4.5 Article

Improved suspension quality and liquid level stability in stirred tanks with Rotor-Stator agitator based on CFD simulation

期刊

PARTICUOLOGY
卷 82, 期 -, 页码 64-75

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.partic.2023.01.010

关键词

Solid-liquid mixing; Rotor-Stator agitator; Suspension quality; Liquid level stability; Power consumption; Computational fluid dynamics (CFD)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The performance of the Rotor-Stator agitator for solid suspension in stirred tank was investigated through CFD modeling. It was found that adding a stator structure outside the rotor can optimize the flow pattern, thereby improving the mixing uniformity and liquid level stability. The homogeneity and liquid level stability attained by the Rotor-Stator agitator were better than those for the A200 and the Rushton.
The solid-liquid mixing is an important operation unit in the preparation of composites by stirring casting. High quality composite materials need good homogeneity and stable liquid level. In this work, the performances of the Rotor-Stator agitator for solid suspension in stirred tank were investigated through CFD modeling, including the homogeneity, power consumption and liquid level stability. The Eulerian-Eulerian (E-E) multiphase model and the RNG k-epsilon turbulence model were adopted for modeling the multiphase flow and the turbulence effects, respectively. The effect of various important parameters such as stirring speed, particle size, solid loading and the use of baffles were examined. Adding a stator structure with array holes outside the rotor can optimize the flow pattern, thereby improving the mixing uniformity and liquid level stability. The homogeneity and liquid level stability attained by the Rotor -Stator agitator were better than those for the A200 (an axial-flow agitator) and the Rushton (a radial -flow agitator).(c) 2023 Chinese Society of Particuology and Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据