See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328523136

CFD simulation model for mixing tank using multiple reference frame (MRF)
impeller rotation

Article  in  ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering · October 2018

DOI: 10.1080/09715010.2018.1535921

CITATIONS READS

0 62

4 authors, including:

Harshal Patil Harish Jagat Pant

National Institute of Technology, Warangal Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Radiotracer investigation and modeling of an activated sludge system View project

Radiotracers use for diagnostic of phosphate treatment process View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Harish Jagat Pant on 17 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering

ISSN: 0971-5010 (Print) 2164-3040 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tish20

CFD simulation model for mixing tank using

multiple reference frame (MRF) impeller rotation

Harshal Patil, Ajey Kumar Patel, Harish J. Pant & A. Venu Vinod

To cite this article: Harshal Patil, Ajey Kumar Patel, Harish J. Pant & A. Venu Vinod (2018):
CFD simulation model for mixing tank using multiple reference frame (MRF) impeller rotation, ISH
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/09715010.2018.1535921

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2018.1535921

Published online: 25 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tish20
ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2018.1535921

CFD simulation model for mixing tank using multiple reference frame (MRF)
impeller rotation
Harshal Patila, Ajey Kumar Patelb, Harish J. Pantc and A. Venu Vinoda
a
Department of Chemical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Warangal, Warangal, India; bDepartment of Civil Engineering,
National Institute of Technology Warangal, Warangal, India; cIsotope and Radiation Application Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre,
Mumbai, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In this work, CFD simulations have been conducted to investigate flow behaviour of water in fully Received 29 April 2018
baffled stirred tank with Rushton turbine as impeller. The aim of the paper is to develop CFD model Accepted 10 October 2018
of such tank and optimize the dimensions of inner rotating fluid zone for MRF model. The best inner KEYWORDS
rotating fluid zone is found when the simulation results for mean radial velocity, mean tangential CFD; Stirred tank; Rushton
velocity and mean axial velocity are reasonably matched with literature data of Wu and Patterson turbine; multiple reference
(1989). The global flow parameters such as flow number and power number predicted by CFD frame (MRF); turbulence
matched quite well with the data of Wu and Patterson (1989) and Rushton et al. (1950). The model
developed CFD model is able to predict key phenomenon of circulating loops inside the stirred
tank. The trend of turbulence energy dissipation rate obtained from CFD simulations is in good
agreement with the literature data of Wu and Patterson (1989).

Abbreviations: CFD: Computational Fluid Dynamics; LDA: Laser Doppler Anemometry; PIV: Particle
Image Velocimetry; LSI: Laser Sheet Illumination; MRF: Multiple Reference Frame; RANS: Reynolds
averaged Navier–Stokes; LES: Large Eddy Simulation; DNS: Direct Numerical Simulation; SIMPLE:
Semi Implicit Method for Pressure Linked Equations; RMSE: Root Mean Squared Error; PRESTO:
Pressure Staggering Option

1. Introduction laser Doppler anemometry (LDA), particle image velocime-

try (PIV) and laser sheet illumination (LSI). Even though
Mixing tanks are extensively used in the process industries
these experimental studies have measured flow field accu-
such as chemical, pharmaceutical, food, oil and biochemical as
rately, these techniques were neither economical nor prac-
well as in municipal and industrial wastewater treatment
tical because the best choice for geometry of tank and
plants. Based on their applications, these are referred as mixing
impeller type varies depending on the purpose of operation
tanks, stirred tanks, agitated tanks and aeration tanks.
carried out in stirred tank (Yapici et al. 2008).
Depending upon the purpose of application carried out in
Rotating impellers generate high turbulence and complex
the mixer such as blending of miscible liquids, solid suspen-
three-dimension flow structure as the flow induced by them
sion, dispersion of gas into liquid, heat and mass transfer
interacts with baffles mounted on wall of tank. It is very
enhancement etc., the choice of tank geometry and type of
difficult to understand flow structure due to complexity in
impeller varies widely (Ciofalo et al. 1996). In order to get
flow generated. With the consideration of the issues men-
good product quality with optimum economical way, it is
tioned above, in recent years computational fluid dynamics
important to know the degree of mixing, performance and
(CFD) tool has been extensively used to understand such
behavior inside the tanks. Hence, it is important to investigate
complex behavior inside stirred tanks. In the literature, various
agitation hydrodynamics inside the mixing tank (Yapici et al.
approaches have been adopted to investigate the flow pattern
2008). The large amount of energy is required for a mixing
generated in stirred tank. In the past, flow simulations have
process which causes major expenses. The cost of poor mixing
been done with ‘black box’ approach, in that impeller region
from a multinational chemical company was estimated at $100
was excluded from computational domain in stirred tank
million per year in 1993 (Paul et al. 2004). Day by day the cost
(Brucato et al. 1998). Even though this technique gives the
of energy is increasing, so it is essential to do the optimum
successful prediction of flow field, this technique requires the
design analysis of mixing tanks.
experimental data including turbulence quantities while this
On account of extensive use of stirred vessels in process
data is available only for few vessel geometries (Brucato et al.
industries, major price saving is possible with minor reduc-
1998; Ranade 1995; Ranade and Dommeti 1996).
tion in operational costs. Even though continuous efforts
Different techniques have been proposed for the modeling of
have been done to enhance the performance of different
stirred tank with rotating impellers to overcome the flaws
impellers with consideration of their pumping capacity and
pointed in the ‘black box’ method. The sliding mesh technique
level of mixing attained, a variety of impellers being evolved
was the first approach emanated by Luo et al. (1993) and same
and lead into virtual applications (Dewan et al. 2006). The
path was adopted by Bakker et al. (1997) for the flow modeling
flow structure inside the stirred tank has been investigated
of pitched blade turbine. In the sliding mesh approach, the
with sophisticated flow measurement techniques such as

CONTACT Ajey Kumar Patel ajeypatel@gmail.com

© 2018 Indian Society for Hydraulics
2 H. PATIL ET AL.
stirred vessel is segmented in two sections, the first one impeller
containing section and second section contains the volume of
liquid, vessel wall, vessel base and the baffles. The grid generated
in the impeller occupied section moves with impeller; however,
the grid in vessel section remains in stationary condition.
Sliding mesh technique is more beneficial as it does not require
any boundary conditions acquired from experiments. On the
account of computational expenses, sliding mesh approach is
more costly for the startup problems and this approach is not
economical for design purpose (Dewan et al. 2006).
The second optimistic approach, multiple reference frame
(MRF), was put forward by Luo et al. (1994) for modeling of
impeller rotation. In this approach, stirred vessel is partitioned
into two frames, i.e. a moving frame and stationary frame. The
moving reference frame encapsulates the impeller and the flow
confined by it, and the stationary frame involves the vessel, the
baffles and the flow outside moving frame. MRF approach was
used by Naude et al. (1998) for modeling of baffled stirred tank
with propeller rotor; the results obtained for time averaged
computational mean velocities were found to be in good
agreement with LDA measurements.
The third approach is the snapshot flow model which
was developed by Ranade and Dommeti (1996). This
model was suitable to predict the flow around the impeller
and did not require the experimental data. Further, they
applied this model in the CFD work of stirred tank with
pitched blade turbine and validated the results with experi-
mental LDA measurement of Ranade and Joshi (1990).
The snap shot model as well as MRF model are steady-
state models but the later model is widely adopted by
various researches in comparison with former model
(Deglon and Meyer 2006; Coroneo et al. 2011; Brucato
et al. 1998). Snapshot model does not consider impeller
baffle interactions which considerably affect the accuracy
of flow field predictions in baffled stirred tanks. But MRF
method properly accounts the impeller baffle interactions
by dividing into rotating zone containing impeller and
stationary zone containing baffles. Further snap shot
model is not widely validated throughout the entire flow
domain in any stirred tank as compared to MRF model
(Joshi et al. 2011). Thus, MRF technique is computation-
ally less expensive and does not require any experimental
data (Dewan et al. 2006; Khopkar et al. 2004).
Accuracy in prediction of fluid turbulence is major
challenge in the CFD modeling for stirred tank. Three
different ways have been documented in the literature: (1)
Reynolds averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) equations, (2)
direct numerical simulation (DNS) and (3) large eddy
simulations (LES). In RANS approach, the instantaneous
flow variables are decomposed into the mean and fluctu-
ating components. This is the most widely used approach
for engineering problems (Khopkar et al. 2004; Li et al.
2004) as it is computationally more economical compared
to DNS and LES. In order to solve the RANS equations, it
requires appropriate turbulence model. Every turbulence
models are having their own advantages and disadvan-
tages based on particular investigation. Different turbu-
lence models have been applied to study the flow in
stirred tanks (Murthy and Joshi 2008; Singh et al. 2011;
Gimbun et al. 2012). The instantaneous flow variables are
solved and no modeling is required in the case of DNS.
In RANS model, all scales from smallest to largest are
resolved. In LES, smallest scales are modeled and large
scales are resolved.
Following the literature, MRF impeller rotation model and
RANS turbulence model are suitable for modelling of stirred
tank. Due to high speed of impeller rotation, the flow varia-
tions are very sharp near the impeller. The effective region for
sharp variation in flow is 1.5 times of blade height above and
below the impeller disc and D/2 away from the impeller tip
which is reported by Lee and Yianneskis (1994). Following this
concept, same dimensions have been adopted for inner rotat-
ing fluid zone in MRF technique in the CFD modeling of
stirred tank by Deglon and Meyer (2006). As concerned with
the use of MRF technique for impeller rotation model, no
proper method is available in the literature for how the dimen-
sions of inner rotating zones are considered. With this con-
sideration of the issue for the selection of inner rotating fluid
zone, this work has been done to find the optimal dimension
of inner rotating fluid zone by varying diameter and height of
inner rotating fluid zone.
Also, only few works have been done to develop the CFD
model to characterize the hydrodynamics inside the stirred
or mixing tank which will be ultimately useful for optimal
design of tanks. The optimal inner rotating fluid zone is
considered where simulation results for velocity predictions
such as tangential velocity, radial velocity and axial velocity
were found to be in reasonable agreement with literature
data available by Wu and Patterson (1989). Also, the effi-
ciency of optimal MRF zone is investigated by comparing
the power number predictions at various Reynolds numbers
with the classical experimental results of Rushton et al.
(1950). Moreover, the hydrodynamic characteristics such
as eye of recirculation region, radial pumping capacity and
turbulence dissipation rate are validated against literature
data.
2. Tank configuration and impeller geometry
The stirred tank configuration used for simulation in this
study is same as Wu and Patterson (1989) as shown in
Figure 1. The dimensions used are tank diameter
T = 0.27 m and height of water in tank H = T. The diameter
of turbine used is D = 0.093 m and placed at distance of one
third from the bottom of tank. The water is used as working
fluid for the system with density (ρ) of 998.2 kg/m3 and
dynamic viscosity (μ) of 0.001003 kg/m-s at 25°C. The
speed of impeller (N) was kept at 200 rpm for finding the
optimal dimensions of inner rotating zone.
3. Computational methodology
Finite volume method is used to solve the governing flow
equations. Ansys Fluent 14.5 software package is used for
modeling of stirred tank. The flow domain is divided into
small volumes and mesh is created using meshing tool
available in Ansys. An unstructured tetrahedral mesh is
produced for fluid region while for rotor and baffles struc-
tured hexahedral mesh has been used as shown in Figure 2.
The boundary conditions adopted for CFD model of stirred
tank is shown in Figure 3.
Momentum and turbulence quantities are discretized by
second-order scheme. Pressure staggering option scheme is
adopted for pressure. The velocity and pressure are coupled
 ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING 3

Figure 1. Dimensions of Rushton turbine stirred tank.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 2. Meshing for different parts of CFD model of the stirred tank (a) fluid domain, (b) rotor and baffles and (c) inner rotating fluid zone.

Tank top (symmetry)

Tank wall (stationary wall)

Baffled wall (stationary wall)

Inner rotating zone

Figure 3. Boundary conditions adopted for CFD model.

through the semi-implicit method for pressure linked equa-
tions algorithm. To attain better convergence and stability
in the solution, the under relaxation factor was kept at lower
value. The convergence criterion is kept at 10−4 for con-
tinuity, velocity and turbulence quantities, and the conver-
gence graph is shown in Figure 4.
4. Model equations and turbulence models
4.1. Model equations
Flow behavior inside stirred tank is solved by discretized
governing equations. The governing equations are the
Navier–Stokes equations, which solve the mass and
4 H. PATIL ET AL.

Figure 4. Convergence graph.

momentum conservation equations and provide solution for stresses. The realizable k-ε model solves the two additional
flow variables such as velocity and pressure. The continuity or equations for kinetic energy of turbulence and dissipation
mass conservation equation is given by energy rate; the details of the equations are as follows:

 
@u @v @w @ @   @ μt @k
þ þ ¼0 (1) ðρkÞ þ ρkuj ¼ μþ þ Gk  ρ 2
@x @y @z @t @xj @xj σ k @xj
The momentum conservation equations for incompressible (7)
flow are given by 
 

2  @ @   @ μt @ 2
Du @p @ u @2u @2u ðρ 2 Þ þ ρ 2 uj ¼ μþ þ ρc1 s2
ρ ¼ ρgx  þμ þ þ (2) @t @xj @xj σ 2 @xj
Dt @x @x2 @y2 @z2 22
 ρc2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

2  kþ v2
Dv @p @ v @2v @2v
ρ ¼ ρgy þ μ þ þ (3) (8)
Dt @y @x2 @y2 @z2
where,

2   
Dw @p @ w @2w @2w η k pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ρ ¼ ρgz  þμ þ þ (4) c1 ¼ max 0:43 ; η ¼ s ; s ¼ 2sij sij (9)
Dt @z @x2 @y2 @z2 ηþ5 2
where u; v and w are the fluid velocities in the x; y and z In Equation (7) Gk representsthe generation of k due to mean
directions, respectively, and p is the local pressure. velocity gradients, μt is the turbulent viscosity. The model
constant values are c12 ¼ 1:44; c2 ¼ 1:9; σ k ¼ 1 and
4.2. Turbulence models σ 2 ¼ 1:2 (ANSYS Fluent 14.5 Theory Guide 2013).
As explained earlier, the dimensions of inner rotating
RANS equation is used for turbulence model; in this flow; zones need to be specified in MRF technique for CFD
variables in the instantaneous form are decomposed into modeling of stirred tank. Inner rotating fluid zones with
mean and fluctuating components. Substituting the decom- varying dimensions considered for simulations are shown in
posed form of flow variables in the continuity and momen- Table 1 and the corresponding geometric model for CFD
tum equation and taking a time average yields the ensemble simulation is shown in Figure 5.
averaged continuity and momentum equations. The mod-
ified equations can be written as
5. Results and discussion
@ρ @
þ ðρui Þ ¼ 0 (5) In the literature, the validity of CFD model is tested by
@t @xi
comparing the hydrodynamic parameters with experimental

 data inside the stirred tanks. In this study, qualitative and
@ @   @p @ @ui @uj 2 @ul
ðρui Þ þ ρui uj ¼  þ μ þ  δij quantitative comparison of CFD results with experimental
@t @xj @xi @xj @xj @xi 3 @xl
@  0 i

þ ρui uj
@xj Table 1. Fluid zone numbers and their dimensions.
(6) Inner rotating fluid zone number Height (m) Diameter (m)
1 0.0392 0.0930
The above equations are the RANS equations. The additional 2 0.0410 0.1023
0
term ui uij represents the effects of turbulence and this is called 3 0.0429 0.1116
4 0.0503 0.1488
as Reynolds stresses. It is the job of turbulence model to 5 0.0540 0.1674
compute the value of Reynolds stresses. The realizable k-ε 6 0.0578 0.1860
model is used as turbulence model to compute the Reynolds 7 0.0615 0.2046

Zone 1
Zone 4
Figure 5. Diagrammatic representation of inner rotating fluid zones.
literature has been done in terms of velocity fields and
global flow parameters inside the tank.
5.1. Prediction of mean velocities
In this section, CFD results are predicted in terms of mean
radial, tangential and axial velocities normalized with the
impeller tip speed. The measurement has been done at
radial distance of 5 cm and at an angle of 45°. The results
are plotted in terms of dimensionless parameters as follows:
2z  Ur Uθ Uz
Z ¼ ; Ur ¼ ; Uθ ¼ ; Uz ¼
w Utip Utip Utip
where Utip ¼ πND
In the literature, experimental studies of Wu and Patterson
(1989) have been widely used for the comparison of velocity
fields. Hence, for current work, same literature data is referred
for the comparison of results. The comparison between CFD
predictions and literature data of mean velocity fields at different
inner rotating zone is depicted in Figures 6, 8 and 10. At plane
z ¼ 0, the value of radial and tangential velocities reached to
maximum, as there is sharp variation in flow fields due to
continuous rotation of impeller. CFD slightly under-predicted
the normalized radial velocities but matches the profiles qualita-
tively with reported data. This under-prediction of radial velo-
city could be observed because k–ε turbulence model may not
ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING 5
Zone 2 Zone 3
Zone 6
Zone 5
Zone 7
accurately predict the flow behavior in the impeller region
(Basavarajappa et al. 2015). The peak value of mean radial
velocity predicted by CFD at zone 6 is in good agreement with
literature data compared to other zones (Figure 6). Mean tan-
gential velocities are well predicted by CFD as shown in Figure 8.
The axial location of peak tangential velocity is shifted below as
compared with experiments. The trend of tangential velocity
observed at zone 6 is in good agreement with literature data
compared to other zones (Figure 8).
In order to find the best inner rotating fluid zone among all
seven different inner rotating fluid zones under consideration,
the CFD results of mean radial, mean tangential and mean axial
(10) velocities are quantitatively measured in terms of root mean
squared error (RMSE) and correlation coefficient. RMSE and
correlation coefficient are the basic statistical indicators which
are commonly used by researchers for quantitative evaluation of
model predictions. RMSE measures the difference between the
values predicted by the CFD model and the values observed
from the literature data. Further, the correlation coefficient is
estimated which describes the strength of linear relationship
between CFD model predicted values and literature data. The
smallest value of RMSE and the largest value of correlation
coefficient represent the good match between the CFD predic-
tions and experimental data (Barnston 1992).
The dimensions of inner rotating zones are increased from
zone 1 to zone 7 as shown in Table 1. Zone 1 is very close to
impeller tip and zone 7 is near to baffles. From Figure 7 the
6 H. PATIL ET AL.

2.5 Wu and Patterson (1989) CFD predictions at zone 1

CFD predictions at zone 2 CFD predictions at zone 3

2
CFD predictions at zone 4 CFD predictions at zone 5

1.5 CFD predictions at zone 6 CFD predictions at zone 7

0.5

Z* 0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Ur*
Figure 6. Comparison of mean radial velocity profiles between literature data and CFD predictions for different inner rotating fluid zones.

(a) (b)
Root mean squared error
Correlation coefficient

1.2 0.4 0.356

1 0.933 0.951 0.938 0.956 0.961 0.911 0.35
0.3
0.8 0.25
0.6 0.2 0.151 0.142 0.17
0.4 0.15 0.112 0.112 0.106
0.227 0.1
0.2 0.05
0 0
zone 1 zone 2 zone 3 zone 4 zone 5 zone 6 zone 7 zone 1 zone 2 zone 3 zone 4 zone 5 zone 6 zone 7
Inner rotating zones Inner rotating zones

Figure 7. Correlation coefficient (a) and root mean squared error (b) between CFD predictions and literature data of radial velocity at different inner
rotating fluid zones.

2.5 Wu and Patterson (1989) CFD predictions at zone 1

CFD predictions at zone 2 CFD predictions at zone 3

2
CFD predictions at zone 4 CFD predictions at zone 5
1.5
CFD predictions at zone 6 CFD predictions at zone 7

0.5

0
Z*
-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
U *

Figure 8. Comparison of mean tangential velocity profiles between literature data and CFD predictions for different inner rotating fluid zones.
 ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING 7

RMSE in radial velocity goes on decreasing from zone 1 to zone stirred tank. Further, the zone 6 is considered to investigate the
6 and it increases at zone 7. Similarly the correlation coefficient radial pumping capacity, power number and turbulent dissi-
for radial velocity increases from zone 1 to zone 6 and pation rate.
decreases at zone 7. The best value of RMSE and correlation
coefficient in radial velocity for different zones in comparison
with literature data is found at zone 6. Similarly, the best value 5.2. Location of eye of recirculating loops
of RMSE and correlation coefficient for tangential velocity is
For qualitative comparison of CFD predictions over experimen-
found at zone 6 as shown in Figure 9. But in the case of axial
tal results, the key phenomenon recirculating loops in radial
velocity, slight deviations are found at zone 6 as shown in
flow stirred tank is considered. Velocity vector found in current
Figure 10 and the corresponding RMSE and the correlation
work has been plotted at r-z plane as shown in Figure 12(a). We
coefficient are shown in Figure 11 . As the Rushton turbine is
can see that the radial flow pattern is developed by Rushton
the radial flow impeller, the flow variations predominantly
impeller. The radial jet stream from impeller goes toward the
happen due to radial and tangential velocities. The CFD results
walls and it splits into two regions, one of them circulates toward
at zone 6 are found to qualitatively and quantitatively best
the upper region and other toward the lower region and both
match with literature data and hence the dimensions consid-
finally comes to impeller region. These two streams create two
ered at zone 6 are optimal dimensions for CFD modeling of
circulation loops, one loop is above impeller and other is below

(a) (b)

Root mean squared error

Correlation coefficient

1.2 0.4 0.356

1 0.951 0.949 0.962 0.966 0.977 0.942
0.3
0.8
0.6 0.2
0.1204 0.114 0.11
0.4 0.088 0.092 0.085
0.17 0.1
0.2
0 0
zone 1 zone 2 zone 3 zone 4 zone 5 zone 6 zone 7 zone 1 zone 2 zone 3 zone 4 zone 5 zone 6 zone 7
Inner rotating zones Inner rotating zones

Figure 9. Correlation coefficient (a) and root mean squared error (b) between CFD predictions and literature data of tangential velocity at different inner
rotating fluid zones.

2.5 Wu and Patterson (1989) CFD predictions at zone 1

CFD predictions at zone 2
2
CFD predictions at zone 4
1.5
CFD predictions at zone 6
CFD predictions at zone 3
CFD predictions at zone 5
CFD predictions at zone 7

0.5

Z* 0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Uz*
Figure 10. Comparison of mean axial velocity profiles between literature data and CFD predictions for different inner rotating fluid zones.

(a) (b)
Root mean squared error
Correlation coefficient

1.2 0.1 0.091

1 0.936 0.917 0.912
0.868 0.08
0.8 0.061 0.057 0.057
0.06 0.047
0.6 0.47 0.041 0.04
0.04
0.4
0.2 0.09 0.0905 0.02
0 0
zone 1 zone 2 zone 3 zone 4 zone 5 zone 6 zone 7 zone 1 zone 2 zone 3 zone 4 zone 5 zone 6 zone 7
Inner rotating zones Inner rotating zones

Figure 11. Correlation coefficient (a) and root mean squared error (b) between CFD predictions and literature data of axial velocity at different inner rotating
fluid zones.
8 H. PATIL ET AL.
the impeller. The structure of eye of recirculating loops found in
current work (Figure 12(a)) matches with the experimental
literature data of Ranade and Joshi 1990 as shown in
Figure 12(b).
5.3. Impeller pumping capacities
Flow number is one of the global flow characteristic which is
generally defined in experimental and computational works to
validate their results. The flow number defines rate of liquid
circulation in mixing tanks. The flow number is calculated by
normalizing radial pumping capacity with ND3 . Here, in
Equation 11, radial pumping capacities are obtained by integrat-
ing the mean radial velocities over the axial positions z1 = −2 to
z2 = 2. The speed of impeller was kept at 200 rpm. The trend of
flow number versus radial position is shown in Figure 13. The
radial pumping capacity increases with increase in radial dis-
tance from the impeller tip due to the fluid entrainment.
z2
Qr ¼ 2πr ò Ur dz (11)
z1
The percentage deviation in pumping number values at most of
the radial locations is less than 15%. This shows a good match of
CFD results with that of experimental results of Wu and
Patterson (1989). But the pumping number near the impeller
shows large variations from the experimental results and this
may be due to the limitations of RANS approach as well as k-ε
turbulence model in predicting turbulence quantities (Deglon
and Meyer 2006). Further, the thickness of blade and impeller
disc is not revealed in literature of Wu and Patterson (1989)
(a)
Eye of upper
circulation loop
Eye of upper
circulation loop
Impeller jet stream
Eye of lower
circulation loop
Figure 12. (a) Velocity vector plot at N = 200 rpm (current work). (b) Velocity vector in r-z plane (Ranade and Joshi 1990).
2.5
CFD predictions
1.5
Qr /ND3
1
0.5
0
1 1.2 1.4
Figure 13. Profiles of radial pumping capacity in the impeller stream.
which can significantly affect the pumping number predictions
(Deglon and Meyer 2006). The results of Rushton et al. (1950)
show slight deviations from the CFD results as well as results of
Wu and Patterson (1989) due to the variations in impeller
geometry, operating conditions and measurement techniques
(Wu and Patterson 1989).
5.4. Prediction of power number
For account of process economics, the power required for
stirring is the key factor. In this study, the effect of Reynolds
number on power consumption is studied. The power con-
sumption is defined in terms of dimensionless power number
(Equation 12) where Pis the power given by impeller to liquid
for agitation. The torque (τ) required to calculate the power
consumption is extracted from CFD results.
P
power number ðNp Þ ¼ where P ¼ 2πNτ;
ρN 3 D5
ND2 ρ
NRe ¼ (12)
μ
Figure 14 shows the log–log plot of power number versus
Reynolds number. The Reynolds number is varied from 0.5 to
60,768. In the laminar range, where the Reynolds number is less
than 20, the variation in power number is linear with Reynolds
number. In turbulent regime, where the Reynolds number is
more than 10,000, there is no variation in power number com-
pared to Reynolds number. The CFD predictions of power
number in the laminar regime match closely with experimental
results of Rushton et al. (1950) with percentage deviation less
(b)
Impeller jet stream
Wu and Patterson (1989) Rushton et al. (1950)
1.6 1.8 2 2.2
r/R
 ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING 9

than 12% for all the Reynolds numbers. But the average percen- dissipation is found in the impeller stream region. This
tage deviation in the power number predictions between CFD difference is observed due to the limitations of the RANS
model and experimental results increases to 25% in the turbu- which may not capture the small eddies in this region and
lent regime. This deviation is partly due to limitations of k-ε hence their effect on dissipation rate.
turbulence model as well as variations in the thickness of blades 2
used in experiments as well as in CFD modeling. It is already T ¼ 2 N where 2¼ turbulent energy dissipation rate
Utip
found that the thickness of blades has considerable influence on
power number predictions (Deglon and Meyer 2006). (13)

5.5. Turbulence energy dissipation rate 6. Conclusions

Turbulent intensity is high in the region containing impeller
or impeller stream. There are two energies, turbulent kinetic
energy and turbulence dissipation energy, which are pro-
duced from power of impeller rotation and other energies
are negligible (Wu and Patterson 1989). Figure 15 shows the
comparison of experimental literature data and CFD pre-
dicted normalized local distribution of turbulence energy
dissipation rate. Maximum turbulence energy dissipation
rate is observed at middle part of impeller stream, and in
this region, turbulence intensities are sharp. The percentage
deviation in the CFD predicted turbulent energy dissipation
rate over the literature data is found to be less than 23%.
The maximum percentage change in turbulent energy
The CFD model for stirred tank with Rushton has been
developed and steady-state simulations have been con-
ducted. Based on the comparison of root mean squared
error and correlation coefficient in the predictions of nor-
malized mean velocities, zone 6 having diameter of 0.186 m
and height of 0.0578 m was found to be optimal for CFD
modeling of stirred tank. With the optimized zone, predic-
tions of flow parameters from CFD model show good match
with experimental results. The percentage deviation in the
power number predictions is less than 12% in the laminar
regime while it increases to 25% in the turbulent regime.
But the pumping number predictions at various radial loca-
tions show a percentage deviation less than 15% in

1000
CFD predictions Rushton et al. (1950)

100

Np

10

1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
NRe
Figure 14. Comparison of power number of CFD predictions with literature data.

2.5
CFD predictions Wu and Patterson (1989)
2

1.5

0.5

Z* 0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5
-5 0 5 10 15 20
T*
Figure 15. Distribution of normalized turbulence energy dissipation rate.
10 H. PATIL ET AL.

comparison with experimental results. Moreover, axial pro-
file of normalized turbulent energy dissipation rate was
found to match the experimental results with the relative
difference of 23%. Thus, optimized MRF zone predicts
power number and pumping number under various
Reynolds numbers and radial locations in reasonably accu-
rate manner.
Notation
H Height of water in tank, m
T Tank diameter, m
D Impeller diameter, m
c Impeller clearance, m
l Blade length, m
w Blade width, m
b baffle width, m
N Impeller rotational speed, rpm
u; v; w Fluid velocities in the x; y and z directions respec-
tively, ms−1
r; θ; z Radial, tangential, axial
p The local pressure, Nm−2
C12 ; C2 ; σ k ; σ 2 Model constants used in the equations
k Turbulent kinetic energy, m2s−2
z Axial coordinates, m
r Radial coordinates, m
R Impeller radius, m
Utip Impeller tip speed, m s−1
Ur Mean radial velocity, m s−1
Uθ Mean tangential velocity, m s−1
Uz Mean axial velocity, m s−1
Np Power number = ρNP3 D5
P Power, J s−1
NRe Reynolds number = NDμ ρ
2
Greek symbols
µ Viscosity of water, kg m−1s−1
ϵ Turbulence energy dissipation rate, m2s−3
Ρ Density of water, kg m−3
Acknowledgments
Financial support from Board of Research in Nuclear Science (BRNS),
Government of India, is greatly acknowledged [sanction no. 35/14/32/
2014-BRNS, 23 May 2014).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the Board of Research in Nuclear
Sciences, Government of India [sanction no. 35/14/32/2014-BRNS,
23 May 2014].
References
ANSYS Inc. (2013). ANSYS Fluent 14.5 Theory Guide, Canonsburg,
Pennsylvania.
Bakker, A., Laroche, R.D., Wang, M.H., and Calabrese, R.V. (1997).
“Sliding mesh simulation of laminar flow in stirred reactors.” Trans.
Inst. Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 75, 42–44. doi:10.1205/026387697523372
Barnston, A.G. (1992). “Correspondence among the correlation,
RMSE, and Heidke forecast verification measures; refinement of
Heidke score.” Wea. Forcasting, 7(4), 699–709. doi:10.1175/1520-
0434(1992)007<0699:CATCRA>2.0.CO;2
Basavarajappa, M., Draper, T., Toth, P., Ring, T.A., and Miskovic, S. (2015).
“Numerical and experimental investigation of single phase flow char-
acteristics in stirred tanks using Rushton turbine and floatation impel-
ler.” Min. Eng., 83, 156–167. doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2015.08.018
Brucato, A., Ciofalo, M., Grisafi, F., and Micale, G. (1998). “Numerical
prediction of flow fields in baffled stirred vessels: A comparison of
alternative modelling approaches.” Chem. Eng. Sci., 53(21), 3653–
3684. doi:10.1016/S0009-2509(98)00149-3
Ciofalo, M., Brucato, A., Grisafi, F., and Torraca, N. (1996).
“Turbulent flow in closed and free surface unbaffled tanks stirred
by radial impellers.” Chem. Eng. Sci., 51(14), 3557–3573.
doi:10.1016/0009-2509(96)00004-8
Coroneo, M., Montante, G., Paglianti, A., and Magelli, F. (2011). “CFD
prediction of fluid flow and mixing in stirred tanks: Numerical
issues about the RANS simulations.” Comp. Chem. Eng., 35, 1959–
1968. doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2010.12.007
Deglon, D.A., and Meyer, C.J. (2006). “CFD modelling of stirred tanks
numerical considerations.” Min. Eng., 19, 1059–1068. doi:10.1016/j.
mineng.2006.04.001
Dewan, A., Buwa, V., and Durst, F. (2006). “Performance optimiza-
tions of grids disc impellers for mixing of single phase flows in a
stirred vessel.” Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 84(A8), 691–702. doi:10.1205/
cherd05044
Gimbun, J., Rielly, C.D., Nagy, Z.K., and Derksen, J.J. (2012).
“Detached eddy simulation on the turbulent flow in a stirred
tank.” AIChE J., 58(10), 3224–3241. doi:10.1002/aic.v58.10
Joshi, J.B., Nere, N.K., Rane, C.V., Murthy, B.N., Mathpati, C.S.,
Patwardhan, A.W., and Ranade, V.V. (2011). “CFD simulation of
stirred tanks: Comparison of turbulence models. Part 1-radial flow
impellers.” Can. J. Chem. Eng., 89, 23–82. doi:10.1002/cjce.20446
Khopkar, A.R., Mavros, P., Ranade, V.V., and Bertrand, J. (2004).
“Simulation of flow generated by an axial-flow impeller: Batch
and continuous operation.” Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 82(A6), 737–
751. doi:10.1205/026387604774196028
Lee, K.C., and Yianneskis, M. (1994). “The extent of periodicity of the
flow in vessels stirred by Rushton impellers.” AIChE Symposium
Series, 90, 5–18.
Li, M., White, G., Wilkinson, D., and Roberts, K.J. (2004). “LDA measure-
ments and CFD modelling of a stirred vessel with a retreat curve
impeller.” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 43, 6534–6547. doi:10.1021/ie034222s
Luo, J.Y., Gosman, A.D., Issa, R.I., Middleton, J.C., and Fitzgerald, M.
K. (1993). “Full flow field computation of mixing in baffled stirred
vessels.” Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 71, 342–344.
Luo, J.Y., Issa, R.I., and Gosman, A.D. (1994). “Prediction of impeller-
induced flows in mixing vessels using multiple frames of reference.”
IChE Symposium Series, 136, 549–556.
Murthy, B., and Joshi, J. (2008). “Assessment of standard, RSM and
LES turbulence models in a baffled stirred vessel agitated by various
impeller designs.” Chem. Eng. Sci., 63(22), 5468–5495. doi:10.1016/j.
ces.2008.06.019
Naude, I., Xuereb, C., and Bertrand, J. (1998). “Direct prediction of the flows
induced by a propeller in an agitated vessel using an unstructured mesh.”
Can. J. Chem. Eng., 76, 631–640. doi:10.1002/cjce.v76:3
Paul, E.L., Atiemo-Obeng, V.A., and Kresta, S.M. (2004). Handbook of
industrial mixing science, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Ranade, V.V. (1995). “Computational fluid dynamics for reactor engineer-
ing.” Rev. Chem. Eng., 11, 229–289. doi:10.1515/REVCE.1995.11.3.229
Ranade, V.V., and Dommeti, S.M.S. (1996). “Computational snapshot
of flow generated by axial impellers in baffled stirred vessels.”
Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., 74, 476–484.
Ranade, V.V., and Joshi, J.B. (1990). “Flow generated by a disc turbine
Part I: Experimental.” Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., 68, 19–33.
Rushton, J.H., Costich, E.W., and Everett, H.J. (1950). “Power character-
istics of mixing impellers –Part II.” Chem. Eng. Prog., 46, 467–476.
Singh, H., Fletcher, D.F., and Nijdam, J.J. (2011). “An assessment of
different turbulence models for predicting flow in a baffled tank
stirred with a Rushton turbine.” Chem. Eng. Sci., 66(23), 5976–5988.
doi:10.1016/j.ces.2011.08.018
Wu, H., and Patterson, G.K. (1989). “Laser-Doppler measurements of
turbulent-flow parameters in a stirred mixer.” Chem. Eng. Sci., 44,
2207–2221. doi:10.1016/0009-2509(89)85155-3
Yapici, K., Karasozen, B., Schafer, M., and Uludug, Y. (2008).
“Numerical investigation of the effect of Rushton type turbine
design factors on agitated tank flow characteristics.” Chem. Eng.
Proc., 47, 1340–1349. doi:10.1016/j.cep.2007.05.002

View publication stats