4.7 Article

CFD simulations of dense solid-liquid suspensions in baffled stirred tanks: Prediction of solid particle distribution

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 223, 期 -, 页码 875-890

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2013.03.048

关键词

Multi Fluid Model (MFM); Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD); Turbulence closure; Solid-liquid suspension; Partial suspension; Drag force; Stirred tank; Particle distribution; Unsuspended Solid Criterion (USC)

资金

  1. Ministero dell'Universita e della Ricerca [2006091953_004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Industrial tanks devoted to the mixing of solid particles into liquids are often operated at an impeller speed N less than N-js (defined as the lowest speed allowing the suspension of all particles): under such conditions the distribution of solid-particles is very far from being homogeneous and very significant concentration gradients exist. The present work is devoted to assessing the capability of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) in predicting the particle distribution throughout the tank. The CFD model proposed by Tamburini et al. [58] and successfully applied to the prediction of the sediment amount and shape was adopted here to simulate the particle distribution under partial-to-complete suspension conditions. Both transient (via the Sliding Grid approach) and steady state (via the Multiple Reference Frame approach) RANS simulations were carried out for the case of a flat bottomed baffled tank stirred by a Rushton turbine. Results show that the model can reliably predict the experimental particle distribution at all investigated impeller speeds. Transient simulations were found to predict slightly better the experimental data with respect to steady state simulations. Radial gradients of solids concentration, usually neglected in the literature, where found to be significant in the presence of unsuspended solid particles settled on the vessel bottom (i.e. incomplete suspension conditions). (C) 2013 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

4.7
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