CFD Simulations of Three-Dimensional Wall Jets in A Stirred Tank
CFD Simulations of Three-Dimensional Wall Jets in A Stirred Tank
CFD Simulations of Three-Dimensional Wall Jets in A Stirred Tank
in a Stirred Tank
Sujit Bhattacharya and Suzanne M. Kresta*
Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton AB, T6G 2G6
C
omputational fluid dynamics (CFD) is increasingly being used for
the simulation of stirred tanks due to recent advances in The flow near the tank wall in a stirred tank driven
computer speed and efficiency of numerical schemes. While by a 45° pitched-blade turbine is simulated with
simulations involving both steady state (Kresta and Wood, 1991; Fokema Multiple Reference Frames, the k-e turbulence model
et al., 1994; Harvey et al., 1995; Ranade and Dommetti, 1996 and and standard wall functions. The results are compared
others) and time varying (Perng and Murthy, 1992; Derksen and Van den to the three-dimensional wall jet identified in a
Akker, 1999) methods have been reported in the literature, emphasis has previous paper. The self-similar velocity profiles in the
jet are predicted satisfactorily, but the decay of the
mainly been on the quantitative validation of flow close to the impeller.
local maximum velocity and jet expansion are
The main objective of this study is to extend the existing protocols for underpredicted. The underlying physical reasons for
simulating time-averaged velocity fields to flow near the tank wall and in this failure are investigated. The effect of impeller size
the bulk of the tank. and position on the impingement point of the
Studies with axial impellers (Bittorf and Kresta, 2001) show that wall impeller discharge and the jet core velocity are well
jets form in the region between the baffles and the tank wall and drive predicted by the simulations. The results provide a
the bulk flow, imposing a single characteristic velocity scale on both the benchmark for CFD/MRF in the bulk of a stirred tank,
upflow at the wall and the recirculation in the center of the tank. identifying where CFD over- or underpredicts
Accuracy in prediction of the mean flow characteristics of the wall jets performance.
and the simulation of the bulk flow in the tank are therefore intimately
L’écoulement engendré par une turbine à pales
linked. Moreover, Bittorf (2000) has shown that the velocities in the
inclinées à 45° près de la paroi d’un réservoir est
three-dimensional wall jets, in balance with the settling velocities of the simulé par la méthode des référentiels multiples
solids, determine the cloud height of suspended solids at high solids (MRF), le modèle de turbulence k-? et des lois de paroi
concentration. The cloud height of the suspended solids along with the standards. Les résultats sont comparés à ceux du jet
just suspended speed (Njs ) of the impeller determines the uniformity of de paroi tridimensionnel décrit dans un article
solids distribution in a stirred tank. While explicit relations between Njs antérieur. Les profils de vitesse auto-similaires du jet
and the fluid/particle properties and the impeller type are available, the sont prédits convenablement, mais la décroissance de
cloud height model proposed by Bittorf (2000) requires an accurate la vitesse locale maximale et l’expansion du jet sont
description of the effect of size, off-bottom clearance and speed of the insuffisamment prédites. Les raisons physiques
impeller on the core velocity or source velocity of the jet. This study aims sous-jacentes de cette lacune sont étudiées. L’effet de
la taille et de la position de la turbine sur le point
to address these issues by developing a low-cost CFD protocol which can
d’impact de l’écoulement de refoulement de la
be used to obtain geometry dependent parameters to the degree of turbine et la vitesse du noyau de jet sont bien prédits
accuracy required, without having to resort to scale model experiments. par les simulations. Les résultats fournissent un banc
While a detailed description of the wall jets is available in Bittorf and d’essai pour la CFD/MRF dans le cœur d’un réservoir
Kresta (2001), the key results are restated here to facilitate comparison agité, ce qui permet de déterminer les limites de
with CFD simulations in later sections. Figure 1a shows one of the wall performance de la CFD.
jets formed between the baffle and the tank wall. The expansion of the
jet and the decay of axial velocity in a vertical plane close to the baffle Keywords: stirred tank, PBT impeller, CFD,
are shown for different axial positions in the tank. At any axial location, turbulence, three-dimensional wall jets, mixing,
the axial velocity (U ) increases rapidly from the no slip condition at the multiple reference frames.
wall to its maximum value (Um), and then decreases with a smaller
gradient. At y ~ 1.7b, the axial velocity reverses direction due to recircula-
tion and asymptotically approaches the recirculating velocity (UR ). The characteristic length scale, b, is the half-width of the
jet and corresponds to the radial distance (y) from the
wall, where U = Um/2. Um is located at ym, a distance
of about 0.15b from the wall. The region 0 < y £ ym is
*Author to whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail address: the inner region of the wall jet, where the flow
[email protected]
characteristics are similar to those in a simple
where
y
h=
b
y = y jet + d b
b = b jet + d b (2)
ÊU ˆ
B = 1- Á R ˜ (3)
Ë Um ¯
Figure 1a. Radial velocity profiles in the wall jet at different axial
locations in a stirred tank.
F is needed to force the solution through U/Um = 0.5 when h = 1.
The h – d term in Equation (1) accounts for the displacement of
the outer region of the jet by the inner boundary layer. The
boundary layer thickness grows linearly with the jet half-width
(boundary layer thickness = db and d ª 0.15 for wall jets). The
values of B, F and d for a three-dimensional wall jet are defined
using the velocity data of Bittorf and Kresta (2001). The resulting
similarity profile is:
U
Um
[
= 1- 1.58 tanh2 0.78( h - 0.15) ] (4)
-0.49
Um Ê zˆ
boundary layer. The region y > ym is the outer region, where the = 1.35Á ˜ (characteristic decay) (5a)
Ucore ËT ¯
flow characteristics are similar to a free jet. Interactions between
these two regions project the anisotropic influence of the wall
to the outer (free shear) region of the jet and make the flow field In radial decay, the jet is fully formed and has no recollection
somewhat more difficult to model. Thus, the accurate prediction of the initial effects of geometry. In cross-section it forms a quarter
of jet decay is intimately linked to the successful modeling of circle with expansion in the radial direction. The maximum
turbulence. In Figure 1a (D = T/3 and C/D ~ 1.0), the global velocity Um is inversely proportional to the distance traveled:
maximum velocity along the tank wall or the core velocity
(Ucore ) occurs at z/T ~ 0.2. As the jet moves upwards, it expands -1.15
Um Ê zˆ
in the y direction with a simultaneous decay in Um. The jet = 0.57Á ˜ (radial decay) (5b)
Ucore ËT ¯
finally collapses near the top of the tank (z/T ~ 0.7 for D = T/3
and C/D ~ 1.0). Between these two limits of formation and
disintegration, the three-dimensional wall jet is self-similar. This The jet half-width expands as:
means that the radial profiles of axial velocity collapse onto a
single similarity profile when U is scaled with Um and y is scaled b È z - zo ˘
with b (h = y/b), as shown in Figure 1b. = 0.38 Í (6)
T ˙
Î T ˚
— v = — v r + — (w ¥ r ) (9)
Turbulence Models*
k2
Turbulent viscosity mt = rC m
e
Cm = 0.09
ui ui ∂u Ê ∂u ∂u j ˆ
where k = and e = n i Á
i +
˜
2 ∂x j Ë j ∂xi ¯
∂x
∂k ∂ Ê ∂k ˆ
rUi = mt S 2 + ak meff - re
B) RNG k-e Transport equation for ∂xi ∂xi ÁË ∂xi ˜¯
turbulent kinetic energy (k)
Convection Production Diffusion Dissipation
where,
1 Ê ∂U j ∂Ui ˆ
S ∫ 2Sij Sij , Sij ∫ Á + ˜ and meff = m + mt
2 Ë ∂xi ∂x j ¯
∂e Ê eˆ ∂ Ê ∂e ˆ Ê e2 ˆ
Transport equation for rate of rUi = C1e Á ˜ mt S 2 + a e meff - C 2erÁ ˜ - R
∂xi Ëk¯ ∂xi ÁË ∂xi ˜¯ Ë k ¯
dissipations of k(e)
Convection Production Diffusion Dissipation Other terms related
to mean strain and
turbulence quantities
ii) RSM
∂ui u j ∂Jijk
Reynolds stress transport equations: rUk = Pij + Fij - eij + , where the terms can be expanded as follows:
∂xk ∂xk
Ê ∂U j ∂Ui ˆ
∑ Production: Pij ∫ -rÁ ui uk + u j uk (calculated)
Ë ∂xk ∂xk ˜¯
Ê ∂u ∂u j ˆ
∑ Pressure - strain distribution: Fij ∫ p Á i + ˜ (modeled)
Ë ∂x j ∂xi ¯
∂ui ∂u j
∑ Dissipation: eij ∫ 2m (calculated from e )
∂xk ∂xk
Figure 6. Velocity vector fields showing the interacting effects of impeller Figure 7. Effect of tank size and off-bottom clearance on similarity
diamter and off-bottom clearance: D = T/3, T = 1.00 m, N = 60 rpm, i = 47. profiles: D = T/3, Re = 105, x = 3.6 mm, z ~ 136 mm for T = 0.24 m
Note the impingement on the tank wall at higher off-bottom clearances. and 558 mm for T = 1.00 m.
impinges on the bottom of the tank and then swirls outwards the baffle and provide further support for the flow pattern
towards the tank wall. On reaching the wall, the fluid is described earlier. The tangential movement along the curved
deflected upwards and the radial swirling flow is transformed walls of the tank compresses the fluid towards the baffles and
into an upward flowing column of fluid with a strong tangential affects the growth of the three-dimensional wall jet in front of
movement towards the baffle. Evidence of the tangential motion it. Thus, the prediction of the wall jet characteristics along the
is seen in Figure 11a, in the shrinkage of the contours at baffle depends on the ability of the numerical scheme and
locations far from the baffle and the simultaneous radial growth the turbulence model to accurately simulate flow along the
at locations close to the baffle. Note also the velocity field (inset curved tank surface.
in Figure 11a). Velocity vectors show the movement towards If the impeller-baffle interactions are significant, then the
snapshot approach used in the MRF formulation will itself lead to
inaccurate results. In the presence of impeller-baffle interactions,
the impeller will influence the tangential component of the
velocity near the wall throughout the 90∞ sweep, while the MRF
formulation will not be able to capture this effect. Figure 11b
shows the axial velocity profiles in the tangential direction at
different axial positions, as obtained from CFD simulations and
from the experimental data of Bittorf and Kresta (2001). At low
axial positions the flow is reproduced fairly well by CFD.
However, higher up along the tank wall, CFD simulations show
only a slow decrease in velocity as the angular distance from the
baffle is increased, while a much sharper reduction in velocity is
apparent in the experimental data. The larger axial velocities in
the CFD results imply that the tangential flow towards the baffle
is smaller in the simulations than in the experiments because of
continuity and the two-dimensional nature of the near-wall flow
field. The smaller tangential flow is due to the inability of the
MRF formulation to account for the impeller-baffle interaction
and results in less compression of the fluid onto the baffle.
Figure 12 is a log-log plot of the dimensionless maximum
axial velocity (Um/Ucore) versus dimensionless axial distance
(z/T ) for various impeller clearances. The slopes of these curves
give the decay of the maximum velocity (Um ) with distance.
Figure 10. Regions in the wall-jet: T = 0.24 m, D = T/3, C/D = 0.4,
Two regions can be defined for all clearances. These correspond
N = 1000 rpm. The simulated slopes for the decay of Um/Ucore and
to the characteristic and radial decay regions first shown in
expansion of b are smaller than the experimental results of Bittorf and
Kresta (2001). Figure 10. For C/D < 1.4, decay of Um in both regions is much
of the wall jet and hence the location of the region which is
actively involved in the mean circulation within the tank. This
region was described as the active zone by Bittorf and Kresta Figure 13. Impingement point of impeller discharge stream on the tank wall:
(2000). Figure 13 shows the impingement points obtained from Re = 1 ¥ 105. At high off-bottom clearances, the point of impingement of
CFD simulations for different tank and impeller geometries. For the impeller discharge stream is deflected upwards by the secondary
the smaller (D = T/3) impeller and both tank sizes, the discharge circulation. This effect is much larger for the T/2 impeller.
stream impinges on the tank bottom when C/D < 1.2, while
impingement is on the tank wall when C/D > 1.5. It may be
noted that Bittorf and Kresta (2000) found bottom impingement
of the impeller discharge stream for C/D < 1.5. Since clearances The point of impingement of the impeller discharge on the
with C/D > 1 are highly unusual, it may be concluded that for tank wall may also be estimated from purely geometrical
all practical purposes impingement is on the tank bottom for a considerations, assuming that the surrounding flow field does
T/3 impeller and the active volume extends only to the lower not cause any deflection of the impeller discharge stream. If the
two-thirds of the tank (Bittorf and Kresta, 2000). discharge leaves the impeller at an angle of 45°, the axial
For D = T/2 the impeller discharge stream impinges on the distance between the lower surface of the impeller and the
tank wall for C/D > 0.55 (extrapolated value, Figure 13). This impingement point will be equal to the radial distance between
agrees with the observation of Bittorf and Kresta (2000) that the the tank wall and the point of discharge. Since the peak
limit of C/D below which the impeller discharge impinges on velocity in the stream is at r = 0.4D from the axis of rotation, the
the tank bottom is 0.5. Since the impeller discharge impinges impingement point (measured from the bottom of the tank) is
on the tank wall for C/D > 0.55, the active zone is in the middle estimated as:
of the tank with the zones of least activity distributed between
the bottom and the top sections. The relationship between the Ê zI ˆ C Ê Dˆ
Á ˜ = - Á 0.5 - 0.4 ˜ (10)
point of impingement and the location of the active zone is ËT ¯ T Ë T¯
made clearer in Figure 14, which will be discussed shortly.
Acknowledgements
The initial simulations and analysis were carried out by Mike Serink
(Serink, 1999; Kresta and Serink, 1999; and Kresta et al., 1999). The
financial support provided by NSERC and the software provided by
FLUENT are gratefully acknowledged.
Nomenclature
b radial distance to Um/2, (m)
bjet distance from edge of boundary layer to Um /2, (m)
B constant in Equation (3) which is a function of UR
(1–B = UR/Um)
C impeller off-bottom clearance, (m)
Cm constant used in defining mt
C1e, C2e constants in the k-e model (Table 1)
D impeller diameter, (m)
H tank height, (m)
Figure 14. Axial distance over which jet extends: T = 0.24 m, D = T/3, N
= 1000 rpm. Jijk turbulent diffusion term in RSM equation (Table 1), (kg/m·s3)