4.6 Article

Experimental determination and numerical simulation of mixing time in a gas-liquid stirred tank

Journal

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
Volume 64, Issue 12, Pages 2926-2933

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2009.03.030

Keywords

Mixing; Stirred tank; Multiphase flow; Computational fluid dynamics; Simulation; Turbulence

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [20676134, 20490206]
  2. 973 Program [2007CB613507]
  3. National Project of Scientific and Technical Supporting Program [2008BAF33D03]
  4. Project of Scientific and Technical Supporting Program in Jiangsu Province [BE2008086]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this work, mixing experiments and numerical simulations of flow and macro-mixing were carried out in a 0.24 m i.d gas-liquid stirred tank agitated by a Rushton turbine. The conductivity technique was used to measure the mixing time. A two-phase CFD (computational fluid dynamics) model was developed to calculate the flow field, k and e distributions and holdup. Comparison between the predictions and the reported experimental data [Lu, W.M., Ju, SJ., 1987. Local gas holdup, mean liquid velocity and turbulence in an aerated stirred tank using hot-film anemometry. Chemical Engineering journal 35 (1), 9-17] of flow field and holdup at same conditions were investigated and good agreements have been got. As the complexity of gas-liquid systems, there was still no report on the prediction of mixing time through CFD models in a gas-liquid stirred tank. In this paper, the two-phase CFD model was extended for the prediction of the mixing time in the gas-liquid stirred tank for the first time. The effects of operating parameters such as impeller speed, gas flow rate and feed position on the mixing time were compared. Good agreements between the simulations and experimental values of the mixing time have also been achieved. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. 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