asaddffPumps vs.

agitators for tank mixing, classic case of CAPEX vs

OPEX: white papera
Though f dsf sd fsdf most processa tSsanks are agitated by ad sadsa dasmesans of a mechanical
agitator, comprised of a rotating shaft and one or more impellers, occasionally process engineers
will ask, Why can’t we just use a pufds f asd sadds fmp, instead of an expensive agitator? This
paper attempts to answer that question by cas ASasomparing capaital and opaeratinag codasts, as
well sas relative performanced asda s, of both systemsad asd ass, bas ds fsd fsdf sded on real-world
installations. The reader sd fsd fsdis cautifsd fsdfoned to use his own actual capital, installation
and power cost figures, as they sd fsd fsdwill not alaways match tsd fdsf sd fhose used in this
report.

Comparison basis

When comparing two fundaasd asdasd asdas asd asdmentally different kinds of equipment, the
normal approach is to use a basis of equal process performance. For an agitated tank, that can be
complex. Do we use equal flow, equal blend time, equal solisdf sd fsdds suspension, or some other
criterion? While exploring the data for this paper, it became apparent that equal process
performance is, for all practical purposes, impossible to attain with a pump, when compared to an
agitator.

As an example, if the pump were required to produce as much flow as a typical agitator in a given
service, it would require approximately 50-100 times as much power as the agitator, depending on
the particulars of both the pump and the agitator design. This is because of the well-known
relationship, power = flow*head. (Agitators produce orders of magnitude lower head, by virtue of
not having to pump through a pipe.)

Similarly, to achieve equal blend time to that produced by an agitator, a pump would require about
100-150 times as much power.

Based on such huge differences in power required for equal process result, it would seem that
pumps would never be used. However, they are used in spite of that. But, on close investigation,
it appears that the level of process performance demanded of pumps, where they are used
successfully, is much, much less than that typically demanded of agitators in similar service. So,
for this paper, we will compare, not on the basis of equal process performance, but on the basis of
an actual installation using a pump sized to deliver “acceptable” or “good enough” results, versus
normal sizing for an agitator proven to give full motion and a clean tank bottom in similar service.

Application description

The application chosen for this comparison is a beverage ethanol fermenter in a distillery. The
results would be equally applicable to fuel ethanol, or any application requiring modest agitation
with either no solids or only slowly settling solids present (settling rate less than 2.5 mm/s). It
should be noted that, during the early stages of fermentation, there is vigorous evolution of CO 2,
which serves to provide considerable agitation. However, at the end of the batch, CO2 evolution
almost stops, so the pump or agitator must blend the tank and keep solids in suspension to the
extent possible.

The tank size is 198” (5.03m) diameter, shallow bottom, with a working volume of 40,800 gallons
(154 m3). Tank contents have an average specific gravity of 1.0

Pump Description

Installed on the above tank is a pump-around loop with two tangential nozzles. The pump produces
a flow rate of 524 GPM (0.033 m3/s), and has a 15 Hp (11kW) motor. It is a simple centrifugal
pump.

Agitator description

Though some agitators used in ethanol fermenters are sized below the level needed to produce
complete suspension when CO2 evolution stops, the hypothetical agitator used in this article is
based on past experience as being the appropriate size to produce complete suspension throughout
the batch cycle. It is based on a Scale of Agitation nominally equal to 3, calculated using the
methods of reference 1.

The impeller is a 3-blade hydrofoil, 86” (2.18m) diameter, rotating at 30 rpm. The motor size is 3
Hp (2.2kW). Impeller flow is calculated by using the definition of pumping number, a
dimensionless group used to characterize impeller pumping performance:

1) NQ = Q/ND3

Using a pumping number of 0.5 (specific vendor impellers may have a slightly different value),
we get a flow produced of 41300 gpm (2.61 m3/s):

2) Q = NQND3 = 0.5*30*(86”/(12”/ft))^3 = 5521 ft3/min = 41300 gpm

Impeller power is calculated from the definition of power number, a dimensionless group used to
correlate impeller power draw characteristics:

3) NP = P/(ρN3D5)

Using a power number of 0.3 (specific vendor impellers may have a slightly different value), we
get:

4) P = NPρN3D5 = 0.3*(1000kg/m3)*(30rpm/60s/min)^3(86 in*0.0254m/in)^5 = 1865 watts = 2.5

Hp.

Process performance comparison

As previously stated, we are comparing on the basis of an actual pump system to a best practice
hypothetical agitator system, not on the basis of equal performance, but on very different
performance standards based on current industrial practice. Table 1 summarizes the two systems.

Table 1 Pump vs. Agitator Process Performance

Comparison

Pump Agitator
Motor size, kW 11.2 2.2
Shaft speed, rpm 1450 30
Impeller size, in. 13 86
Flow produced, GPM 524 41300
Tank diameter, in. 198 198
Tank SS, in. 312 312
Working volume, gal. 40800 40800
Liquid level, in. 306 306
Scale of Agitation N/A 3
Turnover time, min. 77.86 0.99
Turnovers/min. 0.013 1.012
99% blend time, min 234 1.8
Full tank motion? No Yes
Clean tank bottom? No Yes
Metabolic enhancement? Unlikely Likely

Some quantitative comparisons are readily evident. For example, although the pump requires 5
times as much motor power as the agitator, the agitator pumps almost 80 times as much, and
blends13 times as fast. Blend time for the agitator is calculated using a formula from a private
communication, where

5) θb = 16.4/(N*(D/T)1.7(Z/T)0.5) = 16.4/(30*(86/198)^1.7*(306/198)^0.5 = 1.8 minutes.

Blend time for the pumped system is based on reference 2, which states that pump blend time is 3
times turnover time. This author believes that may be an overly optimistic estimate of pump-
around loop tank blend time.

In addition to these quantitative comparisons, performance is likely different in other, less easily
quantified ways. For example, we know that the agitator design described is the minimum required
to keep a clean tank bottom. Actual field experience with corn-based ethanol fermenters reveals
that less agitation will require periodic shoveling out of the tank bottom; less agitation would not
be sufficient to keep the bottom clean. Though the pump design includes tangential nozzles to try
to at least keep the bottom clean, we suspect there will be cases where periodic manual cleanout
of the tank is required. The cost of such cleanout, including downtime, is not included in the cost
comparison in the following section.
It is unlikely that the pump design will produce motion throughout the tank. It is unclear what
effect stagnant areas will have on the process. The agitator design listed will provide complete
motion of tank contents.

In a very interesting paper presented by Galindo et al. (3), it was found that higher levels of
agitation in an alcohol fermenter could increase rate of production, yield and maximum titer.
Though the agitation level proposed here is modest compared to some of Galindo’s conditions, it
is still much higher than the pump produces. Thus, there may be a higher effective metabolic rate
produced under mechanically agitated conditions than with the pump system. However, we lack
actual field comparisons to verify this.

Life cycle cost comparison

Table 2 summarizes the total life cycle comparisons. Most assumptions are included in the table.

Table 2 Pump vs. Agitator Life Cycle Cost Comparison

Pump Agitator
Installed cost 25000 75000
Present Replacement Cost 22000 50000
Useful life, years 7 20
Interest rate used, annual fraction 0.1 0.1
Capitalized cost 48189.21 83729.81
Motor power, kW 11.2 2.2
Electricity Cost/kwh 0.07 0.07
Motor load, % 90 90
Hours/year 8000 8000
efficiency x power factor 0.8 0.8
annual power cost 7056 1386
Facility life used, years 20 20
Present worth of power cost 60071.71 11799.8
Annual maintenance cost 700 300
Present worth of maintenance costs 5959.495 2554.069
Total lifecycle cost* 114220.4 98083.68

* does not include process downtime

Capital and maintenance costs are based on reference 4, adjusted for currency and inflation, plus
private communications from pump users. Electricity costs are based on reference 5. The reader
should adjust these figures according to his own capital, maintenance and electricity costs. Interest
rate and equipment life can also be adjusted. The reader is also encouraged to add the costs of
downtime, which could be very significant. Such downtime differences could be caused by the
more frequent repairs required of pumps, as well as possible downtime for tank cleanout.

Summary
Though a pump loop can be much lower in capital cost than an agitator for tank mixing, the user
should include all power and maintenance costs in the overall decision analysis. Based on capital
and operating costs alone, it appears that the mechanically agitated system, in most cases, will
have a lower total lifecycle cost. When differences in process performance and downtime are
factored in, it is unlikely that a pump system would look favorable compared to a mechanically
agitated system. If compared on the basis of equal process performance, the total lifecycle costs
for pump-agitated systems would be much higher, mainly due to exorbitantly higher power
requirements.

Nomenclature

D Impeller diameter, in. or m, typical; N Shaft speed, rpm or rev/s; NP Power number
(dimensionless); NQ Pumping number (dimensionless); Q Flow rate, volume/time, e.g. gpm or
m3/s; T Tank diameter, e.g. in. or m; Z Liquid level, e.g., in. or m

Greek letters

Ρ Fluid density, e.g., Kg/m3; θb Blend time, s or min, typical

References

1) “How to design agitators for desired process response”, R. Hicks, J. Morton and J. Fenic,
Chemical Engineering Magazine, April 26, 1976, pp 98-104

2) ABS, Inc. Drawing No. DS-M01-137 (blend time = 3*turnover time)

3) “Effect of Mechanical Agitation on Alcoholic Fermentation”, E. Galindo, M. Salvador and B.

Romain, AIChE 1992 Annual Meeting, Nov. 2-6, 1992, Miami, FL

4) “Reducing Life-Cycle Costs of Centrifugal Pumps”, K.Ost, Technical paper 1-2, Pump Users
International Forum, 10-12 October, 2000.

5) U.S. Energy Information Administration, Table 5.3. Average Retail Price of Electricity to
Ultimate Customers: Total by End-Use Sector, 2003 – July 2013 (Cents per Kilowatt-hour)

About the author

Gregory T. Benz is President of Benz Technology International. Phone 937-289-4504; e-mail

g.benz@benz-tech.com; URL: www.benz-tech.com. He received his BSChE from the University
of Cincinnati in 1976, and has taken a course on Fermentation Biotechnology from The Center for
Professional Advancement. A registered Professional Engineer in Ohio, he has over 37 years’
experience in the design of agitation systems. Currently his company does general mixing
consultation, including pilot plant protocol, equipment specification and bid evaluation. Current
activity includes several cellulosic ethanol, single-cell protein and biomass projects.