. For all the simula-
tion work, the impeller shaft and the gravitational for-
ce were defined along the x-axis. The blades, disc
(fortheRushtonturbine)andbafflesweredefinedas
thin surfaces, and grids were refined in the wall and
impeller regions. A free surface boundary condition
was defined at the liquid surface, where the shear
stressesweresettozero.Onthewalls,ano-slipcon-
dition was specified for the liquid. The standard k-
modelwasemployedwithboththemultipleframesof
reference (MFR) and sliding grid (SG) approaches,
both of which were developed by Luo et al. [19,20].
The steady state MFR approach was employed only
togeneratetheinitialresultforthesubsequentusein
the unsteady state SG runs. The semi-implicit pres-
sure linked equation-consistent (SIMPLEC) algorithm
was used to couple the pressure and momentum
equations. Equation solvers such as the block Stone
and algebraic multi-grid [15] were employed with the
quadratictimedifferencingscheme.Theinterconnec-
tivitybetweentherotatingandstationarydomainwas
achievedbythegeneralgridinterface(GGI)algorithm
[15].
Figure 3 shows the simulation domain meshed
usingunstructuredgrid,whichisbetterthanthestruc-
tured grids for creating domains with high curvature.
Theinitialsimulationswereruntoevaluatetheperfor-
manceofthediscretizationschemessuchasupwind,
hybrid, higher upwind and quadratic upstream inter-

Figure2.LDVexperimentalset-up.
A.OCHIENG,M.S.ONYANGO:CFDSIMULATIONOFTHEHYDRODYNAMICS CI&CEQ16(4)379386(2010)

382
polation for convective kinetics (QUICK). Full hydro-
dynamic equations were solved for the flow field and
mixingtime.Mixingtimewasobtainedfromthemean
value of themixing time obtained from five simulated
probes at different part of the domain. Grid indepen-
dence studies were carried out using coarse, base
and fine grids. For the value of the mixing time, the
difference between based and coarse grid was cal-
culatedandfoundtobelessthan3%.
RESULTSANDDISCUSSION
Grid independence analysis showed that there
was minimal difference between the base and fine
grid,consequently.Subsequently,thebasegridswere
used for the studies and a reasonable agreement
between the simulation and the experimental results
was obtained. The CFD simulation of the fluid flow
revealedthepresenceofcirculationloops.Theorien-
tation of the loops changed with the impeller clear-
ance, and the centres of the loops represented dead
zones,whichaffectedboththemixingtimeandpower
draw. The draft tube was shown to improve the flow
pattern and consequently, the mixing efficiency by
suppressingoreliminatingtheloops.Theseobserva-
tions are in agreement with the results reported by
Montanteetal.[21]andOchiengetal.[14].
Discretizationschemes
Averygoodconvergenceofthemassresiduals
up to 1.0x10
6
obtained with the first order discreti-
zation scheme (upwind differencing scheme) was
lowerthanthatforhigherorderschemesforwhich10
-5

was the minimum value obtained. However, the re-


sultsobtainedusingtheupwindschemewereagross
over-prediction of the velocity field by as much as
120%. This is an indication that the upwind results
weremoreprecisebutthoseofhigherschemeswere
more accurate. As a result, the data obtained using
the upwind scheme was used to initialize the simula-
tions for further runs with higher order discretization
schemes.Theinfluenceoftheseschemesontheflow
field was investigated in the upper (x = 0.8T) and
lower (x = 0.21T) regions of the tank. In addition to
the convergence of mass residuals, at the end of a
simulation,thetotalmassofthetracedinthedomain
was computed and compared with the quantity that
was originally introduced into the domain, and it was
foundthatthetotalmassremainedthesame.Further,
it was ensured that the torque on the wall baffle was
constant and the mass imbalance in all sub-domains
waslessthan1%.
ItisshowninFigure4thattherewasamarginal
influenceofthediscretizationschemesonthepredic-
tion of the axial velocity profile. Figure 4a shows that
the hybrid scheme gave a reasonable prediction in
thelowerregionofthetankwhilstintheupperregion
(Figure 4b), predictions by all three schemes were
poor.However,thepredictionwiththehybridscheme
was, in general, better than the other two schemes.
Thebasisofcomparisonwastheexperimentalresults
oftheflowfieldandmixingtimeashasbeenshownin
apreviouswork[14].
ItisshowninFigure4thatthepredictionsinthe
impeller discharge region, in which the cell Peclet
number (Pe) is higher, are better than in the top re-
gion. Due to the high cell Peclet number (which is a
measureoftherelativestrengthsofdiffusionandcon-
vection) in the lower region, it is expected that the
hybrid scheme effectively becomes the upwind sche-
me in this region. However, it is known that this first-
-order scheme (upwind) is prone to numerical diffu-
sion,especiallyinhighReynoldsflowregionslikethe
impellerdischargeregion.Thefactthatbetterpredic-

(a) (b)
Figure3.Modeledsectionshowingmeshdistribution:a)topview;b)sideview.
A.OCHIENG,M.S.ONYANGO:CFDSIMULATIONOFTHEHYDRODYNAMICS CI&CEQ16(4)379386(2010)

383
tions were obtained with this scheme in this region
suggeststhatthediscretizationschemeswerenotthe
major factors influencing the accuracy of the results.
The predictions by the higher upwind scheme were
betterintheimpellerregionthanintheuppertankre-
gion.
The QUICK scheme, which is third order accu-
rate, is the most computationally demanding and the
simulations in which it was used could not converge
easily.Evenwhentheresidualsfinallysettled,thele-
vel of convergence could not go below 4.5x10
-4
,
which was the worst convergence in comparison to
theothertwoschemes.Thiscouldbeattributedtothe
lower diagonal dominance [22], which leads to un-
boundednessofthesolution.Asolutionisunboundif
it is outside the prescribed boundary conditions. For
the maximum downward velocity, the higher upwind
scheme gave the highest over-estimation. The maxi-
mum upward and downward velocity values give an
indicationofthemagnitudeofthecirculationflow.An
over-predictionoftheseparametersisindicativeofan
over-prediction of the circulation flow. The over-pre-
diction of these parameters with the QUICK scheme
inFigure4isinagreementwiththeworkofBrucatoet
al.[23],inwhichitwasreportedthattheQUICKsche-
me over-predicts the circulation rate. The maximum
upwardvelocitywasover-predictedbyallschemes.In
general, Figure 4 shows that the best predictions
wereobtainedbythestandardk modelandthehyb-
rid scheme. Therefore, the standard k- model and
the hybrid discretization scheme were subsequently
employed.
Flowfield
Figure 5 shows that the secondary circulation
loop that is typically found below the impellers at the
standardclearance(0.33T)wassuppressed.Thiscan
beattributedtothelowimpellerbottomclearancethat
wasused.Thisobservationisinagreementwithpre-
vious findings [9,21]. The upward stream was confi-
ned to the region closer to the wall, and this can be
attributed to the effect of the wall jet, which covered
almosttheentireliquidheight.Thisisopposedtothe
double loop flow pattern that is characteristic on flat-
-bottomtanks.Theupwardvelocitywashighestinthe
regionwherer/R>0.8andthiscanbeattributedtothe
effect of the wall jet. In the region where r/R is less
than 0.8, the fluid was moving downwards. Further,
the axial velocity, which is dependent on the wall jet,
decreasedwiththetankheightduetotheattenuation
of the momentum generated by the wall jet. The uni-
formityoftheupwardanddownwardflowwasachiev-
edbyusingadrafttubeforwhichthecross-sectional
areaofthecorewasthesameasthatoftheannulus.
This geometry results in an equal fluid velocity being
attainedintheannulusanddrafttubewherer/R=0.7.
The flow field for the configuration with a draft tube
hasbeenreportedelsewhere[14].
A comparison was made between the flow ge-
nerated in the flat and elliptically bottomed tanks by
the Rushton turbine at a clearance of 0.15T. Simu-
lationresultsinFigure6showthattherewasahigher
(by16%)axialvelocityintheellipticallybottomedtank
than the flat-bottomed one. This can be attributed to
theeliminationoftheminorcirculationloopatthebot-
tomedgeofthetank.Theseminorloopsactassinks
for the momentum convective transport. In an ellipti-
cally bottomed tank, the downward impeller jet is
smoothly deflected upwards rather than being parti-
allydampedasisthecaseintheflat-bottomedtank.
Mixingtimeandenergydissipation
Mixing efficiency was evaluated by calculating
the homogenization energy from the dimensionless
meankineticenergydissipationrate,. Thetorqueon
thewallbaffleswasusedtocalculatepowerfromEq.
(3), and this was in turn used to compute from
Eq. (4) and the power numbers (N
p
) in Table 1. The
powernumberpredictionsobtainedusingthismethod
were much closer to the experimental results than
thoseobtainedfromthelocalsimulationvaluesofthe
turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate. The power
number for R15T was found to be 3.4, which is in
reasonable agreement (12% difference) with the ex-
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
r/R
U
/
V
t
i
p
(a) x=0.21T
-0.08
-0.04
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
r/R
U
/
V
t
i
p
(b) x=0.80T

Figure4.Effectofdiscretizationschemeontheaxialvelocityprofile:experiments(),higherupwind(),hybrid()andQUICK().
A.OCHIENG,M.S.ONYANGO:CFDSIMULATIONOFTHEHYDRODYNAMICS CI&CEQ16(4)379386(2010)

384
perimental value of 3.8 [1]. The under-prediction of
thepowernumbercanbeattributedtotheunder-pre-
diction of the torque, which is calculated from the
azimuthal momentum component. An accurate com-
putationofthismomentumdependsonthetangential
velocity component, which has been shown to be
poorly predicted by the k model [8,20]. In addition,
the accuracy of the simulations based on Reynolds
averagedNervierStokeshasbeenpointedoutinmany
studies.
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
r/R
U
/
V
t
i
p
x=0.3T

Figure6.Comparisonoftheaxialvelocityprofilesinflatand
ellipticallybottomedtanks,H15T:elliptical();flat().
It is apparent that for R15T was higher than
that for H15T, and this is due to the higher power
numberobtainedintheR15Tconfiguration.However,
mostofthisenergywasdissipatedinthelowerregion
of the tank. The power numbers for the system with
the draft tube were lower than those without. This is
due to the fact that the draft tube enhances the fluid
circulation,leadingtoareductionintheazimuthalmo-
mentum, which is responsible for the torque on the
baffles.Theuseofthedrafttuberesultedinareduc-
tioninthehomogenizationenergyby19.2and17.7%
for R15T and H15T, respectively (Table 1). In a flow
generated by H15T, there are relatively less circula-
tionloops(Figure5)tobesuppressedbyadrafttube
ascomparedtoaflowgeneratedbyH15T.Thiscould
explain the slightly higher reduction of the homoge-
nization energy in the flow generated by R15T com-
paredtothatforH15T.TheRushtonturbinegenerally
generates double loop flow pattern which is charac-
terized by chaotic fluid flow, and this results in high
energy dissipation. In contrast, the propeller (H15T)
generallycreatesasmoothflowcharacterizedbyone
majorloop.Asaresult,theintroductionofadrafttube
theR15Tsystemdoesnotchangetheflowpatternas
muchasitdoesforH15T.
Table1.Mixingtimeandhomogenizationenergysimulation
( =
90
) with fromEq.(4); N=5rps
Configuration
90
/s N
p
/m
2
s
-3
/m
2
s
-2
/%
R15T 6.47 3.40 0.09 0.59
R15T-DT 5.94 2.75 0.08 0.48 19.17
H15T 6.04 1.11 0.06 0.35
H15T-DT 5.65 0.92 0.05 0.29 17.74
CONCLUSION
Hydrodynamicsandmixinginastirredtankwas
investigatedusingcomputationalfluiddynamics(CFD)

(a) (b)
Figure5.AxialvelocityprofileintheH15Tconfiguration:a)fringe;b)vectorplotsbetweentheblades.
A.OCHIENG,M.S.ONYANGO:CFDSIMULATIONOFTHEHYDRODYNAMICS CI&CEQ16(4)379386(2010)

385
simulation and laser Doppler velocimetry techniques.
The influence of a draft tube on mixing time and po-
werdrawwasstudiedinflatandinanellipticallybot-
tomedtankstirredbyaxialandradialimpellers.Inthe
CFD application, the effect of discretization schemes
(first and higher order schemes) on the simulation
results was investigated. The results obtained using
thehybriddiscretizationscheme,comparedtoexperi-
mental data,were as good as or better than those of
thethird-orderaccurateupwindscheme(QUICK).This
shows that a higher-order scheme does not neces-
sarily give better predictions for the systems investi-
gated.Theuseofadrafttuberesultedinhigher(19.2%)
homogenization energy reduction in the Rushton tur-
binestirredtankthanthat(17.7%),inthehydrofoilim-
peller stirred tank. This is an indication that a reduc-
tion in the operating cost can be achieved with the
useofadrafttube.
Acknowledgement
Contributions by Prof. Alison E. Lewis and Dr
PaulMusongearegratefullyacknowledged.
Symbols
CFD Computationalfluiddynamics
D Impellerdiameter,m
F
c
Centrifugalforce,N
F
ce
Coriolisforce,N
H Fluiddepth,m
k Dimensionlessturbulentkineticenergy
LDV LaserDopplervelocimetry
M Torque,Nm
MFR Multipleframeofreference
N Impellerspeed,s
-1

P Power,W
p Pressure,kPa
Pe u/(/x)
R Ratioofthediameterofthedrafttubetothat
ofthecolumn
r Tankradius,m
SG Slidinggrid
t time,s
T Tankdiameter,m
U axialvelocity,m/s
V
tip
Impellerbladetipvelocity,m/s
x
i
Cartesiancoordinates
x Dimensionlesscellwidth
Greeksymbols

Meanspecifickineticenergydissipationrate,
m
2
s
-3
Homogenizationenergy,m
2
s
-2
Molecularviscosity,kgm
-1
s
-1

Viscosity,m
2
s
-1

Density,kgm
-3

Diffusioncoefficient,kgm
-1
s
-1

REFERENCES
[1] G. Montante, K. Lee, C.A. Brucato, M. Yianneskis, Can.
J.Chem.Eng.77(1999)649-659
[2] M. Kraume, P. Zehner, Trans. Inst. of Chem. Eng. 79A
(2001)811-818
[3] Z. Jaworski, A. W. Nienow, K.N. Dyster, Can. J. Chem.
Eng.74(1)(1996)3-15
[4] B. Kuzmanic, N. Ljubicic, Chem. Eng. J. 84(3) (2001)
325-333
[5] A. Cate Ten, J.J. Denksen, H.J.M. Kramer, G.M. van
Rosemalen, H.E.A. van den Akker, Chem. Eng. Sci. 56
(2001)2495-2509
[6] Z.Wang,Z.Mao,C.Yang,X.Shen,Chin.J.Chem.Eng.
14(2006)713-722
[7] J.Y.Oldshue,Fluidmixingtechnology,McGrawHill,New
York,1983,p.15
[8] A.Ochieng,PhDThesis,Univ.ofCapeTown,2005
[9] H. Wei, W. Zhou, J. Garside, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 40
(2001)5255-5261
[10] M.Bouaifi,M.Roustan,Chem.Eng.Proc.40(2001)89-95
[11] Z.Jaworski,W.Bujalski,N.Otomo,A.W.Nienow,Trans.
Inst.Chem.Eng.78A(2000)327-333
[12] G. Montante, M. Motk, M. Jahoda, F. Magelli, Chem.
Eng.Sci.60(2005)2427-2437
[13] K.H. Javed, T. Mahmud, J.M. Zhu, Chem. Eng. Proc.
45(2)(2006)109-112
[14] A.Ochieng,M.S.Onyango,A.Kumar,K.Kiriamiti,P.Mu-
songe,Chem.Eng.andProc.J.47(5)(2008)842-851
[15] AEAT, CFX5 CFD Services, Harwell, Oxfordshire, AEA
IndustrialTechnology,2003
[16] ANSYS, CFX5 Flow solver user guide, www.ansys.com,
2004
[17] J. Wu, L. Pullum, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 79A (2001)
989-997
[18] A.Ochieng,M.S.Onyango,Chem.Eng.Proc.J.47(2008)
18531860
[19] J.Y. Luo, R.I. Issa, D.A. Gosman, ICHEME Symp. Ser.
136(1994)549-556
[20] J.Y. Luo, D.A. Gosman, R.I. Issa, J.C. Middleton, M.K.
Fitzgerald,Trans.Inst.Chem.Eng.71A(1993)342-344
[21] G.Montante,K.Lee,C.A.Brucato,M.Yianneskis,Chem.
Eng.Sci.56(2001)3751-3770
[22] J.Aubin,D.F.Fletcher,C.Xuereb,Exp.Therm.FluidSci.
28(5)(2004)431-445
[23] A.Brucato,M.Ciofalo, F.Grisafi,G.Micale,Chem.Eng.
Sci.53(21)(1998)3653-368.

A.OCHIENG,M.S.ONYANGO:CFDSIMULATIONOFTHEHYDRODYNAMICS CI&CEQ16(4)379386(2010)

386
AOYIOCHIENG
1
MAURICES.ONYANGO
2

1
VaalUniversityofTechnology,
PrivateBagX021Vanderbijlpark,
1900,SouthAfrica
2
DepartmentofChemicalandMe-
tallurgicalEngineering,Tshwane
UniversityTechnology,Pretoria,
PrivateBagX680Pretoria,0001,
SouthAfrica
NAUNIRAD

SIMULACIJAHIDRODINAMIKEIVREMENAMEANJAU
SUDUSAMEANJEMPOMOURAUNARSKE
TEHNIKESTRUJANJAFLUIDA
Hidrodinamika i efikasnost meanja u sudovima sa meanjem utiu na snagu meanja,
pa su zbog togaznaajni za projektovanje mnogih industrijskih procesa. Da bi se odre-
dila strujna polja u sudovima razliite konfiguracije, u ovom radu su koriene i ekspe-
rimentalne i simulacione metode. Tehnika merenja brzine laserskim Doplerom (LDV) i
raunarskatehnikesimulaijestrujanjafluida(CFD)suprimenjeneradiodreivanjastruj-
nih polja u sistemima sa i bez centralne cevi. Utvreno je prihvatljivo slaganje izmeu
simulacija ieksperimentalnihrezultata.UpotrebomcentralneceviukombinacijisaRa-
tonovom turbinskom mealicom ili propelerskom mealicom tipa Hydrofoil smanjuje se
potrebnaenergijezahomogenizovanjeza19,2i17,7%,respektivno.Ovoukazujedase
smanjenje u operativnim trokovima moe postii upotrebom centralne cevi u sudu sa
meanjem, kao i da e se trokovi vie smanjiti u sistemu sa Ratonovom turbinskom
mealicomnegousistemusapropelerskommealicom.
Kljune rei: centralna cev; CFD; koncentracija vrste faze; sud sa meanjem;
simuacija.