Department of Chemical Engineering University of San Carlos Technological Center Nasipit, Talamban, Cebu City

ChE 422L Chemical Engineering Laboratory 1

Agitation of Liquids (Agitation of Water in a Cylindrical Tank)

A Final Report submitted to: Engr. May V. Tampus Instructor, ChE422L

By: Campos, Anthony Kevin

March 13, 2012

ChE 422L Final Report

Agitation of Liquids

Page 1

I. INTRODUCTION Agitation is a means by which a bulk fluid motion in a material is induced through the aid of the operation of a mechanical device on the fluid. Agitation enhances mass and heat transfer between phases or with external surfaces and is one of the oldest and most common operations in chemical engineering. Although agitation seems to be interchangeable with the term mixing, they are technically different in the sense that mixing is just one of the goals of agitation. Mixing is the random distribution in and through two or more phases to achieve a homogenous phase (McCabe et. al., 2001), while agitation on the other hand is the production of turbulent motion so that these phases are randomly distributed through each other. There are four main operational goals of agitation; (1) Mass transfer in heterogeneous systems, (2) Mixing or blending two liquids, (3) Physical change or emulsification, and (4) Heat transfer and uniformity of temperature. Each goal may entail a different specification of agitation equipment, but the general setup includes a vessel for liquid which may or may not accommodate the presence of baffles and other tank fixtures, as well as an impeller which is connected to a motor through a shaft along with the monitoring and control equipment for its operation. Furthermore, in all cases, in order for the agitation to be effective, there are two requirements that must be met. There must be no dead or stagnant zones and a zone of intensive or high shear mixing must be present to break down inhomogeneities. In order to accomplish agitation, mechanical energy for the operation of process is required. The energy consumption and, more importantly, the mixing effectiveness are influenced by many factors. These factors include the flow patterns produced by the fluid when agitated which is dependent on the tank specifications; the shape and size of the tank, the presence of baffles, the type and speed of the impeller, as well as the characteristics and properties of the fluid itself at the given conditions of the operation. Three main velocity components make up the flow pattern within the vessel; the tangential component which corresponds to the circular path around the impeller shaft, the axial component for the flow directed parallel to the impeller shaft, and lastly the radial component which acts away perpendicularly from the impeller shaft. One important consideration in the agitation operation that is considered in the experiment is the effect of the presence of baffles within the agitation vessel. This has a significant effect on the flow patterns in that it influences which flow components dominates during the agitation process itself. ChE 422L Final Report Agitation of Liquids Page 2

Without the presence of baffles a vortex may be formed. A vortex is created when the tangential component of the flow dominates the movement of the fluid and causes swirling. Furthermore, the swirling causes a prolonged stratification at different levels without promoting axial flow and thus concentration of a substance occurs instead of mixing. (McCabe et. al., 2001). The presence of baffles on the other hand serves to disrupt the swirling effect and minimize tangential flow. This way, the axial and radial flow components can play a role in the agitation. When the agitation process is brought up to large scale, the volume of the liquid as well as the mixing time are important factors to consider. The volume of the liquid, the circulation of the impeller, as well as the time of operation must be sufficient enough to carry the flow throughout the whole vessel and allow for effective agitation to occur. The generation of this turbulent motion and the circulation of the fluid require energy. Experiments on small units are generally the basis of the design of large-scale mixing equipment. Geometric, kinematic, and dynamic similarity between the pilot vessel and the large vessel are essential. The energy required in producing the turbulent motion within a fluid, should be enough to overcome the resisting forces such as form drag and skin friction, associated with the movement of the fluid past the baffles, if present, and the tank wall. Ultimately, the tank design and impeller specifications dictate how much energy must be supplied. Thus, the power requirement is a function of many variables and is equally important to be provided for in order for agitation to occur. Using existing correlations between the Reynolds number and the Power Number, the power requirement for different agitation systems can be predicted. II. OBJECTIVES OF THE EXPERIMENT 1. Compare visually the fluid motion in a baffled and an unbaffled tank agitated by a mechanical impeller. 2. 3. Investigate the effect of the impeller speed on the power requirement for agitation. Calculate the theoretical power requirements for agitation and compare with experimentally determined values. 4. Determine the time required to achieve complete mixing in a baffled or unbaffled tank using an electrolyte tracer. 5. Design a large-scale mixer using data obtained from the small-scale agitation experiments. ChE 422L Final Report Agitation of Liquids Page 3

III. METHODOLOGY III.1 Materials Water Salt Solution 0.1 N KCl Solution Standard

III.2 Apparatus Thermometer Ruler and Tape Measure 50-mL, 100-mL, and 5 L beakers

III.3 Equipment Conductivity Meter (Appendix Figure 2) Fluid Mixing Apparatus (Appendix Figure 1)

III.4 Procedures III.4.A Preliminary Steps The cord between the torque arm and the balance was disconnected and the impeller motor and the baffles were removed. The dimensions of the impeller as well as that of the tank and baffles were measured and noted down. The assigned impeller was attached to the impeller shaft, and placed back into the agitation vessel as well as the baffles. The cord of the balance was reattached to the torque arm, and the dynamometer was checked for correct setting. The discharge valve was closed and the tank was filled with water with a height not greater than 35 cm and falls within the range specified in relevant literature on Power No. correlations. The temperature of the water was then measured and recorded. The density of the absolute viscosity was then obtained from appropriate tables and noted. The speed control knob was set to zero. The support screw was released to allow the balance to come to rest. It was then tightened and the initial value recorded.

ChE 422L Final Report

Agitation of Liquids

Page 4

III.4.B Power Requirements and Flow Pattern Visual Observation The agitator was connected to the power outlet and turned on. The agitators RPM knob was gradually increased and the corresponding speed shown on the display was recorded. The actual RPM was determined from the correction equation provided. The force reading from the balance was recorded and the fluid motion in the vessel was described and noted down. The RPM knob was increased once again to a higher RPM setting and the same measurements of RPM, force reading, and fluid motion were taken. A second run was performed without the presence of baffles.

III.4.C Mixing Time After having calibrated the conductivity meter (III.4.E), the conductivity cell holder was placed in an elevated position and the probe installed to the tank in a depth not greater than 4 cm and between the tank wall and impeller shaft. The agitator was switched on and the RPM knob was adjusted to the setting assigned by the instructor. The conductivity meter reading was recorder every 5 seconds and the after 10 measurements the average conductivity was determined. Two 80-mL portions of the salt solution (312.5 g/L) were obtained. The first portion of the salt solution was then added to the agitation vessel opposite to the conductivity cell and the conductivity was recorder after every 3 seconds for the first 2 minutes. After that, the readings were taken in intervals of 10 seconds until 5 minutes have elapsed or the readings have stabilized. The speed control was turned to zero and the agitator switched off. The liquid was drained from the tank and replaced with fresh water. All aforementioned steps were then repeated for the second trial using the second 80-mL portion of the salt solution. III.4.D Shutdown Operations The impeller and baffles were cleaned and returned to their respective places. The force balance was repositioned and locked so there will be no cord tension. Agitation of Liquids Page 5

ChE 422L Final Report

III.4.E

Calibration of the Conductivity Meter The conductivity meter was placed on a flat surface and plugged into a 220 V socket and the power switch turned on. The probe and sensor cell was rinsed with distilled water. The temperature of the 0.1 N KCl solution standard was measured after placing it on a 50-mL beaker. The probe was placed in the beaker containing the standard solution and the reading was adjusted using the cell-adjustment-knob to fit the corrected reading from the actual temperature from the equation provided in the manual.

The spent KCl solution was then discarded and the probe was rinsed with water.

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS IV.I Raw Data and Measurements Tank Diameter, Da Impeller Diameter Torque Arm Baffles (4) Water Temperature Table 1.1 0.288 m 0.120 m 0.111 m 0.020 m 28.5C

Data and Observations for Agitation of a Baffled Tank Force Reading

RPM Setting Actual RPM [kg x10-3] [N x10-2] 100 150 200 85.16 148.16 211.16 1.18 1.22 1.37 1.14 1.21 1.32

Type of Fluid Motion

smooth fluid rotation; slight surface deformation roughing out of fluid rotation; onset of swirling surface deformation surface deformation; swirling small caving in of surface towards the shaft surface deformation; strong swirling caving in of surface towards the shaft; presence of small bubble swirls at the shaft; onset of eddies at baffles Page 6

250

274.16

1.52

1.50

ChE 422L Final Report

Agitation of Liquids

Table 1.2

Data and Observations for Agitation of an Unbaffled Tank Force Reading

RPM Setting Actual RPM [kg x10-3] [N x10-2] 100 150 200 250 Table 1.3 85.16 148.16 211.16 274.16 1.23 1.26 1.28 1.32 1.21 1.22 1.24 1.3

Type of Fluid Motion

surface deformation; caving in of surface towards the shaft evident circulatory flow of fluid; onset of small vortex formation strong circulatory flow of fluid; vortex formation (uniform cone shape) strong circulatory flow of fluid; large vortex formation (erratic cone shape)

Data and Settings for Mixing Time Procedure Force Reading RPM Setting Actual RPM [kg x10-3] [N x10-2] 100 85.16 1.11 1.10

Fluid Motion Observations in a Baffled and Unbaffled Tank Taking into consideration Tables 1.1 and 1.2, the observations show that there is a significant difference in the flow pattern and fluid behaviour for a baffled and unbaffled tank. For the unbaffled tank, as seen in Table 1.2, lower impeller speeds causes surface deformation and already shows the onset of vortex formation through the caving in of the fluid surface towards the shaft. Increasing the impeller speeds causes swirling and the enlargement of the vortex. This is because at higher speeds, the tangential component of the flow pattern in an unbaffled tank dominates and thus a large vortex is formed. The same cannot be said for a baffled tank, as shown in Table 1.1. There is a smooth flow of the fluid and only a slight surface deformation at lower impeller speeds. As the impeller speed was increased, there were only minimal increases to the caving in of the fluid and no significant vortex was formed. At higher impeller speeds, evidence of turbulence was noted through the erratic bubble swirls at the impeller shaft as well as the onset of the formation of eddies at the baffles. The presence of baffles then prohibits the formation of a vortex and promotes turbulence throughout the flow. ChE 422L Final Report Agitation of Liquids Page 7

Table 2.1a Initial Conductivity for Mixing Time (Trial 1)

t [s] 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Conductivity [mS/cm] 1.28 1.28 1.30 1.21 1.29 1.28 1.29 1.29 1.31 1.31 1.30

Table 2.1

Conductivity Readings for Mixing Time (Trial 1)

t [s] 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48

Conductivity [mS/cm] 6.64 4.65 4.22 4.10 3.94 3.71 3.73 3.64 3.58 3.51 3.54 3.53 3.54 3.52 3.51 3.10 3.52

t [s] 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99

Conductivity [mS/cm] 3.50 3.50 3.44 3.50 3.50 3.49 3.49 3.50 3.50 3.49 3.51 3.51 3.49 3.49 3.49 3.50 3.50

t [s] 102 105 108 111 114 117 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220

Conductivity [mS/cm] 3.49 3.49 3.50 3.50 3.44 3.50 3.49 3.49 3.50 3.49 3.49 3.00 3.50 3.50 3.48 3.50 3.51

t [s] 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360

Conductivity [mS/cm] 3.50 3.51 3.49 3.50 3.50 3.49 3.49 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50

ChE 422L Final Report

Agitation of Liquids

Page 8

Table 2.2a Initial Conductivity for Mixing Time (Trial 2)

t [s] 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Conductivity [mS/cm] 1.41 1.40 1.42 1.45 1.41 1.42 1.40 1.41 1.42 1.39 1.39

Table 2.2

Conductivity Readings for Mixing Time (Trial 2)

t [s] 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48

Conductivity [mS/cm] 1.39 3.00 3.93 3.02 3.56 3.71 3.72 3.68 3.69 3.61 3.69 3.68 3.61 3.68 3.61 3.68 3.66

t [s] 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99

Conductivity [mS/cm] 3.61 3.69 3.68 3.69 3.66 3.61 3.68 3.61 3.61 3.61 3.68 3.66 0.68 3.66 3.61 3.66 3.65

t [s] 102 105 108 111 114 117 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220

Conductivity [mS/cm] 3.66 3.64 3.65 3.66 3.68 3.66 3.66 3.65 3.64 3.66 3.66 3.63 3.65 3.64 3.64 3.64 3.63

t [s] 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360

Conductivity [mS/cm] 3.65 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63

ChE 422L Final Report

Agitation of Liquids

Page 9

IV.IIa Notations Da DT Zi Zl N F r P NPo NRe Impeller Diameter [m] Tank Diameter [m] Impeller Elevation [m] Height of Liquid [m] Impeller Speed [rpm] Force Reading [N] Torque Arm [N] Density [kg/m3] Viscosity [cP] Power [W] Power Number Reynolds Number

IV.IIb Equations Used Actual RPM ( Reynolds Number )

Theoretical Power Requirement

Corrected Theoretical Power ( ( )( )( ) )

Actual Power Requirement

ChE 422L Final Report

Agitation of Liquids

Page 10

Mixing Time ( ( ) ( ( )

) )

Scale-up Ratio ( )

Scaled-up Tank Diameter

Scaled-up Impeller Speed ( ) *assuming equal Power-to-Volume ratio

IV.I Table 3.1

Processed Data Power Calculations for the Baffled Tank Trial Actual RPM 85.16 148.16 211.16 274.16 Pactual [W] 0.0063 0.0301 0.0859 0.2029 NRe 24737 43037 61337 79638 NPo 6.20 6.55 6.75 6.95 Ptheo [W] 0.4394 2.4445 7.2928 16.4343 Ptheo, corr [W] 0.3641 2.0254 6.0424 13.6167 %
difference

RPM Settings 100 150 200 250 Table 3.2

98.27 98.51 98.58 98.51

Power Calculations for the Unbaffled Tank Trial Actual RPM 85.16 148.16 211.16 274.16 Pactual [W] 0.0016 0.0055 0.0156 0.0507 NRe 24737 43037 61337 79638 NPo 0.171 0.170 0.168 0.164 Ptheo [W] 0.0121 0.0634 0.1815 0.3885 Ptheo, corr [W] 0.04541 0.23775 0.68016 1.45586 %
difference

RPM Settings 100 150 200 250

96.53 97.69 97.70 96.52

ChE 422L Final Report

Agitation of Liquids

Page 11

Graph 1 Actual Power Requirement for Agitation versus Actual Impeller Speed
0.20 Actual Power (W) 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 50 100 150 200 250 300 Actual Impeller Speed (rpm) baffled tank unbaffled tank

The Effect of Impeller Speed on the Power Requirement for Agitation Graph 1 shows the effect of increasing the impeller speed to the power required to operate the agitation process. As the impeller speed is increased, the power required also increases. This is because a greater energy is needed to sustain the higher impeller speed as it induces motion in the fluid. Furthermore, comparing the two tank configuration shows that there is a greater increase in power requirement for the baffled tank than with the unbaffled tank. This is due to the addition of new factors in the resistances present in the system. The presence of baffles introduces form and skin drag from the surfaces of the baffles itself, as well as added turbulence to the system (e.g. formation of eddies at the baffle edges). Overcoming these additional resistances requires greater energy and thus the power requirement increases.

Graph 2 Theoretical Power Required versus Actual Power Required

Theoretical Power (corrected) 14.00000 12.00000 10.00000 8.00000 6.00000 4.00000 2.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.05000 0.10000 0.15000 0.20000 Baffled tank Unbaffled Tank

Actual Power

ChE 422L Final Report

Agitation of Liquids

Page 12

Comparison of Theoretical and Actual Power Requirements Table 3.1 and 3.2, shows the theoretical power requirements calculated and the actual power requirements obtained from the experiment. It can be observed from the data that the theoretical power requirement is greater than the actual power requirement from the experiment. The overestimation is due to the differences in the values used in the calculations. The values available from literature are only that of a six-blade turbine, whereas an eight-blade turbine is used in the experiment. However, if we look at the last column of the two tables, it is seen that there is a relatively similar percent difference between theoretical and actual values of about a 98% and 97% for the baffled and unbaffled tanks respectively. Graph 2 also supports this observation, as a nearly linear relationship is shown from the plot. Furthermore, the slope of the lines show the degree of overestimation, in that a greater slope means a greater overestimation is done. This is in agreement to the calculated percent differences where the baffled tank has a higher 98% difference from the Table and a higher slope from the Graph. The greater difference in power requirement, and the equivalent overestimation, can be rooted back to the greater amount of resistance present in a baffled system (presence of additional form and skin drag, and turbulence from the presence of baffles) than with an unbaffled system as tackled in the discussion of the previous objective. Table 4 Calculated Mixing Times for a Baffled and Unbaffled Tank Tank Unbaffled Baffled Mixing Time [s] 13.58 8.98

Graph 3.1 Conductivity versus Time (Unbaffed Tank)

3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0 50 100 150 Time [s] 200 250 300 Conductivity [mS/cm]

ChE 422L Final Report

Agitation of Liquids

Page 13

Graph 3.2 Conductivity versus Time (Baffled Tank)

Conductivity [mS/cm] 2.75 2.25 1.75 1.25 0.75 0.25 0 60 120 180 Time [s] 240 300 360

Mixing Time in a Baffled and Unbaffled Tank Table 4 shows the calculated mixing time for the baffled and unbaffled, while Graphs 3.1 and 3.2 show the plot of conductivity of the solution as a function of time. The values from Table 4 show that a greater mixing time is required for an unbaffled tank as compared to a baffled one. This observation is also supported from Graphs 3.1 and 3.2, where the variation of the conductivity in a baffled tank starts to decrease; there is still a considerable variation in the conductivity of the unbaffled tank. This means that the baffled tank has achieved a relatively uniform concentration at an earlier time than the unbaffled time. This is because the unbaffled tanks exhibit a dominant tangential component of the flow pattern, thus the solute in the system flows along the circulatory path with the fluid; whereas the introduction of baffles in the tank minimizes the tangential flow and adds turbulence (through swirling and formation of eddies) and promotes the axial and radial flows which allows for better mixing of the solute within the fluid. Table 5.1 Experimental and Scale-up Dimensions of the Agitation Set-up Experimental 0.287 0.420 0.065 0.061 0.176 0.025 0.440 0.265 8.2034 Page 14 Scale-Up 2.3540 3.4450 0.5332 0.5004 1.4438 0.2051 3.6095 2.1739

D [m] h [m] L [m] w [m] Impeller D [m] w [m] h [m] Baffles D [m] Scale-Up Ratio: Tank ChE 422L Final Report

Agitation of Liquids

Table 5.2 Calculation of Mixing Times at Different Scale-up Conditions Scale-up Conditions Equal Froude Numbers Equal Power-Volume Ratios Equal Maximum Liquid Velocities Scale-up Problem Table 5.1 shows the scale-up dimensions as well as the scale-up ration to be used in the succeeding scale-up calculations. Using this scale-up ration and combining it with the data obtained from the Mixing Time part of the experiment, the power requirements and mixing times needed for complete mixing in a tank holding 15 m3 of water at different conditions were obtained. These different conditions are (a) Equal Froude Numbers, (b) Equal Power-Volume Ratios, and (c) Equal Maximum Liquid Velocities; which have corresponding power requirements and mixing times as seen in Table 5.2. Pilot Scale RPM 85.16 85.16 85.16 Scale-up RPM 10.38 20.94 29.73 NRe 436527 880391 1250282 Power [W] 227 1859 5324 tmix [s] 263.37 130.59 91.95

V. CONCLUSIONS Agitation in unbaffled tanks has a dominant tangential component of the flow pattern which results in the caving in of the fluid at lower impeller speeds and the formation of a vortex at higher impeller speeds; whereas an unbaffled tank minimizes the tangential component and has increased turbulence through the addition of baffles which introduces additional resistances. The power requirement for agitation is directly proportional to the impeller speed. There is an overestimation in the calculation of the theoretical power requirement which is higher than the actual power requirement for agitation. The time required to achieve complete mixing for a baffled tank at an actual impeller speed of 85.16 revolutions per minute is 8.98 seconds and 13.58 seconds for an unbaffled tank. The scale-up ratio of an agitator with a capacity of 15 m3 from the pilot experiment is 8.2034. Furthermore, the power requirement and mixing time for the scale-up conditions are 227 W and 263.37 seconds for Equal Froude Numbers, 1859 W and 130.59 seconds for Equal PowerVolume Ratios, and 5324 W and 91.95 seconds for Equal Maximum Liquid Velocities.

ChE 422L Final Report

Agitation of Liquids

Page 15

VI. REFERENCES Brown, G.G. et Al. (1973). Unit Operations, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. Geankoplis, C. J. (2003). Principles of Transport Processes and Separation Processes, 4th Edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. McCabe, W.L. et. Al. (2001). Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering, 6th Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc., Singapore.

VII. APPENDIX Figure 1 Fluid Mixing Apparatus

Figure 2

Conductivity Meter

1. 2. 1 3.

Conductivity Probe Probe Holder and Stand Conductivity Meter Console

ChE 422L Final Report

Agitation of Liquids

Page 16