Process Intensifier: Optimization Using CFD: Paper 362c

Process Intensifier:
Optimization Using CFD

Part 1
Paper 362c
Pete Csiszar, Black & Baird Ltd., North Vancouver, B.C.

Keith Johnson, Independent Consultant, North Canton, Oh
Post Mixing Optimization and Solutions, Pittsford, NY
’03 AIChE Annual Meeting
Nov 16-21, San Francisco
Post Mixing
Optimization and Solutions
Process Intensification
 High P/V, high shear, small volume, small residence time
 Applications
 High Speed Dispersion of Bentonite
 Ex-situ Bioremediation of Organics
 Rapid Mixing of Water Treatment Polymers
 Preparation of Coatings
 Beverage Industry
 Flotation
 Chemical Extraction
 Series-parallel Reactions
 Oxidation Processes
 Emulsification Applications
 Dry Material Wetting
 Chemical Neutralization
 Mixing of High Viscosity Shear Thinning Fluids
 High P/V, high shear, small volume, small residence time
Post Mixing
Introduction
Internet Search
 Lightnin Line-Blender
 Radial and Axial impeller designs
 Hayward Gordon In-line Mixer
 Radial and Axial impeller designs
 No systematic study reported on them
 Use CFD to understand and optimize these
pipe mixers
Post Mixing
Introduction
CFD confirmation using standard mixing
configurations, T=12.5” (317.5 mm)
RP4 radial impeller PBT axial impeller

5” RP4 D/T=0.4 5” 3PBT30 D/T=0.4
Post Mixing
Experimental Design
Studied 4 Dynamic Pipe Mixers
 Did not consult with the vendors. Data is taken
directly from their respective web sites
LTR HGR LTA HGA

2x 5” RP4 2x 5” RP4 2x 3.5” 3PBT30 2x 5” 3PBT30
Post Mixing
Experimental Design
All units were studied in a nominal
schedule 40 10-inch pipe (254 mm)
 DO=5 1/8” (130 mm) for LTR and HGR
Q = 1100 GPM (250 m3/hr) – 10” pipe
Q = 650 GPM (148 m3/hr) – 8” pipe
N = 1760 RPM (motor speed)
Post Mixing
Experimental Design
Post Mixing
CFD Background
ACUSOLVE GLS-FE
 Rigorous stability and convergence proofs
 Local / Global Conservation operators
 High Performance
 Accuracy - Advective / Diffusive operators
Post Mixing
CFD Background
 w u

i ,t  u j ui , j  bi   wi ,i p  wi , j ij d
  q,i ui d

   w,t  u j wi , j  qi  m u,t  uk ui ,k  p,i   ki ,k  bi d e

e e
   wi ,i cu j , j d e GLS Terms

e e
  wi  pni   ji n j   qi u j n j d

Minimize error of approximating functions M = O ( h / |V| ) Advective

Hyperbolic/Parabolic Automatic: M = O ( h2 /  ) Diffusive
Stability and Convergence Proven
Post Mixing
Optimization and Solutions Galerkin / Least-Squares
Reynolds number of 40,000
7,200 brick elements; 14,822 nodes
Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model
Advection / Diffusion “continuously” varying
Post Mixing Backward Facing Step Problem

Optimization and Solutions (Advection / Diffusion Example)
Even for this coarse mesh
 Able to predict the two
smaller eddies near the
recirculation corner
 Smallest eddy captured
within a radius of 3-
elements
Predicted reattachment length
= 7.05 (step height)
 Experimental results =
7±0.1
Post Mixing Backward Facing Step Problem

Optimization and Solutions (Advection / Diffusion Accuracy)
These models tended to
converge in the range of
20 to 30 nonlinear
iterations, to a
normalized residual
tolerance of less than
1.0 E-3.
Runs on a 1.8 GHz
laptop computer with
512 MB of memory in
roughly 2 hours.
Runs on a parallel
configuration of two 2.0
GHz PCs with 2.0 GB
memory each, and the
solutions required only
about 30 minutes each
Post Mixing
Results: CFD Mesh
Lightnin Hayward Gordon
Radials
Axials
Post Mixing
CFD Solid Shapes
Reduce Assumptions / Approximations
 Eliminate local entry flow assumptions for mixer inlet /
outlet - used long entry exit
 Model size (DOF) not a major issue
 Accurately solves forward / backward facing step
problems
Geometry Idealized
 Sufficient Fluid Mechanics Performance Equivalency
 Eliminates Vendor Conflict / Propriety
ICEM/CFD autohexa extensions for geometry/mesh
Post Mixing
CFD Modeling Considerations
Validation / Confirmation Approach Defined
 Standard tank configurations run to assess power and
flow characteristics independently with respect to
Industry Data
 Discretization sensitivity considered
General Flow Solution - Defined - (No Turbulence)
 Discretization dependent
 Captures flow separations / eddys
 May produce stable macro / mezzo flow oscillations
 Lower bound power / torque
Post Mixing
Optimization and Solutions CFD Analysis Approach
Turbulence Considerations / Concepts Considered
 Philosophy - “unresolved” eddy diffusion / dissipation /
production
 Intended for “micro” scale turbulence
 Turbulence introduced becomes upper bound to power /
torque
Discrete particle tracking - Turbulent
 Residence Time Statistics
 Mixing Assessments
 Proprietary algorithms based on Eddy Viscosity
Post Mixing
Optimization and Solutions CFD Analysis Approach (Cont)
Power numbers
 RP4, h/D=0.2
 N=360 RPM
 P/V = 5 Hp/1000 gallons (1 kW/m3)
 Z/T = 1, 4 standard, wb/T = 0.1
 Np(CFD) = 2.985
 Np(Lightnin) = 3.4
 Oldshue Proximity Factor = 0.87, Np = 2.958
 CFD Proximity Factor = 0.878
 Conclusion: Oldshue was right!
Post Mixing
Results: Power Number
Power numbers
 3PBT30, h/D=0.25
 Np(CFD) = 0.55 OB/D = same as HGA
 Np(CFD) = 0.57 OB/D = same as LTA
 PF=1.044: Agrees with Oldshue, again!
 Np(4PBT45, h/D=0.2) = 1.27
 Nagata: sin(angle)1.2 Np(4PBT30, h/D=0.2) = 0.63
 Shaw: Np(4PBT30, h/D=0.2)=0.58
 Nagata: 77.5% of a 4-bladed impeller

 Np(3PBT30 h/D=0.2) = 0.45-0.48
 Nagata: h/D = 0.2 to 0.25 = an increase of 21%
 Np(3PBT30 h/D=0.25) = 0.54-0.58
 Conclusion: Nagata was right!
Post Mixing
Post Mixing
These small units can agitate up to 1.584
Million Gallons (6 Million Liters) per day (at
1100 GPM (250 m3/hr))
Post Mixing
Results: Power
85  P/V  715 Hp/1000 Gallons
17  P/V  143 kW/m3
Post Mixing
Results: P/V
Rule-of-thumb: Impeller generated flow should be at
least 3 times the pipe throughput.
Not one of these devices complies.
Even the LTA appears to be doing some mixing at 650
GPM, which has R = 28% or about 1/4th the pipe flow
rate.
LTA seems to have lost its mixing ability at 1100 GPM.
Perhaps the rule-of-thumb for Process Intensifiers is
that impeller generated flow should be at least 1/4th
the pipe throughput.
Post Mixing
Results: Impeller Flow to Throughput
Default max-min pressure fields
Post Mixing
Results: Pressure Drop
Common scale pressure fields
Post Mixing
Results: Pressure Drop Normalized
Post Mixing
Results: Velocity Vectors
Post Mixing
Post Mixing
Post Mixing
Post Mixing
Results: Velocity Distribution
Post Mixing
Results: Flow Visualization
Post Mixing
Results: Flow Visualization
LTA:
650
GPM
Post Mixing
Results: Tracer Study
LTA:
1100
GPM
Post Mixing
LTR:
1100
GPM
HGA:
1100
GPM
Post Mixing
Post Mixing
Results: Residence Time Distribution
Post Mixing
LTA: 1100 GPM
 Single Input, 1750 RPM
 Single Input, 0 RPM
 Multiple Inputs, 1750 RPM
Post Mixing
Post Mixing Results: Comparison to Non-
Optimization and Solutions Newtonian Fluid
This report demonstrates the versatility of using CFD to
model and understand a complex mixing device such as the
Process Intensifier.
Previous use of CFD often meant very long computing time
and it was often quicker to do the experiment. Not any more.
ACUSOLVE was successfully able to determine the power
number of the impellers within 1% of reported values without
the use of fudge factors on a repeatable basis.
 Must be right if it says that Oldshue and Nagata were right!
This demonstrates that the ACUSOLVE CFD code
formulation and its adherence to fundamental physics are
extensible to handle the arbitrary geometric structures and
flow conditions of inline mixers.
Solutions consistent with general fundamental
understandings of these mixer classes. However, past
conventional wisdom concerning assumed internal details,
clearly challenged by detailed CFD results.
Post Mixing
Conclusions
Four configurations studied, yielding insights for mixing improvements.
For example, tracer inlet location sensitivity, impeller locations, pumping
direction, size, speed.
All examples demonstrated under sized impeller capacity for specified
flow. Part 2 will talk about impeller optimization for Process Intensifiers.
Specific optimizations are clearly a function of application, fluid rheology,
and mixing needs.
Provides a substantial platform for further wide ranging parameter study
for specific application optimization.
Post Mixing
www.postmixing.com
Evidence of the speed and
accuracy of Acusolve CFD
 Paper given last night from 5:27 PM to 6:00
PM
 Computational time = 90 minutes (Laptop)
 A Novel Mixing Technology Provides Benefits
in Alumina Precipitation, Ian C. Shepherd*,
Clive Grainger, CSIRO Australia
 T = 14 m, Z = 40 m, conical bottom, V  6158
m3
 Upper Oversized RT
 D/T=0.30, w/D=0.333, h/D=0.29
 Settling velocity = 0.126 m/s
 Upward (red) flow = 0.3 m/s
 Downward (blue) flow = 0.15 m/s
 Resulting Np = 4.7 (fully baffled  7.5)
 Resulting Power = 230 kW
 Resulting P/V = 0.037 kW/m3 = 0.18 Hp/1000
gallons
Post Mixing

Process Intensifier: Optimization Using CFD: Paper 362c

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Process Intensifier: Optimization Using CFD: Paper 362c

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Process Intensifier:

Optimization Using CFD

Pete Csiszar, Black & Baird Ltd., North Vancouver, B.C.

RP4 radial impeller PBT axial impeller

LTR HGR LTA HGA

 Accuracy - Advective / Diffusive operators

   w,t  u j wi , j  qi  m u,t  uk ui ,k  p,i   ki ,k  bi d e

   wi ,i cu j , j d e GLS Terms

Minimize error of approximating functions M = O ( h / |V| ) Advective

Post Mixing Backward Facing Step Problem

Post Mixing Backward Facing Step Problem

 Z/T = 1, 4 standard, wb/T = 0.1

 Oldshue Proximity Factor = 0.87, Np = 2.958

 CFD Proximity Factor = 0.878

 Conclusion: Oldshue was right!

 PF=1.044: Agrees with Oldshue, again!

 Np(4PBT45, h/D=0.2) = 1.27

 Nagata: sin(angle)1.2 Np(4PBT30, h/D=0.2) = 0.63

 Shaw: Np(4PBT30, h/D=0.2)=0.58

 Nagata: 77.5% of a 4-bladed impeller

 Conclusion: Nagata was right!

You might also like