4.6 Article

Analysis of mixing in an aerated reactor equipped with the coaxial mixer through electrical resistance tomography and response surface method

Journal

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH & DESIGN
Volume 109, Issue -, Pages 734-752

Publisher

INST CHEMICAL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cherd.2016.03.028

Keywords

Aerated coaxial mixer; Viscous Newtonian fluid; Mixing time; Electrical resistance tomography; Response surface method

Funding

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mixing characteristics of an aerated coaxial mixer composed of an anchor and a central impeller was investigated using the non-invasive flow visualization technique called electrical resistance tomography (ERT). Corn syrup solutions with different viscosity were used as the viscous Newtonian fluids. Two coaxial configurations were considered: the anchor PBD (a pitched blade downward pumping impeller) and the anchor PBU (a pitched blade upward pumping impeller). In this study, the effects of central impeller types, speed ratios (central impeller speed/anchor speed), rotation modes, gas flow rates, and viscosity on the mixing time and power uptake were explored. It was found that in the presence of gas, the PBU-anchor coaxial combination in co-rotating mode exhibited shorter mixing times and lower power consumption than the PBD-anchor. Experiments demonstrated that the effect of aeration on the mixing time was a function of hydrodynamic regimes occurring in the tank. Using the response surface method, an effort was made to develop a quadratic model as a function of central impeller speed, anchor speed, gas flow rate, and viscosity for predicting the mixing time. Three-dimensional response surfaces were plotted to understand the main and interaction effects of these factors. (C) 2016 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available