CFD SIMULATION OF STIRRED TANKS: COMPARISON OF

TURBULENCE MODELS. PART I: RADIAL FLOW IMPELLERS

Jyeshtharaj B. Joshi,12 * Nandkishor K. Nere,13 Chinmay V. Rane,1 B. N. Murthy,1
Channamallikarjun S. Mathpati,1 Ashwin W. Patwardhan1 and Vivek V. Ranade4
1. Department of Chemical Engineering, Institute of Chemical Technology, Matunga, Mumbai 400019, Maharashtra, India
2. Homi-Bhabha National Institute, Trombay, Mumbai 400 094, Maharashtra, India
3. Global Pharmaceutical R and D, Abbott Laboratories, 1401 N Sheridan Rd, North Chicago, Illinois 60064
4. Chemical Engineering and Process Development Division, National Chemical Laboratory, Pune 411008, Maharashtra, India

A critical review of the published literature regarding the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modelling of single-phase turbulent flow
in stirred tank reactors is presented. In this part of review, CFD simulations of radial flow impellers (mainly disc turbine (DT)) in a fully
baffled vessel operating in a turbulent regime have been presented. Simulated results obtained with different impeller modelling approaches
(impeller boundary condition, multiple reference frame, computational snap shot and the sliding mesh approaches) and different turbulence
models (standard k − ε model, RNG k − ε model, the Reynolds stress model (RSM) and large eddy simulation) have been compared with
the in-house laser Doppler anemometry (LDA) experimental data. In addition, recently proposed modifications to the standard k − ε models
were also evaluated. The model predictions (of all the mean velocities, turbulent kinetic energy and its dissipation rate) have been compared
with the experimental measurements at various locations in the tank. A discussion is presented to highlight strengths and weaknesses of
currently used CFD models. A preliminary analysis of sensitivity of modelling assumptions in the k − ε models and RSM has been carried out
using LES database. The quantitative comparison of exact and modelled turbulence production, transport and dissipation terms has high-
lighted the reasons behind the partial success of various modifications of standard k − ε model as well as RSM. The volume integral of predicted
energy dissipation rate is compared with the energy input rate. Based on these results, suggestions have been made for the future work in this area.
Nous présentons un examen critique de la littérature concernant la modélisation de la dynamique des fluides numérique (DFN) de l’écoulement
turbulent à une phase dans les réacteurs à cuve agitée. Dans cette partie de l’examen, nous présentons les simulations de DFN de turbines à
écoulement radial (principalement des turbines à disque (TD)) dans un réservoir entièrement cloisonné effectuées dans un régime turbulent. Les
résultats des simulations obtenus grâce à différentes approches de modélisation des turbines (couche limite turbulente, méthode des référentiels
multiples, snap-shot de modélisation numérique, maillage glissant) et à différents modèles de turbulence (modèle standard k-e, modèle RNG
k-e, modèle aux tensions de Reynolds et simulation des grandes échelles) ont été comparés aux données expérimentales internes d’allocation de
Dirichlet latente (ADL). De plus, les modifications des modèles standards k-e récemment proposées ont également été évaluées. Les prédictions
du modèle (de toutes les vitesses moyennes, de l’énergie cinétique turbulente et de son taux de dissipation) ont été comparées aux données
expérimentales relevées à différents endroits de la cuve. Une discussion présente les points forts et les points faibles des modèles de DFN actuellement
utilisés. Une analyse préliminaire de la sensibilité des hypothèses de modélisation liées aux modèles k-e et RSM a été menée en utilisant la base de
données LES. La comparaison quantitative des données exactes et modélisées de la production, du transport et de la dissipation de la turbulence
a mis en évidence les raisons qui expliquent la réussite partielle de plusieurs modifications apportées au modèle standard k-e ainsi qu’au modèle
aux tensions de Reynolds. L’intégrale de volume du taux de dissipation énergétique prévue a été comparée au taux d’intrant énergétique. Sur la
base de ces résultats, d’autres études à venir dans ce domaine ont été suggérées.

Keywords: CFD, stirred vessel, radial flow impellers, impeller models, k − ε models, RSM, LES

INTRODUCTION ∗ Author to whom correspondence may be addressed.

S
tirred tank reactors, in which one or more impellers are E-mail addresses: jb.joshi@ictmumbai.edu.in, jbjoshi@gmail.com
used to generate desired flow and mixing, are amongst the Can. J. Chem. Eng. 89:23–82, 2011
most widely used reactors in chemical and allied indus- © 2011 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering
DOI 10.1002/cjce.20446
tries. Stirred reactors offer unmatched flexibility and control over
Published online in Wiley Online Library
various transport processes occurring within the reactor. The (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
performance of a stirred reactor can be optimised by appro- This paper was meant to be part of the GLS 2010 Special Issue - PART A
priate adjustments of the reactor hardware and the operating (CJCE 20465 (Part B) shall be published soon).

| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 23 |

parameters. Parameters like reactor and impeller shapes, aspect
ratio of the reactor vessel, number, type, location and size of
impellers, degree of baffling, etc., provide effective handles to con-
trol the performance of stirred reactors. However, the availability
of such a large number of parameters also makes the job of select-
ing suitable configuration of the stirred reactor quite difficult.
The most important hurdle has been the lack of understanding of
the underlying physics and hence the quantitative relationships
between the reactor parameters (hardware and operating) and the
performance objectives. Therefore, the available relationships are
empirical and cannot be considered reliable and/or over a wide
range of applications encountered in practice. The combination
of such empirical relationships and the accumulated operating
experience has been the present state of the art. In this direc-
tion, Table 1 gives a partial list of previous attempts that have
provided empirical/semi-empirical relationships for the design
of stirred tanks. For this transformation, vigorous attempts have
been made during the past 20 years by focusing on the physics
of fluid mechanics by using the tools, namely experimental fluid
dynamics (EFD) and the computational fluid dynamics (CFD).
CFD is a body of knowledge and techniques to solve mathematical
models of fluid dynamics on digital computers. CFD was identi-
fied as one of the critical enabling technologies for the chemical
industry in Technology Vision 2020, The U.S. Chemical Industry.
The application of CFD was expected to lead to shortened product-
process development cycles, optimisation of existing processes to
improve energy efficiency, and the efficient design of new products
and processes. Joshi and Ranade (2003) have provided a perspec-
tive of the current status of computational flow modelling with
respect to above mentioned expectations. This manuscript in par-
ticular makes an attempt to analyse the published literature and
provide coherent picture of the current status on CFD as applied
to stirred tanks. In this review, emphasis is on assessing the state
of the art and identifying possible ways of improving the state of
the art.
In baffled stirred vessels, flow generated by the rotating
impeller interacts with stationary baffles and generates complex,
three-dimensional, re-circulating turbulent flow. The mean flow
generated by the impeller causes bulk motion of the constituents,
which is responsible for the convective transport of momentum,
heat and mass. The generated turbulence determines the eddy
diffusion of momentum, heat and mass. Hence the overall perfor-
mance of the stirred vessel depends strongly on the flow field
and the associated turbulence characteristics produced by the
impeller. The flow near the impeller region is unsteady in nature
due to the periodic passage of the blades, whereas, at a short dis-
tance away from the impeller, the mean flow behaves essentially
at steady state (statistically stationary). The impeller details (size,
number of blades, number of impellers and locations), vessel con-
figuration (number, location and size of baffles, vessel diameter,
liquid level, impeller clearance), and the physicochemical proper-
ties of the process fluid have a profound impact on the flow field
generated in the stirred vessel.
On the basis of flow produced, impellers are classified into two
broad categories (i) radial flow impellers (ii) axial flow impellers.
The energy input is mainly used for producing turbulence in case
of radial flow impellers whereas for convection in case of axial
flow impellers. Radial flow impellers are more suited for appli-
cations such as gas–liquid, liquid–liquid, and other multiphase
dispersions. Axial flow impellers are used for blending, heat trans-
fer, and solid suspension. Due to significant difference in the flow
pattern as well as non-homogeneous turbulence, the performance
of turbulence models differs for both the classes of impellers.
| 24 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | |
Therefore, in this part of review, an attempt has been made to
present a status report on the CFD as applied for the modelling of
stirred tank reactors with radial flow impellers.
Capability of CFD to predict heat transfer coefficient in simple
geometries such as pipeline reactor has been carefully analysed by
Thakre and Joshi (2002). They have used standard k − ε model,
low Reynolds number k − ε model, and the Reynolds stress model
(RSM) for the prediction of heat transfer coefficient in a single-
phase fully developed turbulent pipe flow. Even Muzzio and
cowokers (Lamberto et al., 1996; Alvarez-Hernández et al., 2002;
Szalaia et al., 2004; Arratia et al., 2006) have worked on chaotic
mixing. In a similar way, it is wished that the predictive proce-
dures be developed for the heat transfer coefficient at the tank
wall, cooling coils, and other modern heat transfer geometries,
though the real flow is three-dimensional and not at all well devel-
oped because of internals. Further, the multiphase applications
are more commonly encountered in industry where there are
major heat transfer needs. In addition, CFD simulations should
lead to such a hardware design where an optimum flow pat-
tern (mean and turbulent) is also possible near the heat transfer
surface. The room available for the optimisation of heat transfer
is even bigger because of the distance between the locations of
the heat transfer surface and the turbulence generating means
(impeller).
In the case of gas–liquid and liquid–liquid dispersions, the bub-
ble and drop size varies within the reactor because the size is
governed by the balance between the retaining interfacial/surface
tension force and the breaking force due to turbulent (usually
written in terms of turbulent energy dissipation rate, ε) and vis-
cous stresses. The coalescing nature of the dispersion is also
important. These flow parameters are the most difficult to predict
with the present status of knowledge. Till date, design engineers
rely on empirical correlations and very large safety margins for
prediction of dispersed phase hold-up, interfacial area, mass trans-
fer coefficient in multiphase contacting. CFD simulation of these
systems available in literature could predict the average dispersed
phase hold-up profile, but accurate estimation of other parameters
is a challenging area for CFD practitioners.
A CFD model is also useful for the prediction of residence
time distributions as a consequence of turbulence and mean flow
field including, short-circuiting, by-pass, etc., in single and multi-
phase systems. These models are also useful to understand issues
related to reactor dynamics and start-up/shutdown operations.
If the performance is found to be sensitive to fluid dynamics
related issues, computational flow models can be used to obtain
accurate information about the desired processes. Reaction engi-
neering models based on mixing cell framework with CFD models
to furnish the required information of convective and turbulent
transport between different mixing cells are useful to interpret
and extrapolate laboratory and pilot scale experiments. Detailed
simulations of reaction engineering models at different values of
transport parameters (heat and mass transfer coefficient, mixing
and so on) are carried out to identify operable windows and to
evolve quantitative demands on reactor hardware. Following are
some of potential applications of CFD modelling of stirred tank
reactors.
(1) Resolving conflicting process requirements: For most of the
industrial processes, reactor has to carry out several functions
simultaneously. It is quite common to find that require-
ments of these different expected functions of the reactor
may be quite different or some times, even conflicting with
each other. For example, desired fluid dynamic characteristics
VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |
|
Table 1. Empirical/semi-empirical procedures for the design of stirred tanks: previous work

Sr. numberDesign parameters Refs.

1 Mixing time Peters and Smith (1969); Carreau et al. (1976); Brennan and Lehrer (1976); Khang and Levenspiel (1976); Pandit and Joshi (1983); Pandit et al.
(1984); Shiue and Wong (1984); Sano and Usui (1985); Raghava Rao and Joshi (1988); Raghava Rao et al. (1988); Takahashi et al. (1988); Saito
and Kamiwano (1989); Saito et al. (1990); Ranade et al. (1991); Rewatkar and Joshi (1991a); Rewatkar and Joshi (1991b); Carreau et al. (1992);

VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011

Satoh et al. (1995); Nienow (1996); Lamberto et al. (1996); Patwardhan and Joshi (1999); Sahu et al. (1999); Patwardhan et al. (2003); Nere et

|
2 Power consumption
3 Heat transfer
4 Mass transfer
5 Scale-up procedures
6 Multiphase flooding
7 Gas–liquid dispersions
8 Gas–liquid–solid dispersion
9 Liquid–liquid dispersion
al. (2003); Patwardhan et al. (2004); Kumaresan and Joshi (2006); Kumaresan et al. (2006)
Rushton et al. (1950a); Rushton et al. (1950b); Metzner and Otto (1957); Metzner et al. (1961); Godleski and Smith (1962); Bates et al. (1963);
Beckner and Smith (1966); Bourne and Butler (1969a); Novák and Rieger (1969); Nagata et al. (1970); Hall and Godfrey (1970); Fort et al.
(1971); Nienow and Miles (1971); Bertrand et al. (1980); Rewatkar and Joshi (1991a); Sarvanan et al. (1996); Karcz and Major (1998); Dohi et al.
(2004); Deshmukh and Joshi (2006)
Mizushina et al. (1966a); Mizushina et al. (1966b); Coyle et al. (1970); Edney and Edwards (1976); De Maerteleire (1978); Shamlou and Edwards
(1986); Wang and Yu (1989); Carreau et al. (1994)
Feranandes and Sharma (1967); Miller (1971); Levins and Glastonbury (1972); Kuboi et al. (1974); Boon-Long et al. (1978); Conti and Sicardi
(1982); Lai et al. (1988); Armenante and Kirwan (1989); Jadhav and Pangarkar (1991); Hiraoka et al. (1993); Barigou and Greaves (1996); Gezork
et al. (2001); Fishwick et al. (2003); Martı́n et al. (2010)
Rieger and Novák (1972); Khang and Levenspiel (1976); Bowen (1985); Costes and Couderc (1988); Obot (1993); Ogawa and Kuroda (1995);
Montante et al. (2003); Gimbun et al. (2009)
Miller (1974); Yung et al. (1979); Warmoeskerken and Smith (1985); Tanaka and Izumi (1987); Wong et al. (1987); Takahashi and Nienow (1992);
Birch and Ahmed (1997); Paglianti et al. (2000); Bombač and Žun (2006)
Komasawa et al. (1970); Miller (1974); Joshi and Sharma (1976); Figueiredo and Calderbank (1979); Joshi and Kale (1979); Rewatkar and Joshi
(1991b); Rewatkar and Joshi (1991c); Rewatkar and Joshi (1993); Rewatkar et al. (1993); Mhetras et al. (1994); Tecante et al. (1996); Parsu Veera
et al. (2001); Joshi and Patwardhan (2002); Thatte et al. (2004); Scargiali et al. (2007a); Ford et al. (2008); Martı́n et al. (2010)
Raghava Rao and Joshi (1989); Rewatkar and Joshi (1992); Ebrahimi-Moshkabad and Winterbottom (1999); Micale et al. (2000); Nienow and
Bujalski (2002); Fishwick et al. (2003); Murthy et al. (2007b); Chen et al. (2009)
Sprow (1967); Chen and Middleman (1967); Brown and Pitt (1972); Weinstein and Treybal (1973); Coulaloglou and Tavlarides (1977); Brooks

|
(1979); Rounsley (1983); Davies (1985); Okufi et al. (1990); Kumar et al. (1991); Armenante et al. (1992); Ribeiro et al. (1996); Zhou and Kresta
(1998); Colenbrander (2000); Kamienski and Wójtowicz (2003); Derksen and van Den Akker (2007); Kadam et al. (2009)
10 Solid–liquid dispersion Patil et al. (1984); Raghava Rao et al. (1988); Rewatkar et al. (1989); Rewatkar and Joshi (1991a); Rewatkar and Joshi (1991b); Armenante et al.
(1992); Guiraud et al. (1997); Nocentini et al. (2000); Fishwick et al. (2003); Fajner et al. (2008); Unadkat et al. (2009)
11 Fractional dispersed phase Mlynek and Resnick (1972); McManamey (1979); Sembira et al. (1988); Pacek et al. (1994); Arjunwadkar et al. (1998); Kulkarni et al. (2001);
hold-up Brunazzi et al. (2004); Shewale and Pandit (2006); Sun et al. (2006); Boden et al. (2008); Kadam et al. (2009)
12 Size distribution and Magelli et al. (1990); Magelli et al. (1991); Nishikawa et al. (1994); Pacek et al. (1998); Sessiecq et al. (1999); Angeli and Hewitt (2000); Ochieng
concentration profile of and Lewis (2006); Montante et al. (2008); Fajner et al. (2008)
dispersed phase
13 Breakage and coalescence Madden and Damerell (1962); Komasawa et al. (1970); Mizoguchi et al. (1973); Brown and Pitt (1974); Molag et al. (1980); Narsimhan et al.
(1984); Das et al. (1987); Barigou and Greaves (2009); Shimizu et al. (1999); Zaccone et al. (2007)
14 Chemical reactions Komasawa et al. (1970); Robinson and Wilke (1973); Uchida et al. (1978); Leszek et al. (2004); Patwardhan et al. (2005); Milewska and Molga (2010)
15 Self-inducing impellers Joshi and Sharma (1977); Sawant and Joshi (1979); Joshi (1980); Sawant et al. (1981); Rielly et al. (1992); Forrester and Rielly (1994); Forrester et al.
(1998); Poncin et al. (2002); Murthy et al. (2007a); Scargiali et al. (2007b); Murthy et al. (2008a)
16 Flow visualisation Peters and Smith (1967); Bourne and Butler (1969b); Murakami et al. (1972); van’t Riet and Smith (1975); Günkel and Weber (1975); Hiraoka et al.
(1979); Kuriyama et al. (1982); Mochizuki and Takashima (1984); Kuboi and Nienow (1986); Yianneskis et al. (1987); Ranade and Joshi (1989);
Wu and Patterson (1989); Ranade and Joshi (1990a); Shervin et al. (1991); Mishra and Joshi (1991); Kumar et al. (1993); Mishra and Joshi (1993);
Chapple and Kresta (1994); Bakker and van den Akker (1996); Desai and Joshi (1996); Schäfer et al. (1997); Fentiman et al. (1998); Mishra et al.
(1998); Mavros et al. (2001); Alvarez-Hernández et al. (2002); Szalai et al. (2004); Nikiforaki et al. (2003); Kumaresan et al. (2005); Arratia et al.

THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

(2006); Kumaresan and Joshi (2006); Rielly et al. (2007); Murthy et al. (2007a); Hristov et al. (2008); Murthy et al. (2008b); Roy et al. (2010)

|
25
|
 for blending and heat transfer are quite different (which
require more bulk flow and less shear) from those desired for
gas–liquid dispersion and mass transfer (which require more
shear). In case of aerobic fermentation, the oxygen trans-
fer rate increases with hydrodynamic shear. However, the
validity, growth rate and the selectivity of microorganisms
(particularly animal and plant cell culture) and the activ-
ity of proteins and enzymes decreases with an increase in
shear. Such conflicting requirements make the task of evolv-
ing “wish list” for the desired fluid dynamics difficult. Reactor
engineer has to achieve appropriate compromise between the
conflicting process requirements to achieve the best results.
Using a computation model, one can switch on and off vari-
ous processes, which otherwise is not possible while carrying
out experiments. Such parametric experimentation can give
useful insight into interactions between different processes
and can help to resolve the conflicting requirements.
(2) Translating batch data for continuous reactors: In most of the
cases, laboratory and bench scale experiments required to val-
idate the reactor concept are carried out in a batch mode. It
is then necessary to translate (or to use) the data obtained
in such experiments for designing continuous reactors. The
location of feed pipes, outlets and their influence on mixing
and performance needs to be understood. Computational flow
models can be of great help in this regard.
(3) Scale-down/scale-up analysis: It is essential to analyse the pos-
sible influence of scale of reactor on its fluid dynamics and
eventually the performance. It should be noted that small-
scale reactor would invariably have higher shear and more
rapid circulation than large-scale reactor. The interfacial area
per unit volume of reactor normally reduces as the scale of
reactor increases. Scale-up/scale-down analysis is important
to plan useful laboratory and pilot plant tests. It may be
often necessary to use pilot reactor configuration, which is
not geometrically similar to the large-scale reactor in order to
maintain the similarity of the desired process. Conventionally
such analysis is carried out based on certain empirical scal-
ing rules and prior experience. Computational flow modelling
can make substantial contributions to this step by providing
quantitative information about the fluid dynamics.
(4) Testing of new reactor concepts: More often than not, develop-
ment of reactor technologies relies on prior experience. New
reactor concepts are often sidelined due to lack of resources
(experimental facilities, time, funding, etc.) to test them.
Experimental studies have obvious limitations regarding the
extent of parameter space that can be studied and their sub-
sequent extrapolation beyond the studied parameter space.
A wide variety of impellers with different shapes are used
in practice. Different practices of impeller clearance, etc.,
are followed for different impellers and for different appli-
cations. Computational flow models, which allow “a priori”
predictions of the flow generated in a stirred reactor of any
configuration (impellers of any shape), with just a knowledge
of geometry and operating parameters, can make valuable
contributions in developing new reactor technologies.
(5) Development of theories for heat and mass transfer: In case
of exo/endothermic reactions in stirred vessel, heat needs to
supplied/removed from the reactor. External jackets or inter-
nal coils can be provided for this purpose. In majority of
the cases, heat transfer coefficient inside the reactor dictates
the overall heat transfer coefficient. This can be increased by
increasing energy dissipated close to tank wall or outside sur-
face of coils. This objective can be satisfied by increasing the
| 26 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | |
impeller rotation speed. However, understanding of turbulent
flow structures close to wall and their dependency on type
of impeller can help us to design energy efficient impellers.
This understanding can be developed using advanced EFD
and CFD. These tools will give transient details of veloc-
ity field inside the reactor. This database can be used to
estimate various properties of flow structures such as age
distribution, size and shape distribution, length scale distri-
bution, energy distribution, penetration depth distribution,
etc. This information can be used in combination with clas-
sical theories of heat and mass transfer such as film theory,
penetration/surface newel theory, small eddy theory, large
eddy theory, surface divergence theory. Most of these theo-
ries use assumed flow field and consider only one of the above
mentioned features. Accounting only one of these properties,
that too on an averaged scale may not be appropriate (Joshi
et al., 2009). To obtain accurate predictions, the velocity
field data need to be analysed using eddy isolation algo-
rithms based on zero crossing in fluctuating velocity signals,
wavelet based methods and proper orthogonal decomposition
to obtain structure age, size, energy, and shape distribution
and then obtain contribution of each and every flow structure
and average it over space and time. Another way is to carry
out direct numerical simulation (DNS) and/or LES of stirred
tank with energy equation and obtain heat transfer coeffi-
cient for various impeller designs. The objective is impeller
should give appropriate combination of convection and tur-
bulence close to impeller and tank surface can be designed
in such a way that the surface renewal frequency can be
improved. Such kind of efforts has already been implemented
in industry in heat exchangers, where inside surface is cor-
rugated/microfins are provided. Microfins are found to be
almost 50 times energy efficient compared to bare smooth
pipes for heat transfer applications. This is due to localised
breaking of flow structures close to wall due to microfin struc-
ture.
This brief review of the steps in engineering of stirred reactors
indicate that availability of large degrees of freedom regard-
ing reactor configuration, impellers can be effectively exploited
to evolve better reactor technologies. This, however, requires
detailed knowledge and understanding of the fluid dynamics in
all the regions of the stirred reactors. In line with such a broad
view, it was thought desirable to critically examine the predic-
tive capabilities of CFD and to identify the limitations as regards
to the expected accuracy. Second and third sections present the
review of the published models for the turbulence (single phase)
and the impeller–baffle interaction, respectively. Fourth and fifth
sections provide the comprehensive survey of CFD of stirred tank
with radial flow impellers using RANS and LES.
In order to appreciate the relative merits of these models,
simulations of the flow field in the stirred tank using various
impeller-modelling approaches along with the turbulence models
by the commercial code as well as in-house codes were carried out.
An attempt has been made to compare the model predictions of
all the three mean velocity components and the turbulent kinetic
energy with the experimental data with emphasis on bulk region.
Both the radial flow impeller (part I of this review) and axial flow
impellers (part II of this review) have been covered.
In part I, second section gives details of various turbulence
modelling approaches such as DNS, large eddy simulation (LES),
RSM, standard k − ε model, and modified two-equation models.
The various impeller–baffle interaction models are presented in
VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |
third section. The present status of CFD simulation using Reynolds
stress Navier–Stokes (RANS) approach of radial flow impellers is
presented in fouth section. Fifth and sixth sections give compre-
hensive comparison of CFD predictions with experimental data in
bulk as well as impeller region. The CFD simulations of stirred
tanks with radial impellers using LES are reported in seventh
section. In RANS approach, assumptions are made to model the
terms containing fluctuating components and assessment of such
assumptions using LES database is presented in eighth section.
Ninth section covers the overall energy balance, knowledge of
which is expected to be useful in energy optimisation. It also
focuses a light on the comparison of Reynolds stresses (different
components) and the present status of modelling in brief. Finally,
the present status of CFD of stirred tanks has been summarised in
tenth section and possible suggestions have been given for future
work in the area CFD modelling of the stirred tank reactors for
radial flow impellers.
TURBULENCE MODELLING FOR SINGLE PHASE
SYSTEMS
Overview of Turbulence Modelling
CFD is widely used for understanding the turbulent transport
of mass, momentum, and heat in chemical process equipment.
Understanding of mixing and heat, mass transport rates in the
reactors is essential for the reliable and efficient design. To achieve
this, information regarding the velocity, pressure, distribution of
kinetic energy and local dissipation is required in time as well as
space domain.
In CFD, the equations of continuity and motion should ideally
be solved directly (DNS). However, because of huge computa-
tional demands for flows in a variety of equipments, the equations
of change are solved in combination with additional closure equa-
tions arising out of ensemble averaging (standard k − ε model
and RSM) or space filtering (LES). These various approaches (rel-
ative scale resolutions) can be best represented on an energy
spectrum as shown in Figure 1. The equations of change for a
three-dimensional incompressible system can be represented in
the following form (Pope, 2000):
∂ ∂ui
+ =0 (1)
∂t ∂xi


∂ui ∂ui ∂p ∂ ∂ui
 + uj =− + ␮ (2)
∂t ∂xj ∂xi ∂xj ∂xj
CFD techniques can be classified as (i) DNS, (ii) LES, and (iii)
Reynolds averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) approach. These tech-
niques are shown in Figure 2.
Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS)
In the DNS, it is theoretically possible to directly resolve the whole
spectrum of turbulent scales. The main purpose of DNS is to solve
for the turbulent velocity field without the use of “turbulence mod-
elling.” This condition means that the Navier–Stokes momentum
equation for fluid must be solved exactly. It is now possible to
examine fully developed turbulence flow fields at a microscale (up
to Kolmogorov scale) and perform extremely accurate calculations
of flow. This requires accurate estimation of derivatives involved
in Navier–Stokes equation. The early DNS computations of turbu-
lence for simple geometries utilised the spectral methods, which
| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | |
Figure 1. CFD simulation using RANS, LES, and DNS models: relative
scale resolutions in a typical energy spectrum.
are extremely accurate and non-dissipative tools for calculating
derivatives of discrete datasets. Later with the advent of computa-
tion power as well as robust and accurate numerical techniques,
finite difference and finite element computations of DNS are possi-
ble for complex geometries such as stirred vessels. However, DNS
computation is very time consuming and has extensive storage
requirements and hence not possible for large-scale equipments
at even moderate Reynolds numbers. To understand the large com-
putational cost of DNS, consider that the ratio of the large eddies
(energy containing) to the small (energy dissipating) scales is
3/2
proportional to Ret , where Ret is turbulent Reynolds number.
Therefore to resolve all the scales in three-dimensions, the mesh
9/2
size will be proportional to Ret . Thus, for high Reynolds number,
the grid size becomes prohibitive. Also added on is the fact that
the simulations will be transient with very small time steps, since
the temporal resolution requirements are governed by the dissi-
pating scales, rather than the mean flow or the energy containing
eddies.
Until now, only DNS computations at moderate Reynolds num-
bers are possible. An acknowledged limitation of DNS is its
restriction (by cost considerations) to low Reynolds number. For
channel flow, the approximate number of grid points needed, can
be estimated from the expression by Wilcox (1993):
NDNS = (0.088 Reh )9/4 (3)
where Reh is the Reynolds number based on the mean channel
velocity and channel height. According to the above expression,
to compute a flow with a Reynolds number of 106 , which is
more realistic, we would require approximately 133 billion grid
points, which is astronomical. To reduce this cost to some extent,
Reynolds number scaling is used whenever possible depending
on the observed dependence of the flow on the Reynolds number
without changing the essential physics. DNS can be used to
compute a specific fluid flow state. It can also be used to compute
the transient evolution that occurs between one state and another.
DNS using high-performance computers is an economical and
mathematically appealing tool for study of fluid flows with simple
boundaries, which become turbulent. DNS is used to compute
fully nonlinear solutions of the Navier–Stokes equations, which
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 27 |
Figure 2. Overview of turbulence models.
capture important phenomena in the process of transition, as
well as turbulence itself. DNS is mathematical, and therefore, can
be used to create simplified situations that are not possible in an
experimental facility, and can be used to isolate specific phenom-
ena in the transition process. As we are aiming at a nearly exact
solution (and not “the exact”) to specific turbulent flows utilising
limited computational resources, DNS is stressed as a research
tool and not as a brute-force solution to engineering problems.
The objective of DNS is not necessarily to reproduce real-life
flows (say the flow over an airplane), but to perform controlled
studies that provide better insight, scaling laws, and turbulent
models to develop. In aerodynamics, DNS is associated with a
large-scale computationally intensive solution procedure, which
may consume hundreds to thousands of Cray super-computing
resources. The earliest use of DNS began in the 1970s and with
the growth in the computational power today, it is getting more
and more popular day-by-day. DNS of stirred tanks has been car-
ried out in literature by Bartels et al. (2000); Verzicco et al. (2004);
Sbrizzai et al. (2006); and Gillissen and van den Akker (2009).
These simulations are reported at very low Reynolds number rang-
ing from 1600 to 7300. The simulations carried out by Verzicco
et al. (2004); and Sbrizzai et al. (2006) were in unbaffled tank
whereas Bartels et al. (2000); and Gillissen and van den Akker
(2009) carried out simulations in baffled tank. These two inves-
tigations have been briefly reported below.
Bartels et al. (2000) simulated stirred tank with Rushton turbine
using k − ε model and DNS and compared the results of both with
experimental results of Schäfer et al. (1998). The simulations were
performed with silicon oil as working fluid in a tank diameter of
| 28 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | |
0.15 m with Reynolds number of 7275. The authors used MRF
approach for simulation impeller–baffle interaction, though they
mentioned that for DNS simulations sliding mesh (SM) technique
is necessary. Their geometry was described by a block structured
grid of 15 blocks. The grid size also was small (1 901 824) for DNS
as compared to (2 082 816) for k − ε model for the same half simu-
lation of the vessel. The average Kolmogorov scale was 6 mm and
average grid size was 0.8 mm. As the impeller region has very
high shear as well as energy dissipation, 35% of the grid points
were located in the impeller region (which consists only 7% of
reactor volume) to resolve the trailing vortices. Although both the
simulations (DNS and k − ε model) were in good agreement with
the experimental data the authors found that DNS captured few
more details than k − ε model. The DNS simulations showed two
small secondary vortices behind the blades which were missed by
the k − ε model, even the flow structure predicted by k − ε model
was wavier than DNS. The shape of regions with increased tur-
bulent kinetic energy was closer to experimental results for DNS
as compared to k − ε model, but in the outer flow region k − ε
model gave more uniform results of turbulent kinetic energy. The
maximum energy of turbulent kinetic energy by DNS was much
higher (k/U2tip = 0.118) and closer to the experiments, whereas
k − ε model (k/U2tip = 0.079) underpredicted.
Gillissen and van den Akker (2009) simulated six bladed Rush-
ton turbine and the impeller–baffle interaction was modelled with
adaptive force field technique (AFT). Their grid size was of 1
billion and Reynolds number of 5000. They simulated 100 000
time steps for a month on 128 cores. The authors focused on
comparison between LES and DNS. They also showed
VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |

visualisations of the vortical structures in the wake of a single
turbine blade.
Large Eddy Simulation
In LES, large scales eddies are resolved and the small scales, which
are isotropic in nature, are modelled using subgrid scale models.
The major role of subgrid scale models is to provide proper dis-
sipation for the energy transferred from the large scales to small
scales. Because of these advantages, LES technique is gradually
becoming a popular tool to investigate turbulent flows. LES stud-
ies have several valuable advantages. They are (i) much cheaper
(ii) easier to handle than field measurements. They provide (iii)
three-dimensional fields of flow characteristics under (iv) well-
controlled external condition. They are (v) more accessible in the
sense that LES can be run in the conditions where field measure-
ments would be difficult. Moreover, they are (vi) very helpful for
conceptual understanding of detail hydrodynamic of the chemi-
cal process system. The motivation behind LES is the recognition
that the large scales of the turbulence often dominate mixing,
heat transfer, and other quantities of engineering interest, while
the small scales are only of interest because of how they affect the
large ones. Furthermore, large scales are not universal and vary
according to the geometry and flows under consideration, while
small scales exhibit a more or less universal behaviour, which
considerably simplifies the task of modelling the SGS stresses.
In an LES, the flow field is decomposed into a large-scale or
resolved component and a small-scale or subgrid-scale compo-
nent:
u = ū + u (4)
The conservation equations governing the filtered velocity
field are obtained by applying the filtering operation to the
Navier–Stokes equations (Equations 1 and 2). We consider
spatially uniform filters, so that filtering and differentiation com-
mutes.
When the Navier–Stokes equations for constant density (incom-
pressible flow) are filtered, one obtains a set of equations very
similar in form to the RANS equations:
∂ū
=0 (5)
∂xi
∂ū ∂(ūū) 1 ∂p̄ ∂2 ū ∂
+ =− + 2− (6)
∂t ∂xi  ∂xi ∂xi ∂xi
Various subgrid scale models are required for estimation of
effect of subgrid scale stresses () such as Smagorinsky model,
dynamic Smagorinsky model, scale similarity model, one equa-
tion subgrid scale kinetic energy model, etc. These models are
discussed in Mathpati and Joshi (2007).
Reynolds Averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) Approach
DNS and LES require huge computational power and are not pos-
sible for very large-scale industrial contactors at high Reynolds
number. In most of the cases, it is necessary to understand the
gross flow patterns. This can be achieved by solving the ensemble-
averaged Navier–Stokes equation.
Equations (1) and (2) on ensemble-averaging reduce to the
following form:
∂ ∂ui 
+ =0 (7)
∂t ∂xi
| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | |


∂ui  ∂ui  ∂p ∂ ∂ui 
 + uj  =− + ␮ −ui uj  (8)
∂t ∂xj ∂xi ∂xj ∂xj
The Reynolds stresses (−∂ui uj /∂xj in Equation 8) arising out
of ensemble-averaging procedure are modelled according to the
Boussinesq hypothesis and given by:


2 ∂ui  ∂uj 
−ui uj  = kıij −␮t + (9)
3 ∂xj ∂xi
In order to close the system of equations (7)–(8), ␮t has been for-
mulated in many ways in the literature in terms of zero, one, and
two-equation models. Some of the popular models are discussed
below.
Standard k − ε model
Standard k − ε model is essentially a high Reynolds number model
and assumes the existence of isotropic turbulence and the spectral
equilibrium. In the case of standard k − ε model, ␮t is estimated
using turbulent kinetic energy (k) and rate of dissipation of tur-
bulent kinetic energy (ε):
k2
␮ t = C␮  (10)
ε
The modelling of k and ε equations result into five turbulence
parameters C␮ , Cε1 , Cε2 , k and ε . These parameters have been
estimated from studies in simple flows. In the log-law region of
the boundary layer, experimentally it has been found that the
turbulence production and the dissipation terms are much larger
than the other terms. Turbulence in this region is considered to be
in local equilibrium. Neglecting transport and production in this
flow, value of C␮ = 0.09 has been obtained. For the value of Cε2 ,
experiments have been carried out in decaying grid turbulence.
Turbulence is generated when free flow goes through a grid which
generates mean flow gradients and in turn via the production
term generates turbulence. Sufficiently far downstream, the veloc-
ity gradients are zero and hence the production and dissipation
terms are zero in contrast to log-law region in the boundary layer.
The turbulent diffusion term is also negligible. The balance of
turbulence convection and dissipation gives Cε2 = 1.92. The con-
stant Cε1 is obtained by looking at the dissipation rate equation
in the log-region of boundary layer. The turbulent diffusion is not
negligible in this case unlike k equation. The simplifications of ε
equation using velocity profiles in log law region and the numeri-
cal solution of these equations give Cε1 = 1.44, k and ε = 1.0 and
1.3, respectively.
The standard k − ε model has performed satisfactorily in many
flows, but the applicability of this model is limited due to uncer-
tainties involved in the modelling of turbulence production,
turbulent transport and the assumptions in modelling dissipation
rate equation. Further, the modelling of transport equations for
k and ε pose the difficulties to account for streamline curvature,
rotational strains, and the other body-force effects.
Zonal model
In case of flows with very strong inhomogenity, the standard tur-
bulence model parameters fail to predict the flow field. Hence the
entire domain is divided into various zones and a set of turbulence
model parameters (chosen on the basis of prior experience so as
to improve upon the predictions) is assigned to each zone. Such
efforts in stirred tank are reported by Sahu et al. (1998). Thus
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 29 |
 Table 2. Source terms for variables in general transport equation

∂u1  ∂u2  ∂u3 

     
General transport equation: ∂x1 + ∂x2 + ∂x3 = ∂
∂x1 eff ∂
∂x + ∂
∂x2 eff ∂
∂x + ∂
∂x3 eff ∂
∂x + S
1 2 3
 eff S
1 0 0
∂p
u1  + t − ∂x
1
∂p
u2  + t − ∂x
2
∂p
u3  + t − ∂x
3
k  + t /k Pk −ε For all the variants of k−ε model
ε
ε  + t /k k (C1 Pk −C2 ε)  Standard k−ε model, zonal model
Pk 2
C1,CK kε Pk + C3,CK ε
ε −C2,CK k ε Optimised Chen Kim k−ε model
 
C1,RNG kε Pk −˛ kε ε−C2,RNG kε ε RNG k−ε model
  
∂ui  ∂uj  ∂ui  ∂uj 
Where Pk = t ∂xj + ∂xi ∂xj + ∂xi
∂u  u   ∂u  u  
 ku  u   ∂u  u  

∂
RSM Transport equations for Reynolds stresses: ∂t
i j
+ uk i j
∂xk = ∂x1 Cs i j
ε ∂x1
i j
−C1 kε (ui uj −(2/3)ıij k)−C2 (Pij −(2/3)ıij P−Sij )−(2/3)ıij ε
 
   ∂ uj     ∂ui  1
Where Pij = − ui uk − uj uk and P = 2 Pii
∂xk ∂xk
∂ε ∂ui ε
 
Cε k
∂   ∂ε 2
Equation for the turbulent energy dissipation rate: ∂t + ∂xi = ∂xi ε ui ui  ∂x + Cε1 kε Gk −Cε2  εk
i

effectively, it identifies the different regions of distinct physics of the near wall flows. Table 2 gives the source terms along with
flow, modifies the values of the turbulence parameters accordingly the modified eddy viscosity formulation. It contains more num-
and effectively prescribes the zonal eddy viscosity distribution. ber of turbulence model parameters (Table 3) and is applicable
The selection and distribution of turbulence parameters in stirred to the swirling flows wherein strain gradients are large where the
tank is largely arbitrary. Nere et al. (2001) carried out CFD simula- simple eddy viscosity relation of Boussinesq leads to non-realistic
tion of stirred tanks using zonal modelling for C␮ . They have also values of the eddy viscosities.
developed a new constitute equation for eddy viscosity which gave
better agreement with experimental data for axial flow impellers. Multiscale models
Some investigators have used model parameters as a function of In contrast to the assumption in k − ε models as regards to the
geometrical and operating variables, rather than constant values. presence of equilibrium and hence the presence of a single time
For example in jet flows, model parameters are related with jet scale, these models assume the existence of two time scales Placek
half-width and centreline velocity (Launder et al., 1972; McGuirk et al. (1986). They have proposed a multiscale model for stirred
and Rodi, 1977; Rodi, 1993; Mathpati et al., 2009). tanks. It considers the existence of non-spectral equilibrium. The
energy spectrum is divided in three parts, namely production
RNG k − ε model region, a transfer region and a region in which dissipation takes
RNG k − ε model uses framework of two equations and these place. It assumes the existence of the spectral equilibrium only
equations are derived by application of renormalisation group between the transfer region and the region in which turbulence
methods to the original governing equations of momentum trans- is dissipated. Thus, it considers the presence of two time scales,
fer. This model gives the eddy viscosity relation based on the result namely one for the production range and the other for the dis-
of application of the renormalisation group theory where inertial sipation. It involves two equations: one for the transport of the
sub-range eddies are eliminated from the equations of motions turbulent kinetic energy of the large-scale vortices and the other
to yield averaged flow quantities at the integral scale of turbu- for transport of the turbulent kinetic energy of inertial sub-range
lence. This model is capable of modelling the distance between eddies in addition to the equation for the energy dissipation rate.
the production and dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy better Tables 2 and 3 give the source terms and the values of the con-
than the standard k − ε model. As opposed to the semi-empirical stants involved. Utility of this model needs to be extensively
models these are more fundamental and are capable of predicting proved for the prediction of flow pattern in stirred tanks.

Table 3. Various turbulence models and the turbulence parameters

Turbulence model Turbulence parameters

Standard k − ε model (Launder and Spalding, 1974) C␮ = 0.09, Cε1 = 1.44, Cε2 = 1.92, k = 1.0, ε = 1.3
Modified k − ε model (Ranade and Joshi, 1989) C␮ = 0.125, Cε1 = 1.59, Cε2 = 1.62, k = 1.0, ε = 1.3
New k − ε model (Nere et al., 2001) C␮ = (1/RUtrip )(k 2 /ε), Cε1 = 1.44, Cε2 = 1.92, k = 1.0, ε = 1.3
High Re RNG k − ε model C␮ = 0.0845, Cε1 = 1.42, Cε2 = 1.68, k,RNG = 0.7194, ε = 1.3
Chen–Kim k − ε model C␮ = 0.09, Cε1 = 1.15, Cε2 = 1.90, Cε3 = 0.25, k = 0.75, ε = 1.15
Optimised Chen–Kim k − ε model C␮ = 0.09, Cε1 = 1.36, Cε2 = 1.90, Cε3 = 0.04, k = 0.75, ε = 1.15
RSM C␮ = 0.09, Cε1 = 1.44, Cε2 = 1.92, Cs = 0.22, C1 = 1.8, C2 =
 
0.60, C1 = 0.5, C2 = 0.18, k = 1.0, ε = 1
LES  = 0.42
Cs = 0.23, Smagorinsky constant (for homogeneous isotropic
turbulence in the inertial sub-range)

| 30 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | | VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |

Chen–Kim k − ε model
Chen–Kim k − ε model (Chen and Kim, 1987; Jenne and Reuss,
1999) assumes the existence of non-equilibrium between the pro-
duction of turbulence and its dissipation and hence makes use
of two time scales: one for the production range and the other
for the dissipation range. Thus it contains two constants (Cε1 and
Cε3 ) instead of Cε1 (in the modelled equation of energy dissipation
rate) in k − ε model. Overall, it uses the concept of the three-
equation model (consideration of two time scales) but effectively
uses only two equations for the transport of the turbulent charac-
teristics (similar to two-equation models). For equilibrium flows
the Chen–Kim k − ε model reduces to the standard k − ε model.
The optimised version of Chen–Kim k − ε model (OPT-CK) sug-
gests the optimised values of Cε1 and Cε3 based on the objective
of minimising the deviation between the measured and predicted
length scales along the impeller centreline. Tables 2 and 3 depict
the source terms and the values of constants used in Chen–Kim
k − ε model and its optimised version. This model has been found
to give improved predictions of mean flow pattern.
Reynolds Stress Model (RSM)
It is clear that the standard k − ε model inherently fails to pre-
dict properly the anisotropic flow situations (Reynolds, 1987;
Launder, 1990; Hanjalic,́ 1994). Further, the modelling of trans-
port equations for k and ε clearly brings out the difficulties to
account for streamline curvature, rotational strains, and the other
body-force effects. RSM, in theory, can circumvent all the above
mentioned deficiencies and also it has an ability to predict more
accurately each individual stress. A RSM solves six equations for
the Reynolds stress tensor and another equation for the dissipa-
tion rate. The equation of turbulent stresses contains the terms,
namely pressure strain rate (which contains fluctuating pressure
velocity gradients) and the flux of Reynolds stresses. In addition
to the modelling of the terms in the turbulent energy dissipa-
tion rate equation, these terms need to be modelled accurately.
Therefore, though RSM takes into consideration the transport of
turbulent stresses, its parameters are not universal (i.e., model
needs to be calibrated for different types of flows). The pressure
strain term in RSM is responsible for making turbulence isotropic
and redistribution of energy between components u 21 , u 22 , and
u 23 . Further, the extended system often has difficulties to produce
converged solutions and thus it is computationally expensive. The
modelled equations are given in Table 2 while the typical values
of the constants are given in Table 3.
Algebraic stress model (ASM) is the simplification of the RSM
wherein the differential transport terms are approximated in terms
of algebraic expressions. This model implicitly determines the
Reynolds stresses (locally) as a function the turbulent kinetic
energy, its dissipation rate and the mean velocity gradients.
Thus computational expenses are reduced. These models are
inherently less general and less accurate than Reynolds-stress
models.
MODELLING OF THE IMPELLER–BAFFLE
INTERACTION
The overall development of the CFD models for the prediction of
flow pattern in stirred tanks has been carried out on the two fronts,
namely modelling of the impeller (rotating)–baffle (stationary)
interaction and the modelling of turbulence.
Different approaches have been adopted for the modelling of
impeller–baffle interaction. These approaches can be broadly clas-
| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | |
sified into two categories, namely steady and unsteady state.
These have been briefly described below:
Steady State Approaches
The model equations are solved in steady state mode and these
include the black box or impeller boundary condition (IBC)
approach, the source-sink approach (SS), multiple reference frame
(MRF) approach, inner–outer (IO) approach and the snap shot
approach. Figure 3A–D gives a schematic representation of the
impeller modelling approaches.
Impeller boundary condition approach (IBC)
Here for the sake of simplicity, the impeller is treated as a
black box. The action of the impeller is simulated by provid-
ing the boundary conditions (experimentally measured fluid flow
characteristics) on a selected surface surrounding the impeller
(Figure 3A). Various authors have used IBC approach (Harvey
and Greaves, 1982a,b; Ranade and Joshi, 1990b; Kresta and Wood,
1991). The boundary conditions consist of mean velocities (radial,
axial, and tangential) and the turbulent quantities such as the tur-
bulent kinetic energy (k) and its dissipation rate (ε), that have to
be measured experimentally for the system under consideration.
Thus, if the impeller design is changed or the tank geometry is
modified, it becomes necessary to again measure these boundary
conditions in order to simulate the new system. This was the start-
ing point of CFD simulations in stirred tanks. Once the boundary
conditions are specified, the transport equations are solved in rest
of the flow domain to predict the flow field prevailing in entire
tank.
The applicability of black box approach is severely limited by
the availability of the experimental data. The impeller design, ves-
sel geometry, operating conditions, physicochemical properties,
etc., have a profound effect on the flow generated by the impeller
and hence this approach cannot be used to predict the flow gener-
ated by a variety of impeller-vessel configurations. Also different
choices of the IBCs lead to significantly different predicted flow
field and hence the selection of the impeller swept boundaries
also poses a problem. Numerical simulations using this approach
can at the most be extended to the geometries very much similar
to that for which the experimental data are available. Also exten-
sion of such an approach to multi-phase flows and to industrial
scale reactors is not feasible because it is virtually impossible to
obtain (from experiments) accurate boundary conditions for such
systems. More importantly, this approach cannot be used to make
“a priori” simulations. It cannot, therefore, be used as a design
tool.
Source-sink approach (SS)
In this approach the rotation of impeller is modelled as a source of
momentum, whereas baffles are represented as sinks of momen-
tum. Pericleous and Patel (1987) first proposed this approach and
then it was modified and further used by Xu and McGrath (1996);
and Patwardhan (2001) to simulate the flow pattern produced by
the pitched blade turbines of different angles in turbulent regime.
In this approach, the impeller blades are replaced with a number
of blade sections by dividing the blade into a number of vertical
strips from the hub to tip. If any of such strip is curved (the angle
changes from the top to bottom of such a strip), the strip is fur-
ther divided into a number of sections so that every section (of
the blade) can be assumed to be practically flat. The blade section
inside each strip is approximated to an airfoil and airfoil aerody-
namics is applied. Axial and tangential momentum sources are
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 31 |
Figure 3. Overview of impeller–baffle interaction modelling approaches.
similar to that given by Pericleous and Patel (1987) (these source
terms can easily be calculated in terms of the lift and drag coef-
ficients by using the velocity–force diagram for the blade section
under consideration) and the radial momentum source is derived
by assuming that the interaction between the impeller and fluid
results in forces perpendicular to the blade surfaces. The bound-
ary conditions on the tank wall and baffles are specified as the
solid surfaces. Further, the impeller blades are also modelled as
walls. In this approach, the full tank needs to be modelled and
not a quarter of the tank as is practiced in some other cases.
Inner–outer approach (IO)
In this approach the vessel is divided into two partly overlap-
ping zones. Daskopoulos and Harris (1996); and Brucato et al.
(1998) have performed simulations using inner–outer approach.
The region containing the impeller is called as inner region and
the bulk of the vessel including the baffles is called as the outer
region. First, a simulation of the flow in the inner domain is
carried out in a reference frame rotating with the impeller, with
arbitrary boundary conditions imposed on the boundary surface
of inner zone. A first trial flow field is thus computed in the whole
impeller region, including the distributions of velocity, turbulent
kinetic energy and its dissipation on the inner surface of the outer
zone. The latter distributions are used as the boundary conditions
for a first simulation of the flow in outer domain that is carried
out as black box approach (IBC method). Now the information on
the flow field, including a first estimate of mean velocities, turbu-
lent kinetic energies and the energy dissipation rates on the outer
boundary surface of the inner domain are available. These values
are in turn used for the second inner simulation and so on, until
| 32 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | |
the system attains a satisfactory numerical convergence. Each of
the inner and outer simulations is carried out under steady state
assumptions in its own frame of reference. As the two frames
are different, the information that is iteratively exchanged is cor-
rected for the relative motion and averaged over the azimuthal
direction. The main feature of this approach is the existence of
the overlapping region, common to the inner and outer zones,
which provides the iterative matching of the two solutions. The
extent of this region and the exact location of its boundaries are
largely arbitrary.
Multiple reference frame technique (MRF)
In this approach, the mesh block associated with the impeller is
rotated with it, while the outer block associated with the baffles is
kept stationary (Figure 3B). In MRF approach, there is no overlap
between inner and outer regions. In this approach, flow character-
istics of the inner region are solved using a rotating framework.
These results are used to provide boundary conditions for the
outer region (after averaging over azimuthal direction). The flow
in the outer region is solved using stationary framework. The solu-
tion of the outer region is used to provide boundary conditions
for the inner region. A few iterations over inner and outer region
lead to a converged solution. Further, the choice of this surface
between inner and outer region is not arbitrary, since it has to be
selected a priori as a surface where flow variables do not change
appreciably either with angular location or with time. Full geom-
etry needs to be modelled and the impeller blades are modelled
as walls.
Brucato et al. (1994); and Harris et al. (1996) have applied
inner–outer method to simulate flow in stirred vessels whereas
VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |
Marshall et al. (1996) have used a MRF approach. The MRF
approach is computationally less intensive than the inner–outer
method. This approach is available with the various commercially
available CFD codes. The MRF and IO techniques though are capa-
ble of simulating the impeller action using steady simulations;
they are computationally expensive as compared to the black box
approach. IO approach is in fact defines inner and outer zones
with finite overlap where as in MRF approach; there is no overlap
between inner and outer regions.
Snapshot approach (SNAP)
In order to model the impeller rotation, Ranade and Dommeti
(1996) have proposed a computational snapshot approach. In this
approach, the whole solution domain is divided into two regions
(Figure 3C). In the inner region surrounding the impeller, time
derivative terms are approximated in terms of spatial derivatives.
In the outer region, time derivative terms are usually quite small
in magnitude in comparison with the other terms in the govern-
ing equations and are, therefore, neglected. The time dependent
term in impeller swept volume was approximated in terms of
impeller rotation speed and the spatial gradient. This spatial
derivative term is added to the source term in the steady state
equation for the general transport variable. In order to repre-
sent the rotation of the impeller blades and hence the suction
and ejection of the fluid from the back and front side of the
blade, respectively, they have used additional mass sink and
source terms for the cells adjacent to the impeller. This approach
was described as snapshot approach as it gives a picture of
(steady) flow prevailing in a stirred vessel for a certain position
of impeller blades. The principal components of the snapshot
approach consists of the approximation of the time dependent
term in terms of the spatial derivative and the assumption of its
negligible magnitude in the bulk region and hence its removal
from the momentum equations to be solved. Further, the assump-
tion that the baffles have no effect on flow (subsequently sink or
sources) in-between the impeller blades, which leads to the same
impeller box irrespective of the impeller–baffle interaction seems
to inadequate/incorrect. In addition, the model predictions have
not been validated over the entire flow domain for all the flow
variables.
Unsteady State Approaches
The time-dependent interaction of the impeller and the fluid
is modelled. This approach makes the use of the SM, moving-
deforming grid technique (MDG) and impeller modelling within
lattice-Boltzmann-LES framework (AFT).
Sliding-mesh approach (SM)
Murthy et al. (1994) have made use of SM approach to model the
impeller rotation in stirred tanks. In this approach, full transient
simulations are carried out using the two grid zones (Figure 3D).
The flow domain in a stirred vessel is divided into two cylindrical,
non-overlapping sub-domains. Inner domain contains the rotat-
ing impeller while the outer contains the stationary baffles. Each
domain is grided as a separate block. The outer grid is fixed in the
laboratory reference frame, while the inner grid rotates with the
impeller. The detailed geometry of impeller needs to be modelled.
Impeller blades are modelled as solid rotating walls. Flow within
the impeller blades is solved using the usual transport equations
unlike the black box approach described earlier. Further, unlike
in the MRF and IO approaches, in SM, the flow equations in the
inner block (containing the rotating impeller) are formally written
| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | |
with respect to the laboratory reference frame, while the grid is
assumed to rotate with the impeller speed. This is done by explic-
itly adding acceleration terms to the momentum equation as the
rotation of the grid results in acceleration terms which are com-
pletely equivalent to the body forces arising in the non-inertial
frames and one can assume that the impeller action is properly
modelled. The two regions are implicitly coupled at the interface
separating the two blocks via a sliding-grid algorithm, which takes
into account the relative motion between the two sub-domains
and performs the required interpolations. In order for the peri-
odic boundary conditions to be imposed along the  direction, the
computational domain must include an integer number of both
blades and baffles; therefore, its minimum azimuthal extent (in
radians) is 2 divided by the highest common factor of number
of blades and the number of baffles. SM approach has a potential
to generate “a priori” predictions without requiring any experi-
mental input. It can, therefore, be used as a design tool to screen
different configurations.
The SM approach suffers from the large computational
expenses. One is required to add explicitly the acceleration terms
to the momentum equations (accounting for the moving grid sys-
tem). Numerical problems at the grid interface are inherently
created particularly, when the blade shape is complex. Also the
requirement of the interpolation procedure at the interface, which
results into the reduced efficiency and potentially also the numer-
ical accuracy of the scheme, as compared to the single (stationary
or fixed) grid approach. The presence of rotating grids requires
proper care to be taken while handling the grids at the interface
between the two regions, that is, mass flow continuity should be
satisfied at the interface. This requires a lot of book keeping, as
a result, the method of solution is complex, and computational
requirements are enormous. With the advent of faster comput-
ers together with larger storage capacity, this approach is slowly
becoming feasible. The time required to get the converged solution
ranges between days to weeks on the presently available fastest
computers. As it relies on solution of full time varying flow in a
stirred vessel, its computational requirements are greater by order
of magnitude than those required by the steady state simulations.
Because of the excessive computational requirements, there are
restrictions on number of computational cells that can be used
for the simulations. Such a limitation may make “a priori” pre-
dictions of desired flow characteristics such as energy dissipation
rates, shear rates near impeller blades, etc., difficult. The results
obtained using this approach are not yet sufficiently validated
for turbulent regime and the extension to multiphase systems is
rather difficult. All these considerations make SM approach less
attractive as a reactor-engineering tool.
Moving-deforming grid technique
This was developed by Perng and Murthy (1994), wherein, a sin-
gle grid spans both the stationary and moving parts. The grid
attached to the impeller moves with it and causes deformation of
grid throughout the vessel including the impeller and the baffles.
In this approach the grid is time dependent and it moves and con-
sequently deforms during the calculations. The grid around the
impeller rotates and after certain deformation (predefined skew-
ness of the grid for minimum desired mesh quality) is achieved,
the grid is brought back to its original form and the properties are
transferred to the restored grid in a conservative fashion, conse-
quently taking care of the interfacial continuity. The grid motion
is accounted for by transforming the time derivative in Eulerian
conservation equations into Lagrangian form.
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 33 |
 Though this approach seems to closely simulate the
impeller–baffle interactions, it suffers from many noteworthy dif-
ficulties apart from the disadvantages offered by SM approach.
The main difficulty is in controlling the grid quality and as a
consequence the numerical accuracy of the results. The computa-
tional expenses are the highest amongst all the impeller modelling
approaches.
Impeller modelling within lattice-Boltzmann-LES
framework (adaptive force field technique, AFT)
Lattice-Boltzmann technique is an alternative discretisation tech-
nique which offers many advantages such as the computational
efficiency, ease of parallelisation and its unique feature of capabil-
ity of forcing the boundary conditions at any spatiotemporal point.
In this approach fluid is assumed to be a system comprising of
many particles which obey the conservation laws. The conserva-
tion of mass and momentum are applied for each of the particles
and equations are obtained which are equivalent to the incom-
pressible Navier–Stokes equations. Here each particle is assumed
to occupy a corner of the lattice and after each time step particles
are supposed to move a lattice distance and collide with other
particles. The forces acting on the flow are calculated in such a
way that the field has prescribed velocities at points within the
domain. This technique is called the AFT. The impeller and tank
wall are defined as a set of control points on their surface. At the
points on the impeller surface tangential velocities are in accor-
dance with the speed of impeller rotation and the distance of the
surface point from the axis of rotation are prescribed. On the tank
wall, the tangential velocity is set zero. To maintain the fixed val-
ues at the surface points, a control algorithm is used, wherein at
each time step, mismatch between the actual flow velocity and
the prescribed flow velocity at the control points is calculated and
accordingly adapts the force field in such a way that it suppresses
mismatch. This AFT eliminates the necessity to grid the different
impeller-vessel geometries. New designs can be simulated just by
defining the surface points. Though this technique offers accurate
modelling of impeller rotation and models the flow in detail, and
has proven its accurateness of the prediction of flow pattern, it
suffers from the limitation of the requirement of large demand on
both the time and storage front. Though it cannot be used widely
due to enormous computational requirements, it can be used as a
research tool for better insight and detailed understanding of the
complex flow in stirred tanks. It can also be used as an alterna-
tive to the experimental characterisation of the flow. Also it can
be of great help in understanding the flows near the walls and the
regions in which measurements are difficult.
RANS SIMULATION OF RADIAL FLOW IMPELLERS
Stirred vessels are extensively used in the chemical process
industries over a wide range of applications. In majority of
cases, the flow field in baffled stirred vessels is highly tur-
bulent hence it is three-dimensional, complex and chaotic in
nature. During the last 25 years, there have been continuous
efforts on understanding these flows using both sophisticated
experimental and computational fluid dynamic tools. Despite the
sophistication available in the flow visualisation (laser Doppler
anemometry [LDA], ultrasound velocity profiler [UVP], particle
image velocimetry [PIV], and hot film anemometry [HFA]) it is
practically not possible/economical to obtain detailed local flow
information throughout the vessel such as velocity profiles, tur-
bulence properties, energy spectra, mixing time, heat and mass
| 34 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | |
transfer coefficient, etc. In this context, validated CFD model can
be a promising tool. However, the CFD is still in the developmental
stage because of the inadequate understanding of the physics of
turbulence and the available computational speed. In both of these
directions, a continuous development has been occurring and,
during the past 20 years, a fairly good progress has been achieved
in turbulence modelling as well as numerical techniques.
In view of the above, in the past, the flow generated by disc tur-
bine (DT) and pitched blade turbines (PBT) have been subjected
to detailed experimental and computational studies. The initial
objectives were preliminary such as the estimation of gross flow
parameters and the average flow field. However, during the past
10 years, the objectives have become deeper such as the character-
isation of turbulent flow, flow instabilities, etc., and tailoring the
impeller design so as to get the desired flow field. Majority of the
work has been devoted to the modelling of the mean and the tur-
bulence flow field and its comparison with the experimental flow
measurements. However, the comparison of predictive capabili-
ties of various turbulence models has been preliminary even for
the flow generated by conventional impeller designs like DT and
PBT. It is well known that the k − ε model assumes the isotropy
for turbulence, and therefore, anisotropic models such as RSM
and the LES model are being recommended for the simulation
of the complex three-dimensional flows. However, RSM has got
shortcomings like, non-universal model parameters, numerical
difficulties and is computationally expensive by an order of mag-
nitude as compared to the k − ε model. Further, the RSM model
does not capture the time-dependent nature of the flow. This limi-
tation is overcome by the LES approach. During the last few years,
the ability to resolve all but the smallest turbulence scales using
LES has become more viable. LES can potentially produce more
accurate results by modelling only the smallest scales, which tend
to be more isotropic, while fully resolving the turbulence at the
larger scales. From a practical point of view, the use of LES or DNS
as design tools is far from utility due to the high computational
costs associated with them. For these reasons, it is envisioned
that the RANS equations associated with turbulence modelling
will be the main CFD tool used by the practitioners and part of
the research community, at least in the near future. As a result of
this trend, there is a need to improve the accuracy and reliability
of the solutions of turbulent flow fields obtained from the RANS
equations.
In this sub-section, the studies pertaining to the CFD mod-
elling of flow pattern in stirred tanks agitated by radial flow
impellers has been discussed. Table 4 provides the details of sim-
ulations carried out by various investigators. Harvey and Greaves
(1982a,b) have simulated the flow in turbulence with IBC (black
box) approach using the standard k − ε turbulence model for the
first time. They have treated baffles as a source of a pressure-
induced drag on swirling component of the flow. 3-D effects are
transferred mainly through pressure gradient term, which tends
to deplete and reinforce the swirl momentum field before and after
the baffle. They have given the comparison for the radial and axial
velocity that were in qualitative agreement. Deviations as much
as 25% in radial velocity and 100% in tangential velocity were
observed. Comparison for radial, axial, tangential velocities, and
the turbulent kinetic energy was presented mainly in the impeller
discharge stream. No attempt was made to validate the predictions
of the energy dissipation rate.
Middleton et al. (1986) have carried out the CFD simulation of
the turbulent flow using the black box approach with the standard
k − ε turbulence model. No quantitative comparison of the mean
flow and turbulent characteristics was presented in graphical
VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |
|
Table 4. RANS simulation of radial flow impellers

Refs. Impeller Geometric details Grid Impeller model RANS model

Harvey and Greaves (1982a, Rushton turbine D = 0.228 m, T = 0.456 m, flat enclosing 950 rpm Black box approach k − ε model
1982b) wall at the top, impeller blade
height = 0.022 m
Middleton et al. (1986) Rushton turbine T = 0.31 m, HL = 0.42, D = 0.15 m: N = 600, 100, 50 rpm Black box approach k − ε model

VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011

T = 0.91 m, HL = 0.91 m, D = 0.30 m,

|
C/T = 0.33
Placek et al. (1986) Rushton turbine T = 0.294 m, D/T = 0.33, and 0.25 Re = 63 300 and 72 800 Black box approach kp − kT − ε multiple-scale
model
Pericleous and Patel (1987) Straight blade turbine, Source-sink approach
Rushton turbine
Ju et al. (1990) Rushton turbine Three tank geometries: T = 0.292 m, 26 × 30 × 25 and Black box approach Non-isotropic k − ε model
viscosity = 5 centiStokes, D = 76, N = 250: 23 × 30 × 25
I, D = 102, N = 150: II, D = 102, N = 200:
III
Ranade and Joshi (1990b) Rushton turbine T = 0.3 m, C/T = 1/2, D/T = 1/3, H = T Black box approach k − ε model
Kresta and Wood (1991) Rushton turbine T = 0.456 m, D/T = 0.5 and 0.33, H = T, 30 × 30 × 26 Black box approach k − ε model
C/T = 0.5, N = 950 rpm, FLUENT
Luo et al. (1993) Rushton turbine T = 0.294 m, C/T = 0.33, D/T = 0.33, 0.5, 28 × 45 × 120 (r, z, ,) MRF k − ε model
0.2
Perng and Murthy (1993) Rushton turbine 21 × 19 × 24 MRF
Dong et al. (1994) Eight straight bladed Unbaffled vessel, 100 rpm, T = 0.1 m, 39 × 11 × 23 MRF k − ε model
turbine D/T = 0.33, C/T = 0.33, H = T
Luo et al. (1994) Rushton turbine T = 0.292 m, C/T = 0.33, H = T, D/T = 0.33 Source-sink, MRF
Brucato et al. (1994) Rushton turbine 60 × 72 × 26 Inner outer approach k − ε model
Tabor et al. (1996) Rushton turbine T = 0.27 m, D = 0.093 m, C/T = 0.33 50 000, 120 000 Source-sink MRF and k − ε model
SM

|
Lee et al. (1996) Rushton Turbine T = 0.1 m, H = T, D/T = 0.33 46 016, 102 296, 138 632,
N = 2165 rpm
Re = 40 000 SM
Ciofalo et al. (1996) Rushton turbine, T = 0.6 m, D = 0.3 m, C = 0.3 m, and 26 × 46 × 16 and MRF k − ε model, second-order
straight blade turbine T = 0.19 m 20 × 30 × 16 differential stress model
Rigby et al. (1997) Rushton and flat bladed T = 0.294 m, w = 0.2D, D/T = 1/3, C/T = 1/3 SM
turbine
Ranade (1997) Rushton turbine 28 × 28 × 78, Source-sink approach k − ε model
Re = 32 000—5135 Snapshot approach
regime
Jenne and Reuss (1997) Rushton turbine T = 0.444 m, D/T = 0.33 = C/T N = 333 rpm Black box approach k − ε models, Chen–Kim
modified k − ε and RNG
k − ε models
Venneker and van den Akker Rushton turbine T = 0.286 m, D = 0.0953 30 × 28 × 50 Re = 5500 Black box approach k − ε model, Power law
(1997) (n = 0.77) model
Jaworski et al. (1997) Rushton turbine T = 0.15 m, D/T = 0.33, C/T = 0.33, H = T 20 × 28 × 40, Re = 17 000 SM k − ε and RNG k − ε model
Ng et al. (1998) Rushton turbine T = 0.1 m, H = T, D/T = 0.33, C/T = 0.33 46 016, 239 468 SM k − ε model
N = 2165 rpm

THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

Brucato et al. (1998) Rushton turbine C/T = 0.5 and 0.33 55 × 24 × 70, Re 32 000, Black box approach, k − ε model

|
67 000 IO, SM
(Continued )

35
|
|
36
|
Table 4. (Continued )

Refs. Impeller Geometric details Grid Impeller model RANS model

Jenne and Reuss (1999) Rushton turbine T = 0.444 m, H = T, C/T = 0.5, D/T = 0.33 Black box approach k − ε model, Chen–Kim
k − ε RNG-k − ε model
and optimised
Chen–Kim k − ε model
Derksen and van den Akker Rushton turbine D/T = 0.33, C/T = 0.33 6 00 000, Re = 29 000 Adaptive force-field
(1999) technique
Bartels et al. (2000) Rushton turbine T = H = 0.152 m, D/T = 0.33, C/T = 0.33, MRF DNS and k − ε model
Re = 7275
Ranade et al. (2001) Rushton turbine 80 × 83 × 95 Snap-shot approach k − ε model
Lane et al. (2000) Rushton turbine Geometry: same as that of Luo et al. (1994) SM and MRF

THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

48 × 39 × 60 Re = 48 000, k − ε model

|
N = 300 rpm
Montante et al. (2001) Rushton Turbine T = 0.29, H = T, D = T/3, C/T = 0:12; 0:15; 80 136, RPM = 250, SM and inner–outer Std k − ε model, RNG k − ε
0:2; 0:25; and 0.33. CFX software Re = 40 000 model, RSM
Jones et al. (2001) Paddle impeller H = T = 0.1 m, D = T/4, Case 1: C = T/2, 94 500–338 000 for 1/8th MRF k − ε model, modified k − ε
Case 2: C = T/3, FLUENT region, RPM = 100, model, RNG k − ε
Re = 3273 model, k − ω model, and
modified k − ω model
Ranade et al. (2002) Rushton turbine T = H = 0.15 m, C = T/3, D = T/3, FLUENT 269 667 for PBT (for 1/4th Computational k − ε model
region), 630 800 for snapshot
Rushton (for half region)
Kukuková et al. (2005) Rushton turbine H = T = 0.29 m, D = T/3, C = T/3, FLUENT 586 680 for Rushton MRF k − ε model
Deglon and Meyer (2006) Rushton turbine H = T = 0.15 m, D = T/3, C = T/3, FLUENT 33 000–1 900 000, MRF k − ε model
Re = 40 000
Guha et al. (2006) Rushton turbine H = T = 0.2 m, D = T/3, C = T/3, FLUENT 120–720 compartments, MRF k − ε model
150–350 RPM
Javed et al. (2006) Rushton turbine T = 0.3 and 0.15, H = T, D = T/3, C = T/3, 112 480, 138 348, SM k − ε model
FLUENT software Re = 24 000, 48 000
Ochieng et al. (2008) Rushton turbine T = 0.38, D = 0.33T, H = T, C = 0.33 T and 216 000, 436 000, and MRF and SM k − ε model, LES
0.15T 700 000, RPM: 300
Alopaeus et al. (2009) Total 17 cases. Majority T/H = 1, C = T/3, D = T/3, volume of 36 000–800 000, power MRF k − ε model, SST k − ω
with Rushton liquid = 14 dm3 , 194 dm3 and input = 1.49 W/kg to model

|
Turbine, last two 20 000 dm3 , CFX software 15.93 W/kg
with Combijet and
Phasejet

VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011

|
form. The predicted flow field was used to study the effect of
mixing on the yield of a typical consecutive reaction. Good
comparison was sought (presented in tabular form) for the con-
centrations.
Placek et al. (1986) have used the kp − kT − ε multiple-scale
model to model the turbulence and the black box approach
for simulating the action of the impeller. The flow pattern was
obtained by solving the transport equations for vorticity, stream
function and tangential momentum. The Reynolds stresses were
modelled by means of effective viscosity based on the three-
equation model of turbulence. Contour plots for k, ω, ε and the
steam function were presented. Detailed quantitative comparison
of the local velocity and turbulent characteristics was not given at
various locations in the tank. Comparison was presented near the
tank wall only. Comparison of the mean velocity was presented
at three different angular locations.
Pericleous and Patel (1987) carried out the simulation of the
flow using source-sink approach. For straight blade turbine, the
predicted radial jet and the tangential velocity at the impeller
centre plane was found to agree well with the experimental mea-
surements. For radial flow impellers, the radial velocity agreed
within 10–20%, but the prediction of axial velocity was found to
be off sometimes by as much as a factor of 2. Whereas, for axial
flow impellers, the axial velocity was found to be in good agree-
ment and radial velocity was found to be in poor agreement. The
streamline plots were given to see the flow field qualitatively. The
turbulence characteristics were not compared.
Hutchings et al. (1989) have performed the simulation of the
flow field using MRF. They have treated the baffles as the localised
sources of angular momentum and axisymmetric sink of circum-
ferential momentum at the tank walls. It was, however, applicable
to only simple tank geometry with negligible impeller–baffle
interaction.
Ju et al. (1990) have proposed non-isotropic k − ε model to
model the turbulence in the stirred tanks. Black box approach
was used to simulate the action of rotating impeller. Overall good
comparison was observed with non-isotropic model in the region
of comparison. No comparison for turbulent characteristics was
presented. Richardson number was included for the inclusion
of the effect of curvature. They have also given the comparison
of the radial velocity in angular direction that was closer with
the non-isotropic model. Radial and tangential velocities were
found to be in better agreement (deviations less than 20% and
10%, respectively) in impeller plane as compared to that given
by isotropic turbulence model. Axial and radial velocities were
underpredicted by as much as 50% and 35%, respectively, in most
of the radial region (x1 /R > 0.5) while the tangential velocity was
overpredicted by maximum of 10% by non-isotropic model.
Ranade and Joshi (1990b) have simulated the flow produced by
the radial flow impeller using black box approach in conjunction
with k − ε turbulence model. They have systematically investi-
gated the sensitivity of the IBCs and the turbulence parameters
of k − ε model on the predictions. Axial velocity predictions were
found to be in good agreement with their in-house measurements.
Good comparison of radial, tangential velocities, and the turbulent
kinetic energy in the impeller centre plane was observed. While
poor comparison was sought in rest of the region.
Kresta and Wood (1991) have shown the importance of 3-D
simulations using the black box approach. They have extended
Kolar’s swirling radial jet model of impeller region by using two-
equation k − ε model to obtain direct estimate of the turbulent
kinetic energy and the energy dissipation rate on impeller bound-
ary. They have concluded that the modified k − ε models are of
| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | |
less importance as regards to their usefulness in improving the
flow predictions as long as the proper boundary conditions are
provided. The radial velocity and the turbulent kinetic energy
were well-predicted (maximum deviations < 20%) in the impeller
discharge stream. Local velocity in the bulk was not compared.
Average energy dissipation in the bulk was found to be equal to the
dissipation in the impeller stream (=50% each). They have pro-
posed the need to accurately specify the turbulence characteristics
near impeller.
Luo et al. (1993) have solved the time-dependent equations in
two domains that were fixed with respect to their frame of ref-
erence (MRF) using the standard k − ε turbulence model. Finite
volume mesh at the interface was allowed to slide. Better agree-
ment as compared to the steady state and a body force impeller
model was obtained. Comparison for only tangential and axial
velocity was provided. Most of the region was above the impeller
and was excluded for the comparison purpose. Also tangential
velocity was underpredicted (by as much as 500%) for most of
the radial region while maximum deviation in axial velocity was
found to be around 20%. No comparison for the turbulent char-
acteristics was presented.
Perng and Murthy (1994) have illustrated the moving-
deforming grid technique to simulate the action of the rotating
impeller. They have used the same to perform 2- and 3-D unsteady
simulations of laminar and turbulent flows in baffled mixing tanks
with a Rushton turbine. Only vector plots of the velocity field were
presented. No quantitative comparison for the mean velocities, the
turbulent kinetic energy and its dissipation rate was presented.
Dong et al. (1994) have simulated stirred tank flow using MRF
and k − ε model. Flow away from the impeller region was well
predicted while the magnitudes of axial and radial velocities
were overestimated in near impeller region. The turbulent kinetic
energy was overpredicted in the impeller stream. It was fairly
predicted well in upper region of tank. Good comparison was
observed between the experimental and the predicted contour
plots for velocity vector. Predicted energy dissipation rate com-
parison was not presented and attempt was not made to evaluate
power number based on the predicted ε field.
Luo et al. (1994) have used MRF approach to model the impeller
action and have illustrated the predictive ability of MRF simula-
tion. They have observed that the interface conditions between
the inner and the outer domain are unsteady and there exist
the particular location where for all practical purposes steady
flow conditions can be assumed. Interface coupling was per-
formed by the velocity transformation. Good comparison of the
radial (maximum deviation < 20%) and the axial velocity (maxi-
mum deviation < 15%) was obtained while poor comparison for
tangential velocity (with deviations as much as 700% and qual-
itatively opposite in most of the radial region) was sought. No
comparison was presented for the turbulence characteristics.
Brucato et al. (1994) have used inner outer approach along with
the standard k − ε turbulence model. Only vector plots showing
the flow field were presented. Comparison of local velocity with
the experimental values was not given. Variation of power num-
ber obtained from the energy dissipation rate and pressure with
radial velocity and turbulent kinetic energy was shown. They have
proposed that quantitative agreement can be further improved by
the use of more advanced turbulence models. Fairly good predic-
tions were obtained for power (maximum deviation 20%) and
flow number (maximum deviation 15%).
Tabor et al. (1998) have made use MRF approach and the
SM approach. The standard k − ε turbulence model was used to
model the turbulence. MRF technique was not able to capture
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 37 |
the transient details of the flow near the impeller such as
periodic unsteadiness that could be well predicted by the SM
technique. But the overall vortex pattern could be captured at the
less computational expenses No comparison was presented with
the experimental turbulence characteristics. High-resolution MRF
gave better comparison for the velocity components near the blade
edges as compared to that obtained with SM approach (that were
overpredicted by SM) Comparison was presented for the locations
at x1 /R = 0.37 and 0.78. The radial and tangential components of
the velocity near the tank edges were showed deviation as much
as 30% while good agreement for other two velocity components
(deviation <10%) was sought. Radial and tangential velocities
were closely predicted by high-resolution MRF while axial veloc-
ity showed deviations as much as 100% near the impeller. They
have found that the MRF was better as compared to SM in pre-
dicting the behaviour of impeller stream and enlisted the possible
causes. They have recommended MRF for low D/T ratio and sug-
gested its inapplicability for the small blade-baffle gap and the
cases where the time dependent features are of importance.
Lee et al. (1996) have used SM technique to simulate the
impeller rotation. They have discussed the capabilities and
the limitations of the SM technique. Contour plots of both
the experimental and the predicted turbulent kinetic energy
profiles were presented. Severe underpredictions (maximum devi-
ation = 200%) were observed in case of the turbulent kinetic
energy predictions. No comparison for mean axial and tangential
velocities and the turbulent energy dissipation rate was presented.
No comparison in the upper part of the vessel was reported.
Instantaneous radial velocity was overpredicted in most of the
region (x1 /R > 0.5) with maximum departure of 35% from exper-
imental data.
Ciofalo et al. (1996) have used rotating frame of reference along
with the k − ε turbulence model and the second-order differential
stress model (DSM). Poor axial velocity predictions were observed
near the vessel centre. DSM gave good tangential velocity predic-
tions in the upper region. Satisfactory comparison was obtained
for the radial velocity. The shape of the free surface and the
tangential velocity were in excellent agreement with the exper-
imental results. The predicted power numbers were significantly
smaller than the experimental values. They were the first one to
use the second-order turbulence closure wherein they have incor-
porated the effect of the Coriolis force. DSM gave good power
and flow number comparison. They have found that only DSM
could capture the complex interrelation between the main and
the secondary flow field, turbulence stresses and the inertial forces
(rotation induced) in the baffled vessel. For Rushton turbine pre-
dicted power number (15–30%) and the flow number were found
to be in good agreement with the experimental data.
Rigby et al. (1997) have employed SM technique to simulate
the action of rotating impeller. Comparison with the experimen-
tal velocities was shown in tangential direction only. Reasonable
agreement with the experimental data for the location of impeller
was observed. Periodicity (from stationary frame of reference) was
well predicted. No comparison was sought for the validation of the
turbulent flow characteristics. Comparison of all the three veloc-
ity components showed slight underpredictions in the impeller
centre plane and slightly above the impeller.
Ranade (1997) has used the snap shot approach to simulate
the action of rotating impeller and used the standard k − ε model
of turbulence. The radial and the axial velocities were under-
predicted. Also the radial velocity was predicted qualitatively
opposite in the vessel centre region. The turbulence intensities
in radial and axial direction were under predicted by as much as
| 38 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | |
100%. Good power number and flow number comparison was
observed. Also the deviations in the energy dissipation rate were
as much as 10–100%. Power dissipation was underpredicted by
20%. Energy dissipation rate was given only for the centreline and
was found to be poor. Near the bottom of the vessel, axial turbu-
lence intensity predictions showed poor comparison. Comparison
for the radial turbulence intensity was poor and got worst near
the bottom. Peak in the energy dissipation rate was not simulated
well. Angular variation of dimensionless radial and axial veloc-
ity was given at an axial location (z = BW/4), but no comparison
with the experimental data was reported.
Jenne and Reuss (1997) have modelled the flow with the
k − ε turbulence model and used black box approach to describe
impeller rotation. They have proposed the 2-D model (that
assumes the variation of the liquid distribution independent of
the angle), which can be used to calculate power, flow numbers
and impeller efficiency. Model depends on the number of paddles.
They have concluded that the energy required to sustain the liquid
motion in the mixer was strictly related to the velocity distribu-
tion in the vessel itself. Their model reasonably represented the
primary and secondary circulation.
Kuncewicz et al. (1997) have proposed the two-dimensional
model for the prediction of flow pattern in stirred vessel. Tangen-
tial velocity prediction was very poor (maximum deviation 100%)
while axial velocity agreed reasonably well (∼25). Liquid velocity
was found to be proportional to power drawn.
Venneker and van den Akker (1997) have attempted the simu-
lation of the flow using the black box approach along with the
k − ε turbulence model. Radial velocities agreed well through-
out the tank while axial velocity predictions were satisfactory in
most of the region (underpredicted by as much as 50% below
the impeller). The turbulent kinetic energy predictions were good
except near the shaft and the bottom of the impeller where they
were severely underpredicted. No attempt was made to validate
the predicted energy dissipation rate. They have concluded that
the difference between the experimental data and the predictions
due to inner–outer technique may be due to the overestimation
of the eddy viscosity and anisotropy of the turbulent flow in the
stirred vessels. They also have suggested that the qualitatively cor-
rect solution can be obtained by standard k − ε model provided the
experimental data at the impeller tip were used as the boundary
conditions.
Jaworski et al. (1997) have carried out CFD simulation using
the SM approach along with the standard k − ε and RNG k − ε
turbulence models. They have found no effect of the turbulence
model in the bulk region. Both the models used, underpredicted
the turbulence levels. Overall prediction of flow number was good.
Comparison of all the three velocity components and their fluc-
tuations near the impeller tip was presented as a function of
angular co-ordinate only. No spatial comparison was presented.
Mean velocity predictions were in good comparison while both the
models failed to capture the trailing vortex structure. Turbulence
was significantly underpredicted. Standard k − ε model yielded
smaller errors as compared to the RNG k − ε model for turbu-
lence level. RMS components showed significant departure from
the isotropy in the impeller discharge stream. CFD with any of the
models did not pick up trailing vortex region. Better prediction of
turbulence with the standard k − ε model. Good comparison for
the power (within 20%) and flow number was obtained.
Ng et al. (1998) have made a use of sliding grid technique along
with the standard k − ε model to predict the flow pattern in stirred
tank by radial flow impeller. They have discussed the effect of var-
ious parameters such as the angle broadening, data rate and the
VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |
cyclic variation on the measured velocities. They have suggested
further improvement in turbulence modelling for the good pre-
diction of the turbulent kinetic energy in near impeller region.
Comparison of the radial velocity, kinetic energy, and the energy
dissipation rate in the impeller stream at four different angular
locations (at angular locations of 2 = 0◦ , 15◦ , 30◦ , and 45◦ ) were
presented. Radial velocity was found to be overpredicted by devia-
tion amounting to as much as 35% while severe underpredictions
(as much as 200%) were observed for the turbulent kinetic energy
and its dissipation rate. Poor predictions of the energy dissipation
rate (maximum deviation of 400%) were observed.
Brucato et al. (1998) have carried out CFD simulations of the
flow in stirred tanks using various impeller models, namely black
box approach, inner–outer technique and sliding grid approach
along with the standard k − ε turbulence model. They have
presented a comparison with alternative modelling approaches.
Comparison of the experimental and the predicted velocity vector
plots for axial flow impeller was given which could be seen as
qualitatively good. They have shown that the predictions given
by inner–outer approach were comparable to those given by the
SM approach Predictions of the axial velocity were found to be
in good agreement with SM while those were underpredicted by
black box approach.
Jenne and Reuss (1999) have presented a critical assessment
of the variants of the standard k − ε model and recommended
the optimised version of the Chen–Kim model for better predic-
tions. The comparison was presented only in the region below
the impeller. Good agreement for all the velocity components
as a result of simulation with optimised k − ε model (deviation
less than 10%) was obtained. No comparison for the turbulence
characteristics was presented. They have concluded that a more
complex consideration of the different time scales of turbulence
(three equation or four equation eddy viscosity models) or the
effects of anisotropy (RSM) are of minor importance. They also
concluded that the spectral local non-equilibrium is major while
anisotropy is of minor consideration.
Micale et al. (1999) have carried out CFD simulation of the flow
pattern using black box, SM, and inner–outer technique along
with the standard k − ε turbulence model. They have simulated
the three cases, namely parallel flow, merging flow, and diverging
flow. Though the good power number comparison was observed
as a result of SM, 50% less by black box approach and 20% less
by inner–outer technique (IO), it was not calculated by the inte-
grating the energy dissipation rate throughout the tank. It was
obtained as the product of the torque and the angular velocity.
The torque was calculated by summing the contributions due to
the pressure drop between the upstream and downstream faces of
the baffles and the wall shear stress on the horizontal and lateral
walls. Comparison was presented for the predicted flow number
NQ . Similar results with IO and SM and significantly different with
black box approach. Closer comparison for the predicted radial
velocity was sought for parallel flow while comparison for merg-
ing and diverging flows was not good. They have observed the
presence of strong axial component (predicted) by SM as com-
pared to IO. Good qualitative agreement between the presented
experimental and the predicted contours of velocity vectors. Tur-
bulent kinetic energy was severely underpredicted by both the
SM and IO. Also the applicability of black box approach was rec-
ommended for if the flow is insensitive to the details of the flow
at impeller boundaries and accurate flow data is available and
inapplicable to multiple impeller system. They have observed that
the black box approach fails to predict the power number and its
dependence on the impeller-vessel configuration.
| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | |
Wechsler et al. (1999) have carried out simulation of the tur-
bulent flow induced by pitched blade turbine using steady and
unsteady state approach. In steady state approach relative motion
between the impeller blades and the fluid was neglected while
that was taken into consideration in case of unsteady state simu-
lations (modified form of the SM approach). They have presented
extensive comparison with experimental data for all the three
components of velocity and the turbulent kinetic energy at dif-
ferent axial locations. The region near the liquid surface was not
considered for comparison purpose. Radial and tangential velocity
predictions were good (∼10–15%) while turbulent kinetic energy
was underpredicted by as much as It can be seen that axial velocity
was off from the experimental data by as much as 50%.
Oshinowo et al. (2000) performed the CFD study using different
turbulence models like, k − ε, RNG k − ε and RSM for the predic-
tion of tangential velocity distribution in a baffled vessel using
MRF technique to model the impeller–baffle interaction. The tan-
gential velocity distribution above the impeller has been correctly
predicted. They attributed the occurrence of counter-intuitive
reverse swirl in the simulation results to poor convergence and
the coarse grid density in their simulations.
Bartels et al. (2000) have carried out the simulation of the flow
pattern produced by Rushton turbine at Reynolds number of 7275
by both the standard k − ε model and the DNS using MRF. They
have presented the velocity vector plots and the contour plots of
the turbulent kinetic energy. They have observed that the shape
of the contour plots of the turbulent kinetic energy in the impeller
plane as a result of DNS matches closely to the one experimen-
tally observed as compared to the standard k − ε model. Also the
secondary vortices near the junction of the hub and the disc are
shown by DNS while standard k − ε model failed to show this flow
feature. Both the simulations were able to predict the upward incli-
nation of the flow in impeller discharge region and presence of the
ring vortices. They have concluded that both the simulations show
good comparison of the observed flow features as regards to the
large-scale flow field while DNS performs better as compared to
the standard k − ε model when the close comparison is consid-
ered. We can conclude that the standard k − ε model is capable
of predicting most of the flow features of the flow prevailing in
the stirred vessel at very much lower computational expenses as
compared to the DNS.
Ranade et al. (2001) have carried out the simulation of the flow
pattern produced by the Rushton turbine by using a snap shot
approach. They have used the standard k − ε model to model the
turbulence. They have presented the comparison of the flow char-
acteristics, namely in impeller region. They have observed very
good comparison of the flow features near the impeller. Snap shot
approach was found to predict a pair of trailing vortices. Closer
quantitative agreement (∼10% max) was obtained for the radial
velocity (∼150% max) while axial and tangential velocity (∼50%
max) predictions were found to be far away from the experimental
data while the turbulent kinetic energy was severely underpre-
dicted (by as much as ∼200%) with the experimental data in the
impeller region.
Montante et al. (2001) carried out simulations to study the
effect of impeller clearance on the prediction of flow patterns.
They varied the clearance ratio (C/T) from 0.12 to 0.33. They
used three different turbulence models (i) standard k − ε model,
(ii) RNG k − ε model, and (iii) RSM. Impeller–baffle interaction
was modelled using SM and inner–outer approach. They have
reported the velocity vector plots to show the clearance effect
on number of circulation loops. The velocity profiles from three
different turbulence models were almost similar and due to the
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 39 |
lack of experimental data in the plots, conclusion regarding the
superiority of the model cannot be made.
Kukuková et al. (2005) carried out mixing studies like other
investigators. In addition to velocity profile, concentration profile
and mixing time, they have also reported power and pumping
number of the impeller. The simulation results of axial, radial,
and tangential velocities were in good agreement with experi-
ments. The simulated mixing time values were underpredicted
by 20–45% as compared with experiments.
Guha et al. (2006) carried out compartmental modelling to
study turbulent mixing. They have carried out simulation of reac-
tive system (first- and second-order system) as well as effect of
turbulent mixing on multiple reactions. They have also studied
the effect of feed location on the desired product yield.
Javed et al. (2006) carried out mixing studies using CFD as well
as experiments. They have solved scalar transport equation to esti-
mate mixing time. Turbulent Schmidt number was chosen as 0.7.
They considered eight different locations in bulk and impeller
region as concentration measurement locations. The comparison
of mean axial, tangential, and radial velocities was reported and
simulation results were in very good agreement with the experi-
mental data. However, simulation under predicted the turbulent
kinetic energy. They have also reported the transient evolution of
tracer concentration. They observed that (i) the predicted tempo-
ral and spatial distributions of tracer concentration reveal a direct
correspondence with the mean flow structure and levels of turbu-
lence in the tank. (ii) The time required for the first concentration
peak to appear and its value, and the time required for concentra-
tion profiles to approach the fully mixed condition depend on the
position in the tank.
Ochieng et al. (2008) carried out mixing studies in stirred tank
at low clearance. They have shown that at a low impeller clear-
ance, the Rushton turbine generates a flow field that evolves from
the typical two loops to a single loop flow pattern similar to that
of an axial impeller. This single loop flow pattern resulted in an
increase in axial flow and a decrease in mixing time at a constant
power number. They have also carried out experiments and simu-
lation by adding a draft tube in the tank to improve axial velocity
and were able to achieve significant improvement in mixing per-
formance. The simulation results of axial and radial velocity were
in good agreement with experiments whereas turbulent kinetic
energy was underpredicted using simulations.
Alopaeus et al. (2009) carried out CFD simulation using zonal
modelling. The model is based on tank division into two nested
regions in a systematic manner. By gradually increasing the
inner zone volume, starting from the impeller swept volume and
finally approaching the total tank volume, continuous curves are
obtained for the most important factors characterising small- and
large-scale mixing. They have analysed two important variables
(i) pumping number and (ii) turbulent kinetic energy dissipation
rate. They have simulated 17 cases varying vessel size, discretisa-
tion methods, grid size, turbulence model (namely standard k − ε
model and SST k − ω model) and type of impeller.
There have been hardly two–three attempts partially focused
on the RSM for the flow generated by Rushton turbine in a baf-
fled stirred vessel. First one, Bakker and van den Akker (1994)
employed the simplified RSM, that is, ASM using the IBC method
to model the flows produced by a Rushton turbine. Their objec-
tive was to improve the predictive capabilities of CFD modelling
by accounting anisotropy using less computational intensive ASM
model (simplified RSM). Their study concluded that the results
predicted by the ASM compare better with the experimental data
than those predicted by the standard k − ε model. Oshinowo et
| 40 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | |
al. (2000) performed the CFD study using different turbulence
models like, k − ε, RNG k − ε and RSM for the prediction of
tangential velocity distribution in a baffled vessel using MRF
model. The tangential velocity distribution above the impeller
has been correctly predicted. They attributed the occurrence of
counter-intuitive reverse swirl in the simulation results to poor
convergence and the coarse grid density in their simulations. It
may be pointed out, however, that both the aforesaid investiga-
tions have shown the comparisons in a small region and most of
the vessel region remained unexplored. More importantly, both
the studied have not presented the predictive capability of CFD
models for the turbulent kinetic energy and the turbulent energy
dissipation rate.
From the foregoing literature review it follows that, in majority
of the studies, the comparison between the CFD predictions and
the experimental measurements has been made over a relatively
small region around the impeller or the impeller stream. Very few
predictions have been validated against the experimental data for
all the flow variables and turbulence characteristics throughout
the vessel. Knowledge of the turbulent kinetic energy and its dis-
sipation rate is essential for the understanding of transport of the
flow variables. Also these are required in prediction of micromix-
ing, turbulent length scales, shear stresses, and drop/bubble sizes.
Very few attempts have been made to establish the energy balance
from the predicted values of the energy dissipation rate ε through-
out the tank. The total turbulent energy dissipation in the vessel
has been rarely compared with the energy-input rate through the
impeller (estimated using the power number of the impeller).
Comparison of the predicted power number (which is the measure
the energy balance in the stirred tanks) is not reported in most
of the studies. Severe under/overprediction of turbulent kinetic
energy for all the simulation approaches and the turbulence mod-
els could be observed. Also the dissipation of turbulent kinetic
energy (hence the eddy viscosity) has received little attention
as regards to its prediction and validation. This may be partly
because of the difficulty in experimental measurements of these
parameters and the consequent difficulty in reliable validation
with the experimental data. Further, potentially strong alterna-
tives (SM approach and MRF) suffer from the requirement of
expensive computation. Most of the simulations have been carried
out with two-equation standard k − ε model. This model contains
three parameters (C␮ , Cε1 , Cε2 ). The values of these parameters
have been estimated on the basis of simple flows (boundary layer,
jets, flow downstream of a grid). The validity of using the values
of these parameters for the simulation of flow in stirred vessel is
questionable. Practically no attempt has been made to understand
the significance of these parameters and their values in a typical
stirred vessel configuration. In addition to the works of Sahu et al.
(1998); and Nere et al. (2001), it is very important to understand
the validity of k − ε model for stirred tank reactors.
COMPARISON OF IMPELLER–BAFFLE
INTERACTION MODELS
Impeller–baffle interaction modelling plays a crucial role in pre-
diction of flow patterns in stirred vessels. The summary of
various models has already been provided in third section. In
this section, comparison of these models has been carried out
at four locations (x2 /R = 0.586, x2 /R = 0.24, x2 /R = −0.24, and
x2 /R = −0.933) (Figure 4). This analysis is presented using two
different turbulence models, namely (i) standard k − ε model (ii)
RSM. An extensive comparison of the CFD predictions has been
VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |

Figure 4. Schematic of stirred tank reactor with locations at which
comparison between experiment and CFD data has been carried out.
illustrated with the experimental data obtained with the help of
in-house LDA. The values of error are reported in brackets in the
analysis. Table 5 gives the quantitative error involved with all the
turbulence models for mean and turbulent quantities. The error
is estimated as follows:
Expt Value − Predicted Value
Error = × 100 (11)
Expt Value
Simulation Details
The geometrical details of the system investigated are already
shown in Figure 4. The impeller speed was kept at 4.5 rps
(Re = 45 000) to ensure the turbulent flow regime. The impeller
was placed at H/3 from the vessel bottom. All the simulations
have been carried out by using an in-house and the commercial
code FLUENT. Pressure–velocity coupling has been taken care of
by using SIMPLE scheme. Grid independence studies have been
carried out using three different grid sizes, namely 45, 68, and
85 K. Finally 85 K grid size has been chosen for all the simula-
tions. Non-uniform grids are used to maintain higher grid density
in high shear regions.
In some cases, visual observation of plots showed good agree-
ment, whereas RMS error was high. This was because agreement
was good over major portion; only at some locations deviations
were high making the RMS error values large. Other possible rea-
sons for relatively large deviations are (i) number of grid points
for all the simulations have been decided after grid sensitivity
study. In this grid sensitivity study, comparison of mean veloc-
ity components with experimental data using IBC approach and
standard k − ε model was carried out. Hence possibility of error
at this resolution for different impeller models and turbulence
models cannot be ruled out. (ii) The turbulence in stirred vessels
is strongly anisotropic and not homogeneous. The standard k − ε
model and its modifications cannot account for such anisotropy
due to inherent assumptions involved in these models. At best,
one can use different combinations of model parameters in dif-
| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | |
ferent zones to improve the predictions. In case of RSM, all the
stress equations are solved to get more accurate turbulence pro-
duction. But in RSM, the modelled equation for turbulent kinetic
dissipation rate equation is same as that of standard k − ε model
(many assumptions to model terms containing fluctuating com-
ponents) and hence the deviations with experimental data can
be expected. If we have good grid resolution and all the shear
rates are accurately predicted in impeller as well as bulk zone,
then good agreement with RSM can be expected. The fifth and
sixth sections give the comparison between CFD predictions and
experimental data.
Comparison at x2 /R = 0.586
Figure 5A shows the comparison of radial velocity using standard
k − ε model and various impeller–baffle interaction models. It can
be seen that SNAP model (line 4, 28%) gave the best fit amongst
all the models. IBC (line 1, 44%), MRF (line 2, 52%), and SM (line
3, 88%) underpredicted the radial velocity. Even the axial velocity
predictions (Figure 5B) were better with SNAP model (51%), fol-
lowed by IBC (73%), MRF (79%), and SM (95%) models. None of
the models could predict tangential velocity (Figure 5C). The pre-
dictions of radial velocity with RSM as turbulence model and IBC
and MRF as impeller–baffle interaction model are given in (Figure
6A). MRF (52%) gave almost similar results with RSM and stan-
dard k − ε model, while IBC (70%) gave more deviation with RSM.
Even in case of axial velocity (Figure 6B), though both the models
under predicted, MRF (76%) with RSM gave better results than
standard k − ε model. IBC (81%) with RSM gave poor results as
compared with standard k − ε model. Figure 6C shows the tangen-
tial velocity predictions of IBC and MRF with IBC. Both the models
(>300%) showed only qualitative agreement with experimental
results with RSM.
Figure 7A shows the prediction of turbulent kinetic energy.
Though IBC gave a peak at x1 /R = 0.1, which was not shown by
experiments, it gave satisfactory match (45%) in the rest of the
region. MRF (92%), SM (76%), and SNAP (65%) underpredicted.
Turbulent kinetic energy with RSM (Figure 7B) gave satisfactory
results with IBC (45%), while underpredictions were observed
with MRF (92%).
Comparison at x2 /R = 0.24
Figure 8A shows the comparison of radial velocity using different
impeller–baffle interaction models using standard k − ε turbu-
lence model. It can be seen that IBC model (line 1, 835%) shows
better agreement compared to other models (MRF: line 2, 246%,
SM: line 3, 1005%, SNAP: line 4). However, maximum value of
velocity with experiment was observed close to x1 /R = 0.66 and
with IBC at x1 /R = 0.42. SM and SNAP approach do not predict
negative radial velocity, whereas MRF approach shows very poor
agreement with experimental data. Figure 8B shows comparison
of axial velocity. It can be seen that SNAP shows very good agree-
ment with experimental data over the entire range. IBC predictions
(103%) were in good agreement up to x1 /R = 0.4, beyond which
it was insignificant under prediction. SM (51%) and MRF (118%)
showed under prediction over entire range and agreement was
very poor. Figure 8C shows comparison of tangential velocity. It
can be seen that no model is able to predict tangential velocity
neither in qualitative nor quantitative sense. The source of error
in prediction can be either from inappropriate impeller model or
turbulence model. To check the sensitivity of turbulence model on
overall prediction, similar comparison of impeller models (MRF
and IBC) is presented using RSM. Figure 9A shows comparison of
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 41 |
 Table 5. Quantitative error

x2 /R = 0.586 x2 /R = 0.24 x2 /R = −0.24 x2 /R = −0.933

Axial location Max error RMS error Max error RMS error Max error RMS error Max error RMS error

Impeller model: IBC

STD k − ε
Radial velocity 69 44 3164 835 13 283 2916 4037 1184
Axial velocity 158 73 301 103 990 238 150 84
Tangential velocity 4896 1178 331 129 2265 563
TKE 127 45 637 398 495 353 68 49
RNG k − ε
Radial velocity 71 47 2602 765 13 557 2968 1365 386
Axial velocity 80 66 275 93 1016 244 131 70
Tangential velocity 3883 896 462 159 2693 661
TKE 84 57 474 279 367 239 82 68
RSM
Radial velocity 87 70 10 496 2442 17 265 3780 444 153
Axial velocity 167 81 239 91 971 233 236 114
Tangential velocity 19 536 4718 361 120 1432 380
TKE 159 92 756 542 1258 743 84 58
MOD k − ε
Radial velocity 92 53 2563 574 623 226 179 105
Axial velocity 113 59 239 83 569 157 137 40
Tangential velocity 6849 2650 902 285 4542 1509
TKE 64 30 249 192 127 92 75 62
ZON k − ε
Radial velocity 80 56 1400 378 900 305 1468 391
Axial velocity 67 57 256 91 536 146 285 95
Tangential velocity 5342 2067 621 199 7921 2547
TKE 83 70 380 274 113 61 76 70
NEW k − ε
Radial velocity 69 51 2116 578 819 272 1326 419
Axial velocity 157 66 282 97 460 124 224 79
Tangential velocity 1751 682 554 179 10 769 3470
TKE 90 70 168 114 48 18 83 79
OPTCK k − ε
Radial velocity 69 51 1770 563 781 365 1326 419
Axial velocity 157 66 159 60 151 40 224 79
Tangential velocity 1628 536 575 192 22 706 7414
TKE 96 88 83 48 89 63 94 91
Impeller model: MRF
STD k − ε
Radial velocity 85 52 826 246 383 179 2867 974
Axial velocity 153 79 61 51 177 62 355 108
Tangential velocity 1246 312 175 81 1833 449 3649 1364
TKE 97 92 95 90 93 84 87 82
RSM
Radial velocity 81 52 2882 638 606 226 3463 1187
Axial velocity 162 76 75 53 58 45 393 114
Tangential velocity 3571 818 226 89 3153 772 1854 560
TKE 96 91 94 89 94 86 87 81
Impeller model: SM
STD k − ε
Radial velocity 93 88 3487 1005 1909 781 1134 358
Axial velocity 121 95 399 118 624 170 100 97
Tangential velocity 100 96 9171 3322 200 106
TKE 80 76 91 88 93 83 89 84
RNG k − ε
Radial velocity 97 91 3141 865 2286 780 724 238
Axial velocity 188 94 460 144 114 99
Tangential velocity 104 85 5033 1722 468 165
TKE 99 88 291 135 100 99

| 42 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | | VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |

Figure 5. Prediction of mean velocity components using standard k − ε
model at x2 /R = 0.586. Impeller: disc turbine. (A) Radial velocity (B) axial
velocity (C) tangential velocity. Line 1: IBC, line 2: MRF, line 3: SM, line 4:
SNAP.
radial velocity and it can be seen that using IBC (line 1, 2442%)
and RSM together show significant overprediction than IBC and
standard k − ε model (Figure 5A). A significant improvement is
observed in the wall region when MRF is used with RSM (638%),
whereas in the bulk effect of turbulence model was insignificant.
Figure 9B shows comparison of axial velocity. It can be seen that
axial velocity profiles are relatively insensitive to turbulence mod-
els. MRF model predictions (53%) were in qualitative agreement
| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | |
Figure 6. Prediction of mean velocity components using RSM at
x2 /R = 0.586. Impeller: disc turbine. (A) Radial velocity (B) axial velocity
(C) tangential velocity.
Experimental, line 1: IBC, line 2: MRF.
with the experimental data. MRF could predict the crossover of
velocity from positive to negative accurately. Figure 9C shows
comparison of tangential velocity. The predictions have signifi-
cantly improved in central region using RSM than standard k − ε
model for both IBC (120%) and MRF (89%).
Figure 10A and B shows the comparison of turbulent kinetic
energy using standard k − ε model and RSM, respectively. It can
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 43 |
Figure 7. CFD prediction of turbulent kinetic energy for disc turbine at
x2 /R = 0.586. (A) Standard k − ε model:
experimental, line 1: IBC, line
2: MRF, line 3: SM, line 4: SNAP. (B) RSM:
experimental, line 1: IBC,
line 2: MRF.

be seen that predictions from all the impeller models for turbulent
kinetic energy were in poor agreement by both the turbulence
models. IBC model (with k − ε model: 398% and with RSM:
542%) overpredicted, whereas other models severely under pre-
dicted (factor of 10).

Comparison at x2 /R = −0.24
The comparison of mean and turbulence quantities in below
impeller plane has been presented in Figures 11–13. Figure 11A–C
shows comparison of mean flow using standard k − ε model. Simi-
lar to x2 /R = 0.24, IBC (2916%) shows only qualitative agreement
with the experimental data below impeller for radial velocity
(Figure 11A). SNAP and MRF have totally different trend than
experimental data, whereas SM has shown significant under pre-
diction (by a factor of 4). The reason behind good agreement using
IBC is it uses actual velocity field information (experimental data)
in the impeller zone, whereas in other methods, actual experi-
mental data are not used for the simulation. Figure 11B shows
the comparison of axial velocity. All the models show only qual-
itative match with the experimental data. SNAP approach was
found to be in best agreement, followed by IBC (238%). MRF
results were better than SM, but both the models under predict the
experimental data. Figure 11C shows the comparison of tangential
velocity. IBC showed good agreement with the experimental data,
and other methods showed poor agreement. Figure 12 shows the
Figure 8. Prediction of mean velocity components using standard k − ε
model at x2 /R = 0.24. Impeller: disc turbine. (A) Radial Velocity (B) axial
velocity (C) tangential velocity.
Experimental, line 1: IBC, line 2: MRF,
line 3: SM, line 4: SNAP.
comparison of impeller models (MRF and IBC) using RSM. From
Figure 12A, it can be seen that, a change in the turbulence model
did not improve the results for MRF model, but the performance
of IBC model with RSM (3780%) was deteriorated as compared
to standard k − ε model. Figure 11B shows that the effect of tur-
bulence model on axial velocity (233%) is not significant and
profiles are almost similar as in Figure 11B. The tangential velocity
(Figure 12C) predictions using IBC were in very good agree-
ment with experimental data, whereas MRF results were in under

| 44 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | | VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |


Figure 9. Prediction of mean velocity components using RSM at
x2 /R = 0.24. Impeller: disc turbine. (A) Radial velocity (B) axial velocity
(C) tangential velocity.
Experimental, line 1: IBC, line 2: MRF.
prediction. Figure 13A and B shows the comparison of turbulent
kinetic energy using standard k − ε model and RSM, respectively
(with k − ε model: 353% and with RSM: 743%). The observations
are almost similar to x2 /R = 0.24.
Comparison at x2 /R = −0.933
None of the models predicted radial velocity (Figure 14A) either
quantitatively or qualitatively. Figure 14B shows the axial veloc-
ity comparison, IBC, MRF, and SNAP models followed the trend
qualitatively but underpredicted, while SM model gave negligible
| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | |
Figure 10. CFD prediction of turbulent kinetic energy at x2 /R = 0.24.
Impeller: disc turbine. (A) Standard k − ε model:
experimental, line 1:
IBC, line 2: MRF, line 3: SM, line 4: SNAP (B) RSM:
experimental, line 1:
IBC, line 2: MRF.
magnitude of the axial velocity. The tangential velocity (Figure
14C) predictions were also qualitative by all the models, SM
(106%) gave the best match amongst the models, while others
predicted (>400%). Radial velocity (Figure 15A) predictions with
RSM did not show either qualitative or quantitative match with
both the models. Figure 15B shows axial velocity comparison by
IBC and MRF models using RSM. Only qualitative agreement was
shown by MRF (114%) with RSM as turbulence model, while
IBC gave negative velocities. Neither IBC nor MRF could predict
tangential velocity (Figure 15C) with RSM (>300%).
The turbulent kinetic energy (Figure 16A) was predicted sat-
isfactorily by SNAP (49%), followed by IBC (49%), MRF (82%),
and SM (84%). IBC (58%) overpredicted turbulent kinetic energy,
while MRF (81%) underpredicted with RSM (Figure 16B).
COMPARISON OF RANS MODELS
In the previous section, detailed comparison of various
impeller–baffle interaction models was presented. In this section,
comparison of various turbulence models (refer Table 2) used
for closure in Reynolds averaged Navier–Stokes equation is pre-
sented. Various turbulence models, namely the standard k − ε,
RNG k − ε, RSM have been used with impeller models such as
IBC, MRF, and SM. Further, simulations with the k − ε model
with the turbulence parameters suggested by Abujelala and Lilley
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 45 |
Figure 11. Prediction of mean velocity components using standard k − ε
model at x2 /R = −0.24. Impeller: disc turbine. (A) Radial velocity (B) axial
velocity (C) tangential velocity.
Experimental, line 1: IBC, line 2: MRF,
line 3: SM, line 4: SNAP.
(1984) (MOD k − ε), zonal model (ZON k − ε by Sahu et al., 1998)
and optimised Chen–Kim k − ε model (OPT-CK, Jenne and Reuss,
1999) model have been carried out using IBC approach.
Comparison Using IBC Impeller Model
Comparison at x2 /R = 0.586
IBC (Figure 17A1) with all the turbulence models was able to give
satisfactory comparison of radial velocity. Standard k − ε model
| 46 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | |
Figure 12. Prediction of mean velocity components using RSM at
x2 /R = −0.24. Impeller: disc turbine. (A) Radial velocity (B) axial velocity
(C) tangential velocity.
Experimental, line 1: IBC, line 2: MRF.
yielded closer comparison followed by RNG k − ε model and RSM
(standard k − ε model: 44%, RNG: 47%, RSM: 70%). IBC under-
predicted axial velocity (Figure 17A2) with all the turbulence
models and the predictions were found to be insensitive to the
turbulence models employed (standard k − ε model: 73%, RNG:
66%, RSM: 81%). Relatively closer comparison was sought with
the standard and the RNG k − ε models as compared to the RSM
in the region with x1 /R < 0.1. IBC with all the models predicted
tangential velocity (Figure 17A3) trend qualitatively (standard
VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |
Figure 13. CFD prediction of turbulent kinetic energy at x2 /R = −0.24.
Impeller: disc turbine. (A) standard k − ε model:
experimental, line 1:
IBC, line 2: MRF, line 3: SM, line 4: SNAP. (B) RSM:
Experimental, line
1: IBC, line 2: MRF.

k − ε model: 1178%, RNG: 896%, RSM: 4718%). Standard and

RNG k − ε models resulted into consistently severe underpredic-
tions. Closer comparison was sought by RSM for x1 /R < 0.3 while
overprediction was observed in rest of the radial region. The k-
predictions (Figure 17A4) by standard k − ε (45%) and RNG k − ε
(57%) models were similar quantitatively with minor underpre-
dictions up to x1 /R = 0.4. Closer comparison was sought in rest of
the radial region. RSM (92%) resulted into satisfactory compari-
son.

Comparison at x2 /R = 0.24
IBC with all the turbulence models though predicted radial veloc-
ity (Figure 17B1) trend qualitatively, the maximum was found to
be shifted away from the vessel wall (standard k − ε model: 835%,
RSM: 279%, RNG k − ε model: 765%). RSM overpredicted radial
velocity in the central region while satisfactory agreement can be
seen result in rest of the region. While other turbulence models
yielded relatively closer agreement of radial velocity throughout.
Axial velocity (Figure 17B2) predictions of all the simulations
were practically similar (i.e., insensitive to turbulence models).
All the turbulence models closely predicted the axial velocity x1 /R
up to 0.4 while underpredictions were observed in rest of the
radial region (0.4 < x1 /R < 0.8). All the models resulted into poor
predictions (120–398%) of tangential velocity (Figure 17B3). RSM
gave relatively closer agreement for x1 /R up to 0.4. Thus one can
Figure 14. Prediction of mean velocity components using standard k − ε
model at x2 /R = −0.933. Impeller: disc turbine. (A) Radial velocity (B)
axial velocity (C) tangential velocity.
Experimental, line 1: IBC, line 2:
MRF, line 3: SM, line 4: SNAP.
see that the sensitivity of the predictions to the turbulence models
is limited to the region with x1 /R < 0.4 where RNG k − ε and STD
k − ε models resulted into larger underprediction of tangential
velocity. All the turbulence models largely overpredicted turbulent
kinetic energy (Figure 17B4) with the highest deviation as a result
of RSM (542%) followed by the STD (398%) and RNG (159%)
k − ε model in most of the radial region (x1 /R > 0.4). Good agree-
ment was observed for x1 /R < 0.4 with RNG k − ε model while
STD k − ε model yielded closer agreement for x1 /R up to 0.15.

| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 47 |


Figure 15. Prediction of mean velocity components using RSM at
x2 /R = −0.933. Impeller: disc turbine. (A) Radial velocity (B) axial velocity
(C) tangential velocity.
Experimental, line 1: IBC, line 2: MRF.
Thus one can conclude that turbulence models result in different
kinetic energies in bulk while the turbulence models do not sig-
nificantly affect the mean flow field (except tangential velocity)
in the bulk region.
Comparison at x2 /R = −0.24
IBC resulted in good prediction of radial velocity trend (Figure
17C1). The predictions as a result of STD k − ε (2916%) and RNG
| 48 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
Figure 16. CFD prediction of turbulent kinetic energy at x2 /R = −0.933.
Impeller: disc turbine. (A) standard k − ε model:
experimental, line 1:
IBC, line 2: MRF, line 3: SM, line 4: SNAP. (B) RSM:
experimental, line
1: IBC, line 2: MRF.
k − ε (2968%) were relatively closer over most of the radial coor-
dinate (except near the vessel centre), while RSM yielded large
overprediction (3780%) in the region 0.1 < x1 /R < 0.6. Very good
agreement of the axial velocity (Figure 17C2) could be seen as a
result of simulations with IBC with all the turbulence models. All
the turbulence models yielded quantitatively similar axial velocity
predictions indicating insensitivity to the turbulence models. Very
good agreement of the tangential velocity (Figure 17C3) could be
found as a result of simulations with IBC with all the turbulence
models. Further the turbulence models resulted into quantita-
tively similar tangential velocity predictions (deviations within
120% and 159%) again leading to the insensitivity of w predic-
tions towards the turbulence models. Severe overpredictions in k
(Figure 17C4) were observed as a result of all the simulations with
IBC. The magnitude in the deviation was the least with the RNG
k − ε (239%) followed by STD k − ε (353%) model. RSM resulted
into the worst k-predictions (743%) throughout. RNG k − ε model
gave closer k predictions for x1 /R < 0.3.
At x2 /R = −0.933
IBC with all the turbulence models employed resulted into the
poor radial velocity (153–1184%) predictions (Figure 17D1).
No specific trend as a result of the change in the turbulence
model was observed. Axial velocity trend (Figure 17D2) was well
| | VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |
Figure 17. Comparison of predictions with IBC. Impeller: disc turbine. A1–A4: at x2 /R = 0.586, B1–B4: at x2 /R = 0.24; C1–C4: at x2 /R = −0.24; D1–D4:
at x2 /R = −0.933.
Experimental (1) STD k − ε, (2) RNG k − ε, (3) RSM.
captured by all the turbulence models. IBC with STD k − ε (84%)
and RNG k − ε (70%) resulted into relatively closer comparison
as compared to that given by RSM (114%). With each of the simu-
lations severe underprediction was the result. Interestingly all the
models were able to predict the upflow near the vessel wall. None
of the turbulence models was able to satisfactorily predict the
tangential velocity component (Figure 17D3) with IBC. Though
the standard k − ε (563%) and RNG k − ε (661%) model resulted
into relatively closer comparison near the wall, they failed to cap-
ture the qualitative trend of the tangential velocity in the rest of
the radial region. Though RSM (380%) was able to qualitatively
follow the tangential velocity trend, severe underprediction (neg-
ligible swirling) was the result throughout the radial region. IBC
resulted into overall closer comparison for k (Figure 17D4) with
all the turbulence models employed. RSM (58%) overpredicted k
in the central region while standard (49%) and RNG (68%) k − ε
models underpredicted throughout the radial region. RNG k − ε
model yielded largest underpredictions.
Comparison at x2 /R = 0.0 (impeller centre plane)
Simulations with IBC using all the three turbulence models
resulted into consistent overprediction of mean radial velocity
| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | |
throughout the radial region. The deviation was found to be as
much as 100%. All the three turbulence models resulted into sim-
ilar axial velocity predictions. Its predictions were opposite for
x1 /R < 0.45 and it was overpredicted for rest of the region. Tan-
gential velocity was severely underpredicted by all the turbulence
models. RSM gave relatively closer comparison. Further STD and
RNG k − ε models resulted into quantitatively similar predictions.
IBC using all the turbulence models yielded satisfactory compar-
ison. Predictions of k as a result of all the simulations were more
or less similar.
Discussion for the simulations with the variants of
the k − ε model
Figure 18 gives the comparison between the experimental flow
characteristics produced by DT and the predictions of the various
simulations with the variants of k − ε models (MOD k − ε, ZON
k − ε, and OPTCK k − ε models) using IBC approach.
Comparison at x2 /R = 0.586
All the variants of k − ε models (Figure 18A1) could capture the
qualitative behaviour of radial velocity throughout the region.
All the simulations underpredicted (∼50%) u throughout the
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 49 |
Figure 18. Comparison of predictions with IBC using k − ε variants. Impeller: disc turbine. A1–A4: at x2 /R = 0.586, B1–B4: at x2 /R = 0.24; C1–C4: at
x2 /R = −0.24; D1–D4: at x2 /R = −0.933.
Experimental (1) MOD k − ε model, (2) ZON k − ε model, (3) NEW k − ε model, (4) OPTCK k − ε model.

radial region. Again u predictions were found to be insensi-
tive (with minor difference in magnitude) as a result of all the
turbulence models. Axial velocity (Figure 18A2) trend was pre-
dicted by all the k − ε variants. Underpredictions (57–72%) were
given by all the models in the region with 0.2 < x1 /R < 0.65 and
x1 /R > 0.8. Relatively closer comparison by ZON k − ε model
was observed for x1 /R < 0.2. All the k − ε variants were suc-
cessful in predicting the radial reversal and all the k − ε models
severely overpredicted the tangential velocity as much as 500%
(Figure 18A3) for 0.13 < x1 /R < 0.3. MOD and OPT-CK k − ε mod-
els resulted in qualitatively opposite comparison for x1 /R < 0.4
and 0.13 < x1 /R < 0.4, respectively. All the models yielded similar
comparison for x1 /R > 0.5 with minor differences. The turbu-
lent kinetic energy (Figure 18A4) was underpredicted by all the
k − ε models throughout the radial co-ordinate. The deviation was
between 30% and 88%.
Comparison at x2 /R = 0.24
Almost all the models underpredicted radial velocity nominally
for x1 /R > 0.6, the deviation being maximum (as much as 25%)
for x1 /R > 0.35 (Figure 18B1). Qualitatively opposite predictions
were observed for x1 /R < 0.33 while overprediction was the result
for 0.33 < x1 /R < 0.5 by all the k − ε variants. All the k − ε mod-
els resulted into similar predictions for axial velocity (Figure
18B2). MOD k − ε gave qualitatively opposite tangential velocity
for x1 /R <0.2 (Figure 18B3). Thus overall poor comparison was
sought by all the k − ε models. Even the trend was not reproduced
by any of the k − ε variants. It can be seen from (Figure 18B4)
that the k was overpredicted more or less by all the models. Only
MOD k − ε model was able to closely predict the experimentally
observed k for x1 /R > 0.26 while it resulted in severe underpre-
dictions in rest of the region. ZON k − ε model overpredicted k
(274%) throughout the radial coordinate. Though the OPTCK
k − ε model gave the closer comparison for 0.3 < x1 /R < 0.8, it
overpredicted the k (as much as 200%) in rest of the radial region.
Comparison at x2 /R = −0.24
It can be observed from Figure 18C1 that the experimental radial
velocity trend was closely followed by all the k − ε models for
x1 /R > 0.2. All the k − ε variants employed, resulted into qual-
itatively opposite radial velocities near the vessel centre while
severe overpredictions for 0.2< x1 /R < 0.4. Minor deviations were
observed for x1 /R > 0.5. Maximum deviation was due to ZON k − ε
for x1 /R < 0.4. Closer comparison was obtained with the OPTCK

| 50 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | | VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |

Figure 19. Comparison of predictions with MRF. Impeller: disc turbine. A1–A4: at x2 /R = 0.586, B1–B4: at x2 /R = 0.24; C1–C4: at x2 /R = −0.24; D1–D4:
at x2 /R = −0.933.
Experimental (1) STD k − ε, (2) RSM.
k − ε for x1 /R between 0.45 and 0.65 and other k − ε variants for
x1 /R > 0.65. All the k − ε models yielded good axial velocity pre-
dictions throughout the radial coordinate. It was found to be more
or less insensitive to the type of k − ε model (Figure 18C2). Tan-
gential velocity predictions were largely overpredicted for x1 /R up
to 0.3 while underpredictions (as much as 200%) was the result
for x1 /R > 0.3 by all the k − ε models (Figure 18C3). Predictions
of the w were more or less similar as a result of all the simu-
lations with k − ε models (except MOD k − ε in the region with
x1 /R < 0.3). All the k − ε variants resulted in quantitatively similar
k predictions for x1 /R < 0.3 (Figure 18C4). Excellent comparison
was observed for x1 /R > 0.4 by ZON and OPTCK k − ε models
while overpredictions (100%) and underpredictions (as much as
150%) were seen by NEW and MOD k − ε models, respectively.
Comparison at x2 /R = −0.933
All the variants of k − ε model predicted the radial velocity for x1 /R
up to 0.45 with minor deviations while qualitatively and quanti-
tatively poor comparison (100–774%) was sought in rest of the
radial region. MOD k − ε model though gave closer comparison
for x1 /R < 0.4 it resulted into the largest deviation for x1 /R > 0.4
(Figure 18D1). Figure 18D2 which shows the comparison for axial
| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | |
velocity, clearly depicts the success of all the k − ε models in pre-
dicting the upflow near the vessel wall. ZON k − ε resulted into
the closer axial velocity comparison (40%) followed by OPT-CK
k − ε model (79%). While deviations were higher (296%) with
the MOD k − ε model. Qualitatively opposite tangential velocities
(Figure 18D3) were obtained as a result of all the simulations
using all the k − ε models (except ZON k − ε model). Again MOD
k − ε model gave highest deviation for x1 /R < 0.4. While more
or less similar tangential velocity predictions were the result for
x1 /R > 0.5 by all the k − ε models. All the variants of k − ε mod-
els severely underpredicted k (Figure 18D4) throughout the radial
distance. Comparison was relatively closer with ZON k − ε model
(62%). The simulations using MOD k − ε model yielded k com-
parison with maximum underpredictions throughout the radial
coordinate. Thus no k − ε variant was able to predict k near the
liquid surface.
Comparison at x2 /R = 0.0 (impeller centre plane)
All the variants of k − ε model resulted into more or less similar
predictions of radial velocity. It was underpredicted by as much as
10% near the tip of impeller while the differences between the pre-
dicted and the experimental data were found to decrease. Though
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 51 |
all the turbulence models resulted into qualitative predictions of
the axial velocity, severe underpredictions (as much as 400%)
were observed due to all the simulations. The tangential veloc-
ity was severely underpredicted with consistency throughout the
radial region by all the simulations. Quantitatively no difference
was observed. IBC with all the variants of the k − ε model resulted
into underprediction of the turbulent kinetic energy. Thus it can
be seen that the mean velocity predictions are nearly independent
of the turbulence model used.
Comparison Using MRF Impeller Model
Comparison at x2 /R = 0.586
MRF with standard k − ε and RSM models underpredicted the
radial velocity (Figure 19A1) magnitude of underprediction was
higher as compared to that given by IBC. Predictions of both the
simulations (52%) were nearly the same indicating insensitiv-
ity to the turbulence models. MRF with each of the turbulence
models severely underpredicted the axial velocity (Figure 19A2)
throughout the radial region. Underpredictions by standard k − ε
(79%) and RSM (76%) were higher as compared to that given by
IBC. Predictions could be found to be insensitive to the turbulence
models. As regards to the tangential velocity component (Figure
19A3) RSM (818%) though was successful in predicting the trend
a maximum was predicted at a location close to the vessel cen-
tre. Standard k − ε model (312%) severely underpredicted up to
x1 /R = 0.4, above which it showed good comparison with exper-
imental data. MRF resulted into very low values of the turbulent
kinetic energies (Figure 19A4) with standard k − ε (92%) and
RSM (91%) the turbulence models employed. Turbulence models
had no significant effect on the k-predictions, which can be again
seen as in agreement with the insensitivity of the mean velocities
towards the turbulence models.
Comparison at x2 /R = 0.24
MRF with each of the turbulence models resulted into similar
radial velocity (Figure 19B1) with severe underprediction from
the experimental values. RSM model yielded the highest devia-
tions (638%). It gave similar axial velocity (Figure 19B2) with
all the turbulence models with marginal underpredictions from
the experimental data indicating insensitivity of v towards the
turbulence models. STD k − ε resulted into relatively large under-
prediction of tangential velocity up to x1 /R = 0.4, while in rest of
the region predictions by both the turbulence models were similar
(Figure 19B3). The first maximum in w was found to be shifted
towards vessel centre by RSM while severe underpredictions were
observed as a result of each of the simulations in the region with
x1 /R < 0.5. The turbulent kinetic energy predictions (Figure 19B4)
were similar as a result of both the turbulence models employed
in conjunction with MRF indicating the insensitivity towards the
turbulence models. Severe underpredictions of k (∼90%) were
observed throughout the radial region.
Comparison at x2 /R = −0.24
MRF with both the turbulence models failed to predict the radial
velocity (Figure 19C1) quantitatively. Predictions as a result of
RSM significantly differed (226%) from the predictions of the
STD k − ε model (179%). MRF was able to closely predict (minor
underpredictions, deviations within 45% and 62%) axial velocity
(Figure 19C2) with both the turbulence models. The turbulence
models again showed insignificant effect on the axial velocity pre-
dictions. The predicted tangential velocity (Figure 19C3) showed
| 52 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | |
a good trend and it was severely underpredicted (449–772%) by
all the models employed with MRF in most of the radial region
(0 < x1 /R < 0.6). Both the STD k − ε and RSM were able to give rel-
atively closer comparison of the tangential velocity near the vessel
wall. Large underpredictions in k (Figure 19C4) were observed in
both the simulations with MRF, the deviations being severe (as
much as 86%) for x1 /R > 0.5.
Comparison at x2 /R = −0.933
MRF was not able to capture even the trend of the experimen-
tal radial velocity (Figure 19D1) in conjunction with any of the
turbulence models. Overall radial velocity predictions by both the
simulations (>900%) using MRF were poor. It was able to better
predict the axial velocity (Figure 19D2) using standard (108%)
and RSM (114%) models near the vessel centre and the near
wall region. While severe underpredictions were the result in
the rest of the region, with highest deviations with the standard
k − ε. MRF was able to replicate the tangential velocity profile
(Figure 19D3) though with higher deviations (>500%) from the
experimental data. Near the wall satisfactory comparison was
obtained with all the turbulence models while severe underpre-
dictions were seen in rest of the radial region. It resulted into
relatively better tangential velocity comparison as compared to
the IBC. MRF with both the turbulence models (81%) underpre-
dicted k (Figure 19D4) throughout the radial region. The standard
k − ε model and RSM which yielded quantitatively similar k
predictions.
Comparison at x2 /R = 0.0 (impeller centre plane)
As a result of simulation with MRF approach, radial velocity was
underpredicted by as much as 100% for x1 /R up to 0.66 while
excellent comparison was sought for x1 /R > 0.66. Similarly both
the axial and tangential velocities were underpredicted (maxi-
mum deviation being 60%) for x1 /R < 0.8 by both the STD k − ε
model and RSM. As regards to the turbulent kinetic energy, each
of the turbulence models resulted in severe underprediction with
relatively closer comparison with STD k − ε model. Thus predic-
tions of all the three mean velocity components were not affected
as a result of change in turbulence models.
Comparison Using SM Impeller Model
Comparison at x2 /R = 0.586
It can be seen from Figure 20A1 that the SM with standard k − ε
(88%) and RNG k − ε (91%) models severely underpredicted the
radial velocity. Again the turbulence models had no significant
effect on the predictions. SM with all the turbulence models
yielded severe underpredictions (95%) of axial velocity (Figure
20A2) predictions. SM with all the turbulence models resulted
into the almost flatter tangential velocity profile (Figure 20A3)
representing absence of the swirling velocity component clearly
showing the failure to predict the tangential velocity. SM with all
the models resulted into the severe underprediction (76%) of k
(Figure 20A4) which could be seen as the smaller compared to
that given by MRF.
Comparison at x2 /R = 0.24
SM was able to capture the trend in radial velocity (Figure 20B1)
only for x1 /R > 0.65 while it failed to do so in the remaining
region. All the turbulence models resulted into similar predictions
for x1 /R < 0.45 while difference was larger in rest of the region.
RNG k − ε model resulted into closer comparison for x1 /R > 0.65.
VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |
Figure 20. Comparison of predictions with SM. Impeller: disc turbine. A1–A4: at x2 /R = 0.586, B1–B4: at x2 /R = 0.24; C1–C4: at x2 /R = −0.24; D1–D4:
at x2 /R = −0.933.
Experimental (1) STD k − ε, (2) RNG k − ε.
STD k − ε model with SM failed to indicate axial velocity (Figure
20B2) trend and hence the downflow in near the wall (118%)
while RNG k − ε model resulted into the wider downflow region
(94%). As can be seen from Figure 20B3, SM again failed to predict
the tangential velocity with all the turbulence models employed.
It resulted almost into insignificant values of tangential veloci-
ties throughout the radial region. The k-predictions (Figure 20B4)
were again found to be in poor agreement (severe underpredic-
tion, 88%) with the experimental data. It was closely predicted
by only RNG k − ε in a narrow region nearby to x1 /R = 0.5.
Comparison at x2 /R = −0.24
SM with both the turbulence models overpredicted the radial
velocity (Figure 20C1) for x1 /R up to 0.55 while qualitatively
opposite trend was observed in rest of the region. It with all
the turbulence models employed resulted in good comparison
(144–170%) of the trend in axial velocity (Figure 20C2). Large
underpredictions (1722%) were observed from the measured
tangential velocities (Figure 20C3). RNG k − ε model was able
to predict the tangential velocity closely for x1 /R < 0.4 while
STD k − ε model resulted into severe underpredictions (3322%)
throughout the radial region (except for x1 /R < 0.15). It can be
| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | |
seen from (Figure 20C4) that all the turbulence models result
into overall poor prediction of the turbulent kinetic energy when
used with SM. A peak of k could be seen with RNG k − ε model,
which is similar to the peak, observed in tangential velocity as
a result of a SM simulation with RNG k − ε model. In rest of the
region severe underpredictions (83–135%) was observed with all
the turbulence models.
Comparison at x2 /R = −0.933
SM was not able to capture even the trend of the experimental
radial velocity (Figure 20D1) using any of the turbulence models.
Again SM with all the turbulence models failed to predict the axial
velocity component (Figure 20D2). It showed very negligible val-
ues of the axial velocity. SM with all the turbulence models failed
to predict tangential velocity (Figure 20D3) both qualitatively and
quantitatively. It showed almost absence of the swirling velocity.
It can be seen from Figure 20D4, that the SM failed again to predict
the turbulent kinetic energy.
Comparison at x2 /R = 0.0 (impeller centre plane)
SM approach resulted in satisfactory comparison of the radial
velocity using both the STD and RNG k − ε models for x1 /R > 0.5
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 53 |
 ble to enhance the gas induction rate and mass transfer coefficient
together.
Further, it has been demonstrated (using both the EFD and
CFD techniques) that protein deactivation was mainly caused by
turbulent kinetic energy (Ghadge et al., 2003) (normal stresses).
Extensive data have been reported on the deactivation rate with
respect to normal stress for different reactor designs. Hence by
performing detailed hydrodynamic analysis one can arrive at the
better agitator configuration for carrying out enzymatic reactions
and similar applications. Finally, the dynamics of small eddies
influence the relative motion and, consequently, the coalescence
and breakup of small particles, droplets, and bubbles. This discus-
sion clearly indicates that the design, scale-up and optimisation
of industrial agitated tanks requires a thorough understanding of
turbulence and transport phenomena over a wide range of length
and time scales. RANS based models due to their inherent assump-
tions (such as local isotropy, truncation of higher order fluctuating
terms, empirical modelling, etc.) cannot capture local transient
flow dynamics and in some cases even predictions regarding gross
flow patterns are inaccurate. In case of LES modelling approach,
large and energetic eddies are solved and small scales are mod-
elling, as they are isotropic in nature. In view of this, LES holds
promise for understanding the local flow dynamics even in large-
scale stirred tank reactors.
The accurate prediction of the following hydrodynamic vari-
ables using LES in stirred tank reactor will greatly contribute to
establish the reliable relationship between the design objectives
and process parameters. The literature efforts on LES simulation
of stirred vessels are reported in Table 6.
Simulations have been performed for the following hydrody-
namic:
Figure 20. Continued

(1) Bulk flow with respect to impeller design, internals, and ves-
while underpredictions of as much as 80% could be observed for sel configuration
x1 /R < 0.5. RNG k − ε model yielded relatively closer comparison. (a) Axial Flow
As regards to the axial velocity, STD k − ε model gave closer com- (b) Radial Flow
parison for x1 /R > 0.5 while it was underpredicted severely for (c) Tangential Flow
x1 /R < 0.45. The tangential velocity predictions were more or less (2) Gross flow parameters
similar as a result of each of the simulations. It was marginally (a) Primary flow number
underpredicted throughout. The turbulent kinetic energy was (b) Secondary flow number
severely underpredicted by STD k − ε model with the maximum (c) Power number
departure of around 400%. Though the RNG k − ε model was able (3) Quantification of bulk velocities in the near wall regions
to predict the trend of the turbulent kinetic energy deviations of (mainly for heat transfer)
as much as 80% were observed. (4) Local distribution of turbulent kinetic energy with respect to
geometric and operating variables
LARGE EDDY SIMULATION OF RADIAL FLOW (5) Quantification of local length scale distribution
(6) Trailing vortices
IMPELLERS (a) Shape with respect to impeller blade design
To meet the various process objectives, it is essential to main- (b) Quantification of associated energy
tain the desired local hydrodynamics by manipulating both the (c) Extent up to which their effect is significant
geometric variables and operating conditions. For instance, in (d) Symmetry/asymmetry with respect to disc (in case of
crystallisation the size distribution, shape, crystalline structure Rushton turbine) when impeller is located at (1/3)T
and purity of the product are affected by the dynamics of small and (1/2)T.
eddies which influence the mass transfer and degree of super- (7) Rate of turbulent kinetic energy dissipation
saturation in the immediate vicinity of precipitating and growing (a) Local distribution (crystalliser, drop and bubble size
crystals. Therefore, crystalliser design should ensure that homoge- estimation, instantaneous reaction)
neous distribution of fine length scales and local shear rate should (8) Local and global shear rate distribution with respect to geo-
be at the desired level. Similarly in the case of hollow gas inducing metric and operating conditions
impellers, which are highly recommended to handle hazardous, (9) Energy spectrum
expensive gases and when per pass conversion is low. Sufficient (a) Identification of dominant frequencies with respect to
low-pressure zone must be created for the induction of gas and geometric and operating parameters
at the same time with good dispersion characteristics to enhance (b) Quantification of instabilities (precessing, jet and cir-
mass transfer rate. Different design alternatives can be made possi- culation instabilities)

| 54 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | | VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |

 (10) Mixing and characterisation of near wall turbulence with

1.73 × 106 , 13.8 × 106

respect to design conditions.

803 , 1283 , and 1603

803 ,1283 and 1603

575 000–1 200 000

32 768, 262 144
The very first study of LES for stirred vessel was performed by
Eggels (1996) using a lattice-Boltzmann discretisation scheme.
Impeller–baffle interaction model Grid points

This numerical scheme was employed because of its compu-

1 275 567
49 0000

490 000
761 760

615 000

480 000
750 000

763 000
6 × 106
tational efficiency and the ease of implementation on parallel

2403

1203

2403
processors. The main objectives were to make the lattice-
Boltzmann scheme based solver more general to simulate flows
in real complex geometries and to understand the detailed local
Adaptive force field technique

Adaptive force field technique

Adaptive force field technique

Adaptive force field technique

Adaptive force field technique

Adaptive force field technique

flow field in the vicinity of the impeller which was not possible
Momentum source approach

with the RANS based turbulence models. Therefore, this study

Sliding deforming mesh

Sliding deforming mesh

Sliding deforming mesh

Sliding mesh technique

Sliding mesh technique
presented the instantaneous and the mean qualitative flow field

Inner–outer algorithm

MRF and sliding mess

in both vertical and horizontal planes which would help in initial
understanding of the given system. Eggels (1996) had reported
predictions for the both coarse mesh and fine mesh. Logically,

Sliding mesh
Sliding mesh

Sliding mesh
fine mesh was found to give better predictions than the coarse
mesh. However, there were differences in the quantitative predic-
tions of the mean radial and mean axial velocities especially in the
near impeller region. The discrepancies were due to insufficient
statistical sampling time which was limited by the computing
Reynolds number

14 000, 82 000,

14 000, 82 000,
time with the fine grid and adoptive force field technique used
for the impeller modelling. Further, the quantitative comparison
350 000

350 000

has been restricted to a few flow variables (axial and radial veloc-
107 000
60 000
29 000
40 000

40 000
30 000

45 000
46 600
29 000

56 250
24 000
22 000

45 000

ity) and also at limited locations (one radial and one axial line)
7300

9720

and energy balance was not established. The instantaneous flow

structures and corresponding turbulence characteristics were not
T = 0.48 m, H = T, C/T = 0.33, D/T = 0.33

T = 0.48 m, H = T, C/T = 0.33, D/T = 0.33

Non-standard geometry, T = , H = 1.86T,

given much consideration.

T = 0.44 m, H = T, C/T = 0.5, D/T = 0.33

T = 0.15, D = T/3, C = T/3, H = T, baffle

T = 0.292, H = T, D = 0.35T, C = 0.46T

Two year later Revstedt et al. (1998) investigated both the mean
T = 0.10, D/T = 0.33, C = T/3, H = T

T = 0.10, D/T = 0.33, C = T/3, H = T

flow and spectral distribution of flow by power density function

T = 0.147, H = T, D = T/2, T/3, T/4
T = 0.19, D/T = 0.5, C = T/3, H = T

H = 1.86T, D = 2/3T, C = 0.0375T

T = 0.29, H = T, D = T/3, C = T/3
T = 0.27, H = T, D = T/3, C = T/3
T = 0.27, H = T, D = T/2, C = T/2

at various locations in a baffled stirred tank. It has been the finite

T = 0.3, H = T, D = T/3, C = T/3

difference based solver where the effect of SGS scale motion on

the large scale was not taken into account and the process of
H = T = 0.45, C = D = T/3
D = 2/3T, C = 0.0375T

H = T = 0.3, C = D = T/3

energy dissipation was numerically treated by using second-order

clearance = 0.017T

upwind scheme. In this study authors have made an attempt to

Geometric details

reduce the computational demand of LES by using momentum

source approach for impeller modelling. The LES could capture
the trailing vortices behind the blades and their detailed move-
ment away from the impeller with increasing distance from the
blade. These observations were in close agreement with the expen-
sive and time-consuming experiment. They demonstrated that
Dynamic one equation model

the LES could generate instantaneous flow field like sophisti-

Standard smagorinsky model

Standard smagorinsky model

Standard smagorinsky model

Standard smagorinsky model

Standard smagorinsky model

Standard smagorinsky model

Standard smagorinsky model
Standard smagorinsky model
Standard smagorinsky model
Standard smagorinsky model

Standard smagorinsky model

Dynamic smagorinsky model
Standard Smagorinsky and
Standard smagorinsky and

Standard smagorinsky and

cated flow measuring techniques and sometimes even better as

far as the flow in the impeller region and near wall regions are
concerned. The LES predicted time averaged axial velocity was
mixed sgs models
voke SGS models

shown to agree with the experimental data of Costes and Coud-

mixed model
No SGS model

erc (1988) at various locations. Comparison for the mean radial

Table 6. Previous work on LES of the stirred tank

SGS model

velocity at only one axial location was given (impeller centre line),
which was very good at all the locations except 0.5 < x1 /D < 0.6.
They have also obtained a fairly good prediction for the turbulent
kinetic energy in the impeller centre plane and a good agreement
between the experimental and predicted value of pumping num-
Derksen and van den Akker (1999)

ber. Acceleration of the fluid at the impeller tip (because of the

Bakker and Oshinowo (2004)

fluid entrainment due to the trailing vortex) pair was well simu-
lated. Prediction of radial and tangential velocity with the angle
Murthy and Joshi (2008)

Murthy and Joshi (2008)

Hartmann et al. (2004a)

Hartmann et al. (2006)

was poor. They have suggested that the boundary conditions on

Delafosse et al. (2008)
Revstedt et al. (1998)

Derksen et al. (2007)

Derksen et al. (2007)

Alcamo et al. (2005)

Jahoda et al. (2007)

Zhang et al. (2006)

the impeller region should be improved. Their instantaneous data

Yeoh et al. (2004)

Yeoh et al. (2005)

Fan et al. (2007)

from LES supported the blade frequency and the existence of Kol-
Eggels (1996)

mogorov’s −5/3 region in the energy spectrum. The LES data

clearly represented periodicity in the impeller region and away
from the impeller the extent of periodicity was found to be negli-
Refs.

gible. However, the detailed comparison of all the flow variables

with the experimental data throughout the vessel has not been

| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 55 |

reported. Authors should have explored the trailing vortex posi-
tion by specifying vessel top as a wall. Further, comparison has
not been reported for the turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate.
Derksen and van den Akker (1999) took forward Eggels (1996)
study with a more refined forcing algorithm especially to account
for the impeller motion. The real potential of LES was partially
explored as the simulations could identify a detailed local flow in
the wakes behind each blade which were found to be significantly
higher than the impeller tip speed (two times tip speed). Further,
away from the impeller the fluctuations become less coherent. As
far as the quantitative comparison is concerned, good agreement
has also been obtained between the experimental data and the
simulation of the radial profiles of the radial velocity. However, the
tangential velocities have been overpredicted (by maximum 15%)
and it was attributed to a lack of spatial resolution and improper
treatment of the SGS viscosity. The axial profiles of random (turbu-
lent), coherent (pseudo turbulence) and total kinetic energy have
been fairly predicted when compared with the LDA phase resolved
experimental data. Having obtained realistic kinetic energy dis-
tribution, they extended their LES predictions to calculate the
turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate. It was observed that the
dissipation rate distribution throughout the tank is very inhomo-
geneous. Further, the impeller power number was calculated from
the estimation of torque on the impeller and was found to be
slightly overpredicted. However, the comparison for axial veloc-
ity was not presented and all the predictions have been reported
only in the impeller region. Information about local shear rates as
well as physics associated with the instabilities would have been
a valuable addition to their work.
Further, Hartmann et al. (2004a) extended their previous LES
model to investigate the precessional vortex phenomenon. Macro
instability phenomena was included in the in this work. The
sequences of snapshots of the flow field in a horizontal plane
below and above the impeller showed a vortical structure moving
around the tank centreline in the same direction as the impeller.
The vortex below the impeller was found to be more pronounced
in strength and size compared to the vortex above the impeller,
and both vortices move with a mutual phase difference. The pre-
sented time series of the velocity components reveal, besides the
random turbulent fluctuations, two types of coherent fluctuations
with time scales separated by more than two-orders of magnitude.
The fluctuations in the impeller out-flow region were domi-
nated by the passage of the impeller blades, whereas fluctuation
levels close to the tank centreline were dominated by the low-
frequency motion of a vortical structure. Authors have reported
the frequency analysis and it was found that the characteris-
tic frequencies of f = 0.0255 N and f = 0.0228 N at flow Reynolds
numbers of 20 000 and 30 000, respectively. These values of the
characteristic MI frequency have been in good agreement with
reported (turbulent) frequencies found experimentally in similar
flow geometry. At a Reynolds number of 12 500, a second fre-
quency peak at f = 0.092 N was observed, which was consistent
with the experimentally observed frequency, the so-called laminar
frequency, in the literature. Further, the following observations
have been reported. In the impeller outflow region, the flow was
dominated by the passage of the impeller blades. In the bulk flow
region, the flow was dominated by the low-frequency precessing
vortex, and at least 100 impeller revolutions were needed for an
accurate prediction of the kinetic energy contained in the velocity
fluctuations. By means of a low-pass filtering procedure, it has
been observed that, in the top and bottom parts of the tank, a
significant amount (up to 44%) of the kinetic energy is related
to the precessing vortex. LES has proven its significance in the
| 56 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | |
prediction of the precessing vortices present in a stirred tank. The
detailed results gave insight in the structure and characteristic
frequency of the vortices, and drew attention to the precessing
vortex as a point for improvement in the existing modelling tech-
niques. Furthermore, the results form a promising perspective for
the application of the LES methodology in future studies consider-
ing the significance of the precessing vortex in multiphase mixing
processes. However, before the quantification of instabilities, LES
model should have been compared with experimental data of tan-
gential velocity and turbulent kinetic energy profiles. Further, the
study did not include the other types of instabilities such as jet and
intermediate instabilities. Also, an attention is needed to under-
stand the instabilities associated with non-standard geometries.
Yeoh et al. (2004) have performed LES using sliding deform-
ing technique and finite volume based solver. The main objective
of this work was to assess the capability of the LES, coupled
with the sliding-deforming methodology, of yielding an improved
simulation of the flow inside a stirred vessel. The results were
compared with detailed experimental data of mean and RMS
velocities and energy dissipation rates. Results from the stan-
dard RANS–k − ε model were also presented and assessed in the
light of flow features and characteristics obtained from LES. In
general, there was very good qualitative and quantitative agree-
ment between the LES predictions and the measured data. In this
paper, it was shown that, both from the local isotropic distribution
contour plots and the turbulent kinetic energy quantitative com-
parisons at the impeller disc level, the equilibrium and isotropy
hypothesis was indeed applicable in most parts of the tank except
for the impeller discharge stream. Comparisons of the LES and
RANS predictions of the mean velocity and turbulent quantities
with experimental data have indicated clearly that substantial
improvement in the predictions can be achieved with LES that
should facilitate the more reliable design of mixing processes.
The standard Smagorinsky model, although relatively prelimi-
nary compared with more advance turbulence models such as
the dynamic model, was proven to be able to simulate accurately
the fluid phenomena both qualitatively and quantitatively. The
power number obtained from integration of the energy dissipa-
tion rate was predicted to be within 15% of the measured value,
while the comparison of the local values of ε in the impeller stream
was very encouraging, given the approximations involved in the
measurements. The data presented comprise the first quantitative
comparisons of the distribution of turbulent energy dissipation
in stirred vessel with direct measurements of ε and show much
promise for improved prediction of both ε and k in mixing pro-
cesses. Similar to most of the earlier investigations, this work has
also presented the comparison at only one axial location (impeller
centre plane).
Hartmann et al. (2004b) also made a detailed study to evalu-
ate the predictive capabilities of LES and RANS. They have used
finite volume based solver, whereas Yeoh et al. (2004) employed
the lattice-Boltzmann solver. Further, the RANS based simulations
were performed with the shear stress transport (SST) in place
of standard k − ε model. The RANS, LES predictions have been
compared with the LDA measurements of radial, tangential veloc-
ities and turbulent kinetic energy in the impeller zone. The radial
velocities of both the models were in good agreement with the
experimental data. As regards to the tangential velocity, the over-
all performance of LES was found to be much superior to RANS
simulations. Their simulations revealed that the Smagorinsky SGS
model performed better than Voke SGS model, especially, when
the prediction of trailing vortex pair is concerned. It was further
shown that the LES predictions of the turbulent kinetic energy in
VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |
the impeller discharge flow were substantially better than RANS
which invariably underperformed. Using LES, they found near
isotropy in the circulation loops. However, in the impeller stream,
the boundary layers, and at the separation points, the turbulence
was found to be more anisotropic due to high shear rates. Overall,
they did not see the relative merits of using Voke SGS model. Fur-
ther, they calculated the energy dissipation rate by assuming local
equilibrium between production and dissipation at and below
subgrid scale level and compared with the RANS predictions in
the baffle mid-plane. It was observed that the RANS based model
yielded higher values of the energy dissipation rate than the LES.
However, qualitatively both the models were found to predict very
inhomogeneous distribution of the energy dissipation throughout
the tank. Again, this study also has presented comparisons in a
limited region. Further, axial velocity comparison has not been
given.
Bakker and Oshinowo (2004) carried out LES to predict large-
scale vortical structures using various impellers. Their work
reported vector plots and isovorticity surfaces close to impeller
in stirred vessel. They did not provide any quantitative compari-
son. Fan et al. (2007) investigated flow instabilities in stirred tank
using SM approach with CFX5 software. They have carried our
simulations using standard k − ε model and LES and compared
the results with PIV data. They have shown the comparison of
axial and radial velocity along the axial distance. They have also
reported vector and contour plots to show transient circulation
patterns. They have reported time series of axial and radial veloc-
ity. It would have been very useful if energy spectra at various
locations were analysed.
Yeoh et al. (2005) extended their previous work to study the
mixing of inert tracer using LES. This was the first attempt to
study the detailed mixing phenomenon using LES. The work
presented here has clearly demonstrated that the LES method
coupled with the sliding-mesh methodology can be used to char-
acterise the transient mixing state in a stirred vessel and to
provide a very detailed evolution pattern of the concentration
field in space and time during the process. The transient analysis
revealed that, at the impeller midsection, a substantial amount of
scalar was trapped in a region between two vertical baffles. Very
large temporal fluctuations were detected close to the impeller,
with instantaneous concentrations being as high as three times
the equilibrium value. The time history of scalar concentration
revealed that mixing can vary considerably across the vessel
and the use of experimental techniques that provide informa-
tion at one or more locations with intrusive probes is likely to
lead to a less realistic mixing time. The work presented was of
importance for industrial process prediction as it offers not only
the final mixing time but also the localised mixing character-
istics during the intermediate mixing stages at various points
across the vessel. In addition effects associated with stagnant
zones, mixing inhomogeneities due to the vessel geometry, opti-
mal location of feed pipes, etc., can be easily identified. They have
concluded that the good agreement of the predicted mixing time
with available correlations indicates the capability of this mod-
elling approach to accurately simulate mixing characteristics in
a stirred vessel and therefore should be employed for the opti-
misation of industrial stirred vessel design. This work, however,
did not include the effect of various instabilities on local mix-
ing time. Authors should have extended the model to see the
effect of various internals on the local mixing time and stagnation
points.
Alcamo et al. (2005) presented LES simulation of unbaffled tank
stirred by a Rushton turbine. The numerical predictions were
| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | |
compared with in-house experimental data obtained by means
of PIV, as well as, when possible, with the literature results. An
excellent agreement was found between simulation results and
experimental measurements, especially regarding mean tangen-
tial velocities. This is a significant contribution. Good agreement
was also observed for other flow quantities, such as radial aver-
age velocities. Also the presence and trajectory of a pair of trailing
vortices, whose existence has long been known in baffled tanks
and as recently confirmed also in unbaffled tanks, was correctly
simulated. The good agreement observed between the simulation
results and the experiment is particularly meaningful, due to fact
that the flow field in unbaffled vessels is a particularly severe
benchmark for turbulence models.
Jahoda et al. (2007) carried out LES simulation using FLUENT
to predict mixing time. They have carried out RANS simula-
tion using two impeller modelling approaches (i) MRF (ii) SM
approach. They have shown the comparison for axial and radial
velocity component. Scalar transport equation was solved to get
the transient concentration profiles and then mixing time. Unlike
other investigators, they have estimated the power number and
flow number using RANS and LES simulation. Power number
predicted by RANS simulation was 20% lower compared to LES.
The estimated flow number was almost same for all simulations
whereas mixing time was underpredicted using MRF approach
and overpredicted using SM with standard k − ε model. Mixing
time prediction using LES were in good agreement with the exper-
imental values.
Zhang et al. (2006) carried out LES simulation using improved
inner–outer approach. They have shown the comparison of mean
axial, radial, and tangential profiles as well as turbulent kinetic
energy. The comparison was carried out with the experimental
data of Wu and Patterson (1989). They have also presented the
vector plots to show transient vortical structures in the impeller
region.
Derksen et al. (2007) extended their previous lattice-Boltzmann
scheme based LES solver for industrial scale crystalliser. Their
work was focused on the assessing the feasibility of using a
computationally efficient LES to quantify the fine scale turbulent
structures in an industrial size crystalliser. The effects of spatial
resolution and the sub-grid scale model (Smagorinsky and the
mixed scale models) were also investigated. No significant differ-
ence was observed in the predictions of the two sub-grid scale
models. Further, the particle tracking technique was employed
for the study of mixing performance. Practically uniform condi-
tions were obtained after 5–10 impeller revolutions with respect
to concentration of fluid elements, except for the bottom region
which gets characterised by the presence of fresh feed. However,
LES predictions have been discussed more qualitatively because
of the non-availability of the experimental data from the industrial
scale equipment.
Murthy and Joshi (2008) have carried out critical analysis stan-
dard k − ε model, RSM and LES. The comparison was carried out
with in-house laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV) experiments. The
simulations were carried out using one equation dynamic sub-
grid scale model. LES results were relatively superior compared
to other turbulence models. They observed that RSM and standard
k − ε model underpredicted the turbulent kinetic energy profiles
significantly in the impeller region. RSM can capture well all
the mean flow characteristics and the standard k − ε model fails
to simulate the mean flow associated with the strong swirl. In
addition to mean and turbulent quantity comparison, they have
reported energy associated with precessional vortex and jet insta-
bility. The frequency of the jet instability was found to be linearly
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 57 |
related to the rotational speed. They have also established the
overall energy balance using both integral ε and torque-based
approaches.
Zadghaffari et al. (2010) simulated a six bladed Rushton tur-
bine and compared the mean velocities, turbulent kinetic energy,
energy dissipation rate with experimental data of Wu and Pat-
terson (1989). Though the mean velocities were in very good
agreement with the experimental data, the turbulent kinetic
energy and energy dissipation rate showed only qualitative agree-
ment. They compared, power number results obtained from
simulation with experimental data of Walas (1990); and Zadghaf-
fari et al. (2009) and mixing time with that of Murthy et al. (1994).
They found good agreement between simulation and experimen-
tal results.
CFD simulations have been performed with LES turbulence
model for the five different impellers. The simulation results of
the dimensionless mean axial velocity, mean radial velocity, mean
tangential velocity, and turbulent kinetic energy have been plot-
ted against the LDA experimental data. The comparison of radial
profiles of these parameters has been made at eight different axial
levels, x2 /R = 0.01 m (A), 0.044 m (B), 0.082 m (C), 0.1 m (D),
0.118 m (E), 0.154 m (F), 0.190 m (G), and 0.244 m (H). It may be
pointed out that the exercise of comparison covers practically the
entire region in the vessel both near and away from the impeller.
In case of DT, the high-speed impeller stream impinges on
the tank wall and changes the direction three times to return to
impeller again. This recirculatory flow exists in the bulk region
of the tank. Near the eye of circulation, very small mean veloc-
ities exist. The radial profiles of axial velocities at various axial
locations are shown in Figure 21A–H. It can be seen that maxi-
mum axial velocities exist near the wall and are of the order of
0.20–0.30 times the tip speed. However, the axial velocity changes
more sharply in the near wall region compared to that in the near
axis region of the vessel. As one moves away vertically from the
impeller swept region, axial velocity initially increases, attains a
maximum and then decreases. It is evident that the predictions of
all the axial velocity profiles by the LES in good agreement with
Figure 21. Comparison between LES simulation and experimental data
the experimental data. for dimensionless mean axial velocity. Impeller: disc turbine. (A)
As regards to the radial component, impeller rotation generates H = 0.01 m; (B) H = 0.044 m; (C) H = 0.082 m; (D) H = 0.1 m; (E)
radially outward flow through the vertical surface of swept vol- H = 0.118 m; (F) H = 0.154 m; (G) H = 0.190 m; and (H) H = 0.244 m:

ume. This high-speed radial jet entrains surrounding fluid and experimental LES.
slows down as they approach the tank wall. It can be noted from
Figure 22A–H LES predictions agree well with the experimental
mean radial velocity profiles at all the axial levels. One million LES provides macro and the reliable predictions of the turbulent
grids were used for this simulation. flow, the predictions can further be useful for better predictions
Radial profiles of the mean tangential velocity are depicted in of macro and micromixing, heat and mass transfer.
Figure 23A–H. Again, LES simulations capture the experimental
mean tangential velocity profiles quite well. ASSESSMENT OF ASSUMPTIONS IN RANS
Figure 24A–H illustrates the comparison for turbulent kinetic
energy throughout the tank. In the impeller central plane (Figure MODELS
24D) the profile of turbulent kinetic energy is practically simi- It has already been emphasised that the RANS approach is popular
lar to those of radial velocity and tangential velocity. Below the than LES and DNS for stirred tank simulation due to lesser compu-
impeller (Figure 24C), turbulent kinetic energy also exhibits two tational power requirement. However, RANS predictions require
maxima as in the case of tangential velocity. The first maxima experimental validation. Tuning the model parameters has only
is at x1 /R = 0.27 and the second one occurs closer to the wall at partially succeeded in improving the predictions for turbulent
x1 /R = 0.92. The former is generated by the rotating impeller and kinetic energy, dissipation rate. The Reynolds averaging process
latter is because of the shear flow. The kinetic energies below the introduces extra terms containing correlations of fluctuating com-
impeller are much smaller than those in the impeller centre plane ponents. These terms are modelled making some assumptions
and above the impeller (Figure 24E), it is mainly because of the about the turbulent transport processes. Due to the modelling
upward inclination of trailing vortex pair. It can be observed that assumptions and truncation of higher order terms, a model devel-
good predictive capabilities of LES can be clearly seen for the tur- oped for one purpose deviates significantly in other types of flows.
bulent kinetic energy predictions. Here one can justify the utility In the literature abundant information is available on compar-
of LES even at the expense of computational resources. As the ison of various turbulence models for different types of flows

| 58 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | | VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |


Figure 22. Comparison between LES simulation and experimental data
for dimensionless mean radial velocity. Impeller: disc turbine. (A)
H = 0.01 m; (B) H = 0.044 m; (C) H = 0.082 m; (D) H = 0.1 m; (E)
H = 0.118 m; (F) H = 0.154 m; (G) H = 0.190 m; and (H) H = 0.244 m:

experimental LES.
with the objective of understanding the failure of the models. The
next question arises, how does parameter tuning and additional
constants in a model proposed for one type of flow improve the
predictability even in some other type of flow. One possible rea-
son for such observation can be an error made by one assumption
can be nullified by making one more error which will compen-
sate for the first one (Sciberras and Coleman, 2007; Mathpati et
al., 2009). But such an exercise will not improve the true reli-
ability of the model and deviations can be observed in the same
geometry at different flow conditions (which can be characterised
by the level of power consumption per unit mass). Hence it really
becomes necessary to quantify the effect of each modification in
the model.
In this section, analysis of the important terms in the trans-
port equation for turbulent kinetic energy and Reynolds stress
equation has been carried out. The major emphasis is given to tur-
bulent production, turbulent transport and pressure strain terms.
The geometric and operating conditions are maintained same as
discussed in previous sections. The grid size was increased to
1 million hexahedral cells for the standard k − ε model and the
RSM. In the case of LES, 4.2 million hexahedral cells were used
| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | |
Figure 23. Comparison between LES simulation and experimental data
for dimensionless mean tangential velocity. Impeller: disc turbine. (A)
H = 0.01 m; (B) H = 0.044 m; (C) H = 0.082 m; (D) H = 0.1 m; (E)
H = 0.118 m; (F) H = 0.154 m; (G) H = 0.190 m; and (H) H = 0.244 m:

experimental LES.
and with relatively fine mesh in the impeller region in order to
better resolve the strong velocity flow field. In the present LES
simulations, the length scales were resolved between 200 ␮m and
4.2 mm in contrast to Kolmogorov’s length scale of 20 ␮m. All the
simulations were carried out using Fluent software. The modelled
terms as obtained from standard k − ε model and the RSM have
been compared with that obtained from LES (which is considered
to be exact and close to DNS).
The modelled and exact terms in TKE have been compared.
The variations throughout the reactor are almost 3–4 orders of
magnitude. Hence the contours are zoomed in at four locations.
These four locations are shown in Figure 25. Region A is in the
impeller plane, region B is below the impeller whereas region C
shows the above impeller plane. Region D is close to wall in the
impeller zone, where liquid jet discharging from the impeller hits
the sidewall. This is similar to impinging jet (stagnation flow) type
situation. Figure 26 shows the turbulence production term in TKE
equation. Analysis over entire plane shows that modelled term
is 4–5 times lower than the exact term. The exact and modelled
terms are comparable in below impeller and above impeller region
(Figure 26BE, CE, BM, and CM). The differences can be observed
in the impeller zone (Figure 26AE and AM). Figure 27 shows the
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 59 |

Figure 24. Comparison between LES simulation and experimental data
for dimensionless turbulent kinetic energy profiles. Impeller: disc turbine.
(A) H = 0.01 m; (B) H = 0.044 m; (C) H = 0.082 m; (D) H = 0.1 m; (E)
H = 0.118 m; (F) H = 0.154 m; (G) H = 0.190 m; and (H) H = 0.244 m:

experimental LES.
turbulence transport term in TKE equation. Quantitative differ-
ence can be seen in region A (i.e., impeller zone). Region D, which
is similar to the impinging jet type flow, shows that the region of
positive and negative transport term is accurately predicted by
exact terms using LES, whereas modelling does not capture this
physics (Figure 27DE and DM). Figure 28 shows the pressure
strain term in impeller region. This particular graph shows the
importance of pressure strain term. In the impeller zone, radial
flow is more significant than the axial flow. It can be seen that
except axial normal stress, all other terms are negative in radial
direction. This means that the energy is extracted out from other
components and fed to the axial normal stress which further helps
in restoring the isotropy and helps in the liquid recirculation.
ENERGY BALANCE AND REYNOLDS STRESSES
Any process or equipment has to be energy efficient to be eco-
nomically viable. In agitated reactors, energy efficiency means
the effective utilisation of the input energy to achieve the process
objective. For example, in the case of solid suspension, energy
has to be spent near the vessel bottom to lift the solid particles
| 60 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | |
Figure 25. Comparison of various turbulence models at different
locations in stirred tank reactor. (A) Impeller discharge stream (B) below
impeller region (C) above impeller region (D) impinging jet in wall.
off the bottom. In particular, it should be used in creating enough
flow to suspend the particles in the reactor. In dispersion appli-
cations (gas–liquid and liquid–liquid) systems, drop size or the
bubble size is markedly influenced by local values of the turbu-
lent energy dissipation rate (ε). In biochemical operations, the
value of maximum turbulent energy dissipation rate (εmax ) may
also govern the viability and the growth rate of microorganisms,
particularly plant and animal cells. In such cases, the total power
input or the average rate of energy dissipation (ε̄) is not suffi-
cient to completely describe the system. The same power input per
unit mass can result in widely different distributions of the turbu-
lence energy dissipation when different impellers are used with
the same tank geometry. As a result of this, different impellers
show different performance characteristics even when compared
at the same total power input. Thus, the measurement of ε requires
the measurement of fluctuating velocity gradients in all the three
directions. This would mean that the fluctuating velocity in all
the three directions would have to be measured over very short
distances (the distance between the measurement points would
have to be of the same order of magnitude as the smallest eddy
size).
Turbulent energy dissipation rate is defined as:
ε = 2Sij Sij (12)
where the fluctuating strain rate Sij is defined as:


1 ∂ui ∂uj
Sij = + (13)
2 ∂xj ∂xi
Clearly, this is not feasible by the currently available measure-
ment techniques. Therefore, the turbulent energy dissipation rate
can only be estimated. Over the years, a number of different meth-
ods have been proposed for the estimation of ε. These have been
VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |
Figure 26. Turbulence production term in TKE equation in stirred tank with disc turbine.

Figure 27. Turbulence transport term in TKE equation in stirred tank with disc turbine.

reviewed by Kresta and Wood (1993); and Sahu et al. (1999). One where u is a characteristic velocity scale, L is a characteristic
of the simplest ways of estimating the turbulent energy dissipa- length scale, and A is a constant of proportionality. Different meth-
tion rates is to assume that the eddy transfers all its energy within ods reported in the previous literature use different methods for
one lifetime. This results in the following estimate of ε: estimation of u and L.
In the published literature, the characteristic velocity scale has
u 3 been taken as the
√ RMS velocity or the square root of the turbulent
ε=A (14) kinetic energy ( k). The characteristic length scale has also been
L

| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 61 |

Figure 28. Production term in dissipation rate equation in stirred tank with disc turbine.

defined in a number of ways: (i) as a simplest approximation, the
characteristic length scale has been taken to be proportional to
the impeller diameter. The proportionality constant has been cho-
sen arbitrarily to be between 0.1 and 1 (Kresta and Wood, 1993).
Moreover, these authors have not considered the possible varia-
tion of the characteristic length scale throughout the vessel. The
assumption of constant L is totally unrealistic; (ii) the length scale
has been estimated using the auto-correlation function (Wu and
Patterson, 1989). The length scale can be estimated by first calcu-
lating the integral time scale () using auto-correlation function
2
as:
∞ Here, the
is the Taylor microscale, which can be estimated
r= r()d (15)
0
Here the integration may be carried out for a long time or up
to the first zero crossing. Commonly the integration is carried out
up to the first zero crossing.
Anandha Rao and Brodkey (1972) have reported that the oscil-
lations in the auto-correlation function were due to the periodicity
of the flow especially near the impeller blades. Thus, if the inte-
gration is carried out for a long time, the negative values of the
auto-correlation function may actually reduce the value of the
integral time scale.
The Taylor microscale can be obtained from the curvature of
the auto-correlation function as:
methods yield different values of L and hence different estimates
of ε.
The energy dissipation rate can also be estimated from Equa-
tions (11) and (12) by assuming Taylor’s frozen turbulence
hypothesis (Kresta and Wood, 1993). Further, if the turbulence
is isotropic, then, ε can be estimated using the following relation-
ship:
uRMS
2
ε = 15 (17)
from the curvature of the auto-correlation function.
The energy associated with the fluctuating velocity component
represents the energy associated with the turbulent motion. The
Fourier transform of the velocity fluctuations give the energy con-
tributions of the fluctuations at different frequencies. This can
then be represented as a plot of energy associated with a par-
ticular frequency versus the frequency. This plot is commonly
called the power spectrum or the energy spectrum (Mujumdar et
al., 1970). The spectra are commonly represented in terms of the
wave number. The wave number can be related to the frequency
as:
2f
k1 = (18)
V

d2 r()

−2
=0= 2 (16) If the turbulence is assumed to be isotropic, the energy dis-
d 2

t sipation rate can be estimated from the one-dimensional energy
spectrum using the following relationship:
The above time scales can be converted to the length scale by
multiplication with the mean velocity or the RMS velocity. Thus
the two ways of obtaining the time scale and the two ways of ∞
getting the length scale from the time scale result into four possible ε = 15 k12 E(k1 )dk1 (19)
ways of obtaining an estimate of L. It is quite likely that these 0

| 62 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | | VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |

 According to the Kolmogorovs hypothesis, the Energy spectrum
in the inertial sub-range can also be used to obtain the energy
dissipation rate (Wernersson and Tragardh, 1998) using the fol-
lowing equation:
E(k1 ) = Aε2/3 k −5/3 (20)
Previous Work
Ranade and Joshi (1990b); Kresta and Wood (1993); and Sahu et
al. (1999) have estimated the energy dissipation rates by different
methods and have clearly shown that the different methods yield
dramatically different values of ε. One check on the values of ε is
that the integration of the local ε values must equal the total power
given by the impeller, that is the power number calculated from
the integration of the local ε values must match the experimentally
observed (with the help of shaft torque or the torque table) power
number. Patwardhan (2001) has studied this aspect for a wide
variety of axial downflow impellers. It was thought desirable to
review in detail the various methods for the estimation of ε and
the results arising out of these.
Kim and Manning (1964) have investigated the turbulence
characteristics of stirred vessels. Their experimental set-up con-
sisted of 0.6 m diameter vessel fitted with standard Rushton
turbines having diameters 0.12–0.17 m. That is, the D/T ratio
was varied only between 0.2 and 0.28. The impeller speed was
varied over the range 100–800 rpm, and the liquid viscosity was
varied from 0.8 to 100 cp. The intensity of turbulence was mea-
sured with the help of a pressure transducer. The RMS velocity
was related to the output of the pressure transducer, which was
used to calculate the intensity of turbulence. This was then
used to compute the energy spectra. They have observed that
the energy spectra were practically unaffected by impeller size,
impeller speed, and probe position within the impeller discharge
stream.
Cutter (1966) has investigated the turbulence characteristics
in a 0.3 m stirred tank fitted with a 0.1 m diameter Rushton tur-
bine. The local fluid velocity was measured by photographing
lycopodium particles with a short exposure time so that the par-
ticles showed-up as streaks. Photographs were taken through the
bottom and side of the vessel. The photographs taken through the
bottom were used to analyse the radial and tangential velocity
and the correlation coefficient at different distances. The pho-
tographs taken through the side of the vessel were used to obtain
mean velocities. From the data, it was found that the normalised
fluctuating velocity components (normalised with respect to the
impeller tip velocity) were independent of the impeller speed. The
decay of turbulence as a function of the radial and axial distance
away from the impeller was also found. The photographic mea-
surements allow estimation of the local velocity as a function of
the distance. This enabled computation of the correlation coeffi-
cient as a function of the distance. It was found that the correlation
coefficient as a function of the distance was independent of the
impeller speed. From the correlation plots, the scale of turbulence
was calculated in the radial and tangential direction by integra-
tion. It was observed that the radial scale increased approximately
as square root distance from the impeller tip. The tangential scale
was always lower than the radial scale and it increased up to a cer-
tain distance from the tip, beyond which, it again reduced. It was
also observed that the turbulence was close to isotropic near the
impeller blades, and the anisotropy increased with an increase in
distance from the impeller tip. A balance of the angular momen-
tum was also established and was used to calculate the torque.
| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | |
It was observed that the angular momentum was conserved in
the impeller discharge stream, except in the region close to wall
where the flow diverged. The total energy flowing through the
impeller discharge stream as a function of the radial distance was
also computed. It was found that of the total energy given by the
impeller about 60–80% was dissipated in the impeller discharge
stream and the remainder was dissipated in the rest of the tank.
The local rate of energy dissipation was estimated using Equation
(13). The characteristic velocity scale was taken equal to the RMS
velocity and the characteristic length scale was calculated from the
integration of the correlation function. The value of A was taken
as 1.1. The local values of ε were integrated to obtain estimated
of the energy dissipated in different regions of the tank. It was
observed that about 20% of the energy was dissipated within the
impeller swept volume, 50% was dissipated in the impeller dis-
charge stream and 30% was dissipated in the remaining portion
of the tank. However, in order to match the total power dissipated
by integration of the local ε values with the power dissipated mea-
sured with the torque table, the value of A had to be reduced to
0.34. The ratio of the local energy dissipation rate to the average
energy dissipation rate was also computed. It was observed that
the ratio, ε/ε̄, was very high near the impeller tip (about 70) and
reduced rapidly to about 3.5 near the tank wall, and was about
0.26 outside the impeller discharge stream.
Mujumdar et al. (1970) have measured the turbulence charac-
teristics in 0.38 m diameter stirred reactor using 0.12 and 0.15 m
diameter Rushton turbines with the help of a hot wire anemome-
ter. The turbulent intensity (the ratio of the RMS velocity to the
impeller tip speed) was found to be independent of the impeller
speed and the diameter. Based on the velocity–time data, the
auto-correlation function was computed. Using this, the energy
spectrum and the integral length scales were calculated with the
help of Equation (14) and the mean velocity. The shape of the
energy spectrum function was found to be independent of the
location in the impeller discharge stream.
Anandha Rao and Brodkey (1972) have investigated the turbu-
lence characteristics in the impeller discharge stream of a straight
blade turbine. The experiments were carried out in 1 0.3 m diam-
eter tank and the D/T ratio was 0.33. The measurements were
made with the help of a 3-D pitot tube. They have observed
that the intensity of turbulence (ratio of the RMS velocity to the
local mean velocity) was practically independent of the radial dis-
tance in the impeller discharge stream. The velocity–time data
was also used to compute the auto-correlation function. The auto-
correlation function was used to calculate the integral length scale
using Equation (14) and for computing the energy spectrum. The
energy spectrum showed peak corresponding to the impeller rota-
tional speed followed by a region exhibiting −5/3 slope. The
Taylor microscale was calculated in two ways: (i) using the RMS
velocity and the velocity gradients, and (ii) the curvature of the
auto-correlation function. It was observed that the microscale cal-
culated using either of the two definitions were practically the
same. The microscales calculated were used to estimate the local
energy dissipation rate using Equation (16).
Komasawa et al. (1974) have measured the turbulence charac-
teristics with the help of particle trajectories obtained with the
help of high-speed camera. The experiments were conducted in
0.10 and 0.15 m diameter stirred vessels equipped with Rushton
turbines. Using the velocity–time data the cross correlation as well
as auto-correlation were obtained. Energy spectra were obtained
by taking Fourier transform of the auto-correlation function and
were found to be in agreement with the previous literature.
Using the auto-correlation function, the Taylor microscale was
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 63 |
calculated. It was observed that the Taylor microscale increased
with an increase in the radial distance in the impeller discharge
stream. They have also compared the energy spectra in the
impeller discharge stream in stirred vessels having different diam-
eters with that for a pipe flow for the same value of the local energy
dissipation rate. It was observed that the three spectra were prac-
tically identical. This would indicate that the turbulence structure
at a point is nearly independent of the details of the turbulence
generating geometry. In other words, the small scales of turbu-
lence were independent of the geometry and depended only on
the local energy dissipation rates.
Günkel and Weber (1975) have investigated the turbulence
characteristics of Rushton turbines in a 0.45 and 0.91 m diameter
stirred vessels. The working fluid was air, and the measurements
were made with the help of hot wire anemometry. They have
observed that the turbulence intensity in the impeller discharge
stream was independent of the impeller speed. The energy spec-
trum exhibited two slopes with the magnitudes −5/3 and −7,
respectively, in the impeller discharge stream as well as in the
bulk of the vessel. This indicates that eddies of all scales are
present in the impeller discharge stream as well as the bulk of the
vessel. The rate of flow of energy was calculated through all the
faces of the impeller. From these calculations, it was observed that
very little energy dissipation occurred in the impeller region. The
integral scale of turbulence was calculated using Equation (14).
This was used to compute the local turbulent energy dissipation
rates. The local energy dissipation rates were integrated to find
the total energy dissipated in the stirred vessel. The power num-
ber was predicted using the total energy dissipation rate. It was
observed that the power number so predicted was about 20–30%
less than that reported in the literature. Nishikawa et al. (1979)
have computed the energy spectrum for stirred reactors with diam-
eters in the range of 0.15–0.60 m and equipped with Rushton
turbines. The local velocity measurements were made with the
help of HFA. Using the velocity measurements, the energy spec-
trum was calculated. It was observed that, at a particular point in
the impeller discharge stream, the dimensionless energy spectrum
was found to be independent of the impeller discharge stream. The
dimensionless energy spectrum was found to be strongly depen-
dent upon the distance away from the impeller, and hence it was
concluded that the turbulence was anisotropic in the stirred ves-
sel. They have also calculated the Taylor microscale of turbulence
using the energy spectrum. It was observed that the length scale
was much higher in the impeller discharge stream and reduced
dramatically by about five times away from the impeller region.
This was because the length scale was itself obtained from the
energy spectrum. As a result the regions of low values of turbu-
lence intensity also showed low values of the length scale. van
der Molen and van Mannen (1978) have used LDV to measure
the turbulence characteristics of stirred vessels having diameters
in the range 0.12–0.90 m. They have observed that the dimension-
less mean radial velocity in the impeller discharge stream decayed
with an increase in the radial distance away from the impeller as
x−7/6
1 . The power spectra was calculated by taking Fourier trans-
form of the cross correlation of the two velocity components. The
power spectra for three different vessels were compared at the
same dimensionless distance in the impeller discharge stream and
at the same level of power consumption per unit volume. It was
observed that in the high wave number region, all the three spec-
tra were identical. This is similar to the observations made by
Komasawa et al. (1974).
Okamoto et al. (1981) have measured the energy dissipation
rates for stirred vessels having diameters 0.15–0.60 m. The local
| 64 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | |
velocity was measured with the help of a hot wire anemometer.
The energy dissipation rate was calculated from the energy spec-
trum function using Equation (18). It was observed that, in the
impeller discharge stream, the local energy dissipation rate was
substantially higher (3–10 times) than the average energy dis-
sipation rate. In the region above the impeller, the local values
of energy dissipation rate were about 2–5 times smaller than the
average energy dissipation rate. The distribution of dimensionless
ε was found to be independent of the speed of stirring.
Laufhutte and Mersmaan (1985) have measured the energy dis-
sipation rates with the help of LDV. The experiments were carried
out in a 0.19 m diameter stirred reactor equipped with a Rush-
ton turbine. The rate of energy dissipation was calculated using
Equation (13), using the RMS velocity and the impeller diameter
as the velocity and the length scale, respectively. The value of the
constant A was varied so that the integration of the local ε val-
ues matches the power input calculated from the impeller power
number. In this manner the value of the constant C was found to
be 6. As seen from Equation (14), the ε values are inversely pro-
portional to the length scale. Since the length scales were taken to
be same as impeller diameter, the value of the constant C also had
to be increased substantially, in order to obtain the overall energy
balance. The contour plots of the ratio of local energy dissipation
rate to the average energy dissipation rate were also given. It was
observed that the value of this ratio was very high in the vicinity
of the impeller (close to 8), and it decayed gradually to about 0.1
near the liquid surface and the bottom of the stirred vessel. This
means that the local energy dissipation rate varies by a factor of
about 80 in the stirred vessel.
Placek et al. (1986) have carried out CFD simulations of flow
generated by Rushton turbines in stirred tanks. Their CFD results
indicate even a wider range in the predicted values of ε. The ratio
of the ε near the impeller tip to that in the bulk was found to about
300. However, they have not compared the total energy dissipated
by integration of ε with the power drawn by the agitator.
Costes and Couderc (1988) have investigated the turbulence
characteristics of stirred reactors having 70 and 200 L as working
volume. The impeller used was a standard Rushton turbine. The
local velocity measurements were made with the help of laser
Doppler velocimeter. Using these measurements the turbulence
intensity was calculated in the entire vessel. The instantaneous
velocity measurements were used to compute the auto-correlation
function and the energy spectrum. The integral time scale was
calculated using Equation (15). The integral length scale was
calculated using the mean velocity. The Taylor microscale was
calculated from curvature of the auto-correlation function. The
dimensionless power spectrum at the same dimensionless dis-
tance away from the impeller were found to be independent of
the speed of rotation and the size of the vessel. The power spec-
trum showed peak corresponding to the blade passage frequency,
indicating that the velocity–time data contained a periodic com-
ponent. The local energy dissipation rate was calculated using
Equation (14) with the help of RMS velocity and the impeller
diameter. It was observed that the ratio of the local energy
dissipation rate to the average dissipation rate (ε/εavg ) varied sub-
stantially in the vessel. Near the impeller tip, the ratio was about
5–10, whereas, away from the impeller in the vessel it reduced
to about 0.05. This means that the energy dissipation rate varies
by a factor of 100–200. The value of the constant A in Equation
(14) had to be made to about 4.42 in order to match the integra-
tion of the local energy dissipation rate with the impeller power
number. This means that the C values range from 2.0 to 6.8. This
represents nearly a three times variation in the value of C. Since
VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |
they have also used the impeller diameter to calculate the length
scales, the value of C also deviated greatly from unit like Laufhutte
and Mersmaan (1985).
Wu and Patterson (1989) have investigated the turbulence
characteristics of 0.27 m diameter stirred vessel equipped with
a Rushton turbine. The measurements were made with the help
of a LDV. The instantaneous velocity measurements were used
fluid (pseudoplastic) was used, the profile of energy dissipa-
tion rate were found to be dramatically altered for all the three
impellers.
Schäfer et al. (1997) have investigated the flow generated by a
Rushton turbine operating in 0.15 m diameter tank with√ the help
of LDV. The characteristic velocity scale was taken as k, and the
volume averaged velocity was computed as:
to calculate the auto-correlation function. The turbulence inten-
sity was found to be independent of the stirrer speed. The energy
spectrum function was also computed and it showed two peaks
corresponding to the blade passage frequency and two times the
blade passage frequency. The integral microscale was computed
from Equation (15), and the length scale was calculated by multi-
plying with mean velocity. The Taylor microscale was calculated
from the curvature of the auto-correlation function. The local
length scales were found to be in the range of one-half of the
blade width. The local energy dissipation rates were calculated
using Equation (13) with the help of turbulent kinetic energy and
Lres is the resultant microscale given as (L21 + L22 + L23 )0.5 . The local
energy dissipation rate was found to vary by a factor of 20–30
within the stirred vessel. Since the estimated length scales were
of much smaller as compared to impeller diameter, the value of
the constant C had to be kept equal to 0.85 (unlike Laufhutte and
Mersmaan, 1985) in order to get good match between the total
energy dissipated by integration of the local ε values and that cal-
culated from the impeller power number. From the local ε values
they have also concluded that about 60% of the total energy was
dissipated in the impeller discharge stream and the remaining was
dissipated in the rest of the vessel.
Kresta and Wood (1991) have carried out CFD simulations of
flow generated by a Rushton turbine. The CFD predictions of ε in
the impeller discharge stream agreed well with the experimental
measurements of previous workers. Based on their CFD simula-
tions, it was concluded that about 50% of the energy is dissipated
in the impeller region and the rest is dissipated in the bulk.
Kresta and Wood (1993) have briefly reviewed the various
methods used to estimate the energy dissipation rate. They have
also experimentally investigated the turbulence characteristics
produced by a pitched blade turbine operating in a 0.15 m diame-
ter stirred vessel. The instantaneous velocity was measured with
the help of a LDV. They have observed that the Reynolds shear
stress measured with the help of LDV are much smaller in mag-
nitude as compared with the normal stresses (turbulent kinetic
energy). The turbulent energy dissipation rate was calculated
from various methods reported in the previous literature. It was
observed that the methods based on the turbulent kinetic energy
(as characteristic velocity scale) and mean velocity (to calculate
the length scale) gave very large values of ε. Whereas, the meth-
ods based on the auto-correlation function gave very low values
of ε. The other methods which give values of ε between these two
extremes seem to work well. More specifically, the estimation of ε
based on the turbulent kinetic energy and the length scale equal
to one-tenth of the impeller diameter was recommended.
Mavros and Baudou (1997) have investigated the turbulence
characteristics produced by propeller, Rushton turbine and A310
impeller. The measurements were carried out with the help of
LDV. The turbulent energy dissipation rate was estimated from
Equation (14). The characteristic velocity scale was taken equal
to RMS velocity and the length scale was obtained from the inte-
gration of the auto-correlation function (Eulerian time scale).
The ratio of ε to the average energy dissipation rate was found
to vary from 0.2 to 40 for Rushton turbines, 0.1 to 20 for pro-
peller and 0.1 to 100 for A310 impeller. When a shear thinning
| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | |

 k 3/2 dV
u =
3
(21)
VL
The average length scale in the reactor was computed using
Equation (14) with the measured value of average energy dissi-
pation rate. The average length scale calculated in this manner
was found to be about D/8.7, more specifically; it was found to
be about half the impeller blade width. This is in good agreement
with the results of Kresta and Wood (1993).
Wernersson and Tragardh (1998) have investigated the turbu-
lence characteristics in a 0.8 m diameter tank equipped with a
Rushton turbine. The turbulence characteristics were measured
with the help of a constant temperature anemometry (CTA). The
energy spectrum was observed to be independent of the speed
of rotation. The spectrum also showed peaks corresponding to
the blade passage frequencies. The local energy dissipation rate
was calculated from Equation (19), and the value of A was taken
as 0.47. It was observed that the energy dissipation rates in the
impeller discharge stream were about 200–400 times those in the
bulk.
Wernersson and Tragardh (1999) have extended their mea-
surements for 1.88 and 2.1 m diameter stirred vessels. The 0.8,
1.88, and 2.1 m diameter vessels were equipped with two three
and four Rushton turbines, respectively. Based on these mea-
surements they have concluded that the values of the energy
dissipation rate in the impeller discharge stream could be scaled
with the help of impeller diameter and the cube of the impeller
tip velocity. Using these scaling parameters, the values of εD/U3tip
were found to be proportional to (1/x1 ) in the impeller discharge
stream.
Jenne and Reuss (1999) have employed k − ε model and its vari-
ations for the prediction of flow produced by a Rushton turbine.
They have observed that the prediction of ε profiles were very
sensitive to the type of k − ε model employed. The ratio εmax /ε̄
was found to vary between 43 and 15 depending on the type of
k − ε model employed. The average length scale in the vessel was
computed as:
A1 k 3/2
L= √ dV (22)
3 ε
VL
The ratio of the average length scale to the blade width was
found to vary between 0.62 and 0.26 for the various k − ε models
employed. No attempt was made to compare the total energy dis-
sipated from integration of the local ε values to the power input
to the stirrer.
Sheng et al. (2000) have employed PIV technique to estimate the
turbulent energy dissipation rates. The PIV window was selected
so as to identify eddies within the inertial sub-range. Since the
eddies in this range are in a state of equilibrium (they receive
energy from the higher scale and transfer it to the smaller scale
at about the same rate), the turbulent energy dissipation rate
was estimated as the rate of turbulent kinetic energy transfer to
these scales. The contour plots of turbulent energy dissipation
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 65 |
rates were also given. The estimated values of ε were then inte-
grated to get the total energy dissipation rate in different regions
of the reactor. It was observed that out of the total energy sup-
plied by the impeller, 30% is dissipated within the impeller swept
region, and about 50% is dissipated in the impeller discharge
stream.
Ng and Yianneskis (2000) have employed the CFD model using
SM technique for the prediction of the turbulent energy dissi-
pation rate for a Rushton Turbine. They have reported that, out
of the total energy given by the impeller, 12% is dissipated in
the impeller swept region, 31% is dissipated in the impeller dis-
charge stream, and remaining 57% is dissipated in the bulk
region.
Patwardhan (2001) has developed a new model to predict the
flows generated by impellers based on the blade geometry and the
speed of rotation. He has evaluated the total power imparted to
the liquid in three ways: (i) by integration of the local ε values
predicted from CFD simulations, (ii) based on angular momentum
going out of the impeller zone, and (iii) based on the forces acting
on the impeller blades. This has been done for a wide variety of
impeller designs varying in blade angle, blade twist, blade width,
impeller diameter, etc. In all the cases, the power delivered to the
liquid computed by the above three methods was compared with
the impeller power number, and good agreement was observed in
all the cases.
Baldi et al. (2004) had used 2-D, 3-D PIV and four channel LDV
to measure the dissipation rate using disc turbine. The measure-
ment were carried out in vessel of T = 100 and 294 mm diameter
and impeller diameter D = T/3. Dissipation rate was measured
at Re = 40 000 directly from the measurements of Reynolds stress
gradients by analysing PIV images over interrogation areas down
to 0.1 mm. Similar LDV data was obtained with a resolution of
around 50 ␮m.
Comparison of Energy Dissipation Rate
In view of the above discussion, the present work is directed
towards addressing the following issues: (i) comparison of the ε
values predicted by CFD simulations with the ε values estimated
from in-house LDV data and processing using the eddy isola-
tion strategy; (ii) distribution of energy delivered by the impeller
in different regions of the vessel as predicted by CFD simula-
tions; (iii) comparison of the impeller power number predicted
by integration of the ε values, with the experimentally observed
power number. All the above three issues will be addressed for
different impeller modelling approaches and different turbulence
models.
Estimation of energy dissipation rate using LDV data
For the estimation of energy dissipation rate using LDV data, eddy
isolation methodology has been used. In this strategy, it is hypoth-
esised that eddies are a group of fluid elements, which have the
same hydrodynamic properties restricted to its spatial location at
a particular instant. For the identification of eddies, Luk and Lee
(1986) approach is adopted.
Instantaneous velocity–time data obtained using LDA at vari-
ous spatial locations is subjected to the analysis and following
assumptions are made while processing the data. Whenever a sin-
gle eddy is passing through the measurement volume, it maintains
its existence till it passes completely. In other words, no breakage
of an eddy takes place while it is present in the measurement vol-
ume formed at the intersection of the beams. Very large eddies
(generally of the order of the inner cylinder diameter) may con-
| 66 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | |
tain smaller eddies. However every eddy has its own characteristic
velocity, life, and size and is not affected by its location in the large
size eddies. In other words, after isolation of an individual eddy,
the large eddy motion has no net effect on the local characteristics
of the small eddies. Eddies of same size need not have the same life
(time taken by it to cross the measurement volume) as it is decided
by the surrounding net liquid motion and the eddy shapes. Indi-
vidual eddy has no effect on the characteristic parameters (viz.
size, life, dissipation nature, etc.) of the neighbouring eddies in
the time scale. For these eddies, the characteristics/dynamics can
be understood by analysing the instantaneous velocity–time data
properly. Whenever an eddy passes through the measurement
point, because of the local turbulence the velocity fluctuates about
a mean value. Subtracting the mean value, we get the fluctuating
part of the velocity. Fluctuating velocity has positive and neg-
ative values and it crosses the time axis at many locations. As
mentioned earlier, after subtracting the mean value, the fluctu-
ating part changes from positive to negative or vice versa and it
indicates that all the fluid elements that are accounted during the
measurement have the same averaged kinetic properties. This can
be considered as the existence of an eddy. Therefore, in the plot of
fluctuating velocity (ui  ) versus time as the velocity vector crosses
the time axis, one eddy ends and the other eddy enters the vol-
ume of measurement. It has been proposed that the time gap (t)
between the two successive crossings represents one eddy. The
characteristic velocity scale is estimated as square root of turbu-
lent kinetic energy of that eddy and length scale is estimated as
the ratio of velocity and time scale. The turbulent kinetic energy
dissipation rate (ε) is estimated as the ratio of cube of velocity
scale to length scale.
Comparison of the energy dissipation rate predictions
as a result of various impeller models
At x2 /R = 0.586, IBC resulted into severe underpredictions of the
energy dissipation rate with either of the turbulence models. Only
RSM could yield closer comparison with MRF for x1 /R > 0.5 while
it gave severe underprediction in rest of the radial region. All the
turbulence models failed to predict the energy dissipation rate
using SM approach. Further, the turbulent energy dissipation rates
were severely underpredicted (maximum deviations ∼300%) by
snap shot approach throughout the radial region. At x2 /R = 0.24,
it can be seen from the poor prediction (severe underprediction)
of the energy dissipation rate by all the turbulence models using
IBC approach. Both the turbulence models (STD k − ε model and
RSM) with MRF resulted into severe underprediction throughout
the radial region. While SM was found to give the poor compar-
ison using both the standard and RNG k − ε turbulence models.
Further snap shot approach severely overpredicted (x1 /R < 0.35,
by as much as 250%) the turbulent energy dissipation rate check
plot. At x2 /R = −0.24, IBC with the RSM yielded closer predictions
throughout the radial region. While standard and RNG k − ε mod-
els resulted in overpredictions in the region with x1 /R > 0.5. MRF
could not predict ε and gave negligible values of using any of the
turbulence models used. The energy dissipation rate predictions
were closer for 0.45 < x1 /R < 0.55 with RNG k − ε model while
underpredictions was the result with standard k − ε turbulence
models in rest of the radial region. Further, the predicted energy
dissipation rates as result of snap shot approach showed lower
values (less by ∼100%) for x1 /R < 0.6 while more (by ∼100%)
for x1 /R > 0.7 as compared to the experimentally estimated val-
ues. At x2 /R = −0.933, the simulations with IBC using any of the
turbulence models resulted into prediction of negligible values
VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |

Figure 29. Comparison of energy dissipation rate at x2 /R = 0.0. Impeller:
disc turbine. (A) IBC:
experimental, line 1: STD k − ε model, line 2:
RNG k − ε model, line 3: RSM. (B) MRF:
experimental, line 1: STD k − ε
model, line 2: RSM. (C) SM:
experimental, line 1: STD k − ε model, line
2: RNG k − ε model. (D) SNAP:
experimental, line 1: STD k − ε model.
of the turbulent energy dissipation rates. The energy dissipation
rate comparison could be seen as poor as a result of MRF simu-
lation using the standard k − ε model. All the turbulence models
employed resulted into insignificant energy dissipation rates when
used with SM approach. The predicted energy dissipation values
due to snap shot approach were higher by two to three times than
the experimentally measured one. At x2 /R = 0.0, IBC with both the
standard and RNG k − ε models yielded severe overpredictions ε
(Figure 29A) while it gave relatively closer comparison with RSM
(flatter profile). Closer comparison was sought with MRF using
RSM while standard k − ε model severely overpredicted the dissi-
pation rate (Figure 29B). SM was found to fail in predicting the ε
by each of the turbulence models (Figure 29C). Similar compar-
ison was the result of computational snap shot approach (Figure
29D).
Discussion for the simulations with the variants of
the k − ε model
At x2 /R = 0.586, the turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rates
were closely predicted by OPT-CK k − ε model for x1 /R > 0.13
and x1 /R < 0.87 while it severely overpredicted ε in near ves-
sel centre and wall region. All other models were found to yield
underprediction throughout the radial coordinate. At x2 /R = 0.24,
all the k − ε models gave satisfactory comparison of the energy
| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | |
dissipation rate throughout the radial co-ordinate while all ZON
k − ε model resulted into overpredictions up to x1 /R = 0.2. At
x2 /R = −0.24, it can be seen that NEW k − ε predicted good ε
comparison for x1 /R > 0.5 followed by ZON and OPT-CK k − ε
models while it underpredicted in rest of the radial region. MOD
k − ε model yielded severe underpredictions of ε throughout. At
x2 /R = −0.933, all the k − ε models resulted in negligible values
of the energy dissipation rate. At x2 /R = 0.0, the turbulent energy
dissipation rate predictions were satisfactory as a result of all
the simulations with the variants of k − ε models. Magnitudes of
predicted ε were more or less for all the simulations.
Comparison of Power Numbers
Based on the overall distribution of the energy dissipation rate,
power number has been estimated and compared with exper-
imental data. To establish the energy balance, the total power
dissipation rate was calculated by volume integration of the pre-
dicted turbulent energy dissipation rate (ε) as:
2 H R
Utip
3
P= εx1 dx1 dx2 dx3 (23)
R
0 0 0
Experimentally, the total power consumption was measured by
a torque table (the accuracy of experimental measurements was
validated by measuring power consumption for a standard DT for
which the power number of five has been reported). From the pre-
dicted energy dissipation rate (Equation 23) and the experimental
power consumption (torque table), the values of power number
(NP ) were estimated using the following equation:
P = NP N 3 D5 (24)
Power numbers obtained by using Equation (24) as a result
of all the simulations of the flow generated in stirred tank are
reported in Table 7. The underpredictions were by about 40% for
variants of k − ε models when MRF was used. RNG k − ε model
coupled with MRF yielded only 5% underprediction, while RSM
gave an overprediction of 45%. Power number predicted by vari-
ants of k − ε models with SM were overpredicting by 48%, RNG
when coupled with SM gave 40% overprediction and RSM gave
only 1% underprediction.
Reynolds Stresses
Reynolds stresses are amongst the foremost importance charac-
teristics, which govern the transport processes. Their distribution
in the stirred reactors is useful in the study of de-activation of
enzymes/microorganisms in biochemical operations. Enzymes
activity is significantly depends on the shear stress distribution
in the reactor. Some enzymes get deactivated in high shear flow
field. In case of solid suspension applications, to keep particles in
the state of suspension, turbulent dispersion forces are important
which in turn depend in Reynolds stresses. In case of mass trans-
fer at gas–liquid and liquid–liquid systems, the true mass transfer
coefficient is dictated by the interface normal Reynolds stresses.
Higher Reynolds stresses lead to enhanced rate of surface renewal
and increase in mass transfer rate. This section reviews the litera-
ture as regards to the measurement of Reynolds stresses followed
by assessment of the predictive capability of the CFD models.
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 67 |
 Table 7. Effect of grid size on power number as a function of the turbulence model and the impeller modelling approach

Impeller Impeller model Turbulence model Grid size inimpeller swept region Grid size Np ( based) Np (ε based)

DT IBC k−ε — 85 000 — 2.71

DT IBC RNG k − ε — 85 000 — 2.24
DT IBC RSM k − ε — 85 000 — 1.83
DT MRF k−ε 57 888 461 496 4.43 1.35
DT MRF k−ε 42 240 311 328 4.38 2.71
DT MRF k−ε 38 720 293 040 4.34 5.38
DT MRF k−ε 28 800 194 432 4.27 0.98
DT MRF RNG k − ε 28 800 194 432 4.27 4.51
DT MRF RSM 42 368 311 328 4.32 2.34
DT SM k−ε 38 720 194 432 4.36 1.19
DT SM k−ε 38 720 293 040 4.30 1.48
DT SM k−ε 42 368 311 328 4.92 2.91
DT SM k−ε 57 888 461 496 1.89 1.59
DT SM RNG k − ε 42 368 311 328 4.92 2.91
DT SM RNG k − ε 57 888 461 496 5.25 5.35
DT IBC Zonal k − ε — 85 000 — 1.84
DT IBC MOD k − ε — 85 000 — 1.34
DT IBC NEW k − ε — 85 000 — 1.54
DT IBC OPT-CK — 85 000 — 2.63

Previous work
Drbohlav et al. (1978) have investigated the turbulence charac-
teristics produced by a Rushton turbine in a 1.0 m diameter tank.
The Reynolds normal stresses and shear stresses were measured
with the help of a pitot tube. The measured values of the Reynolds
stresses and the mean velocity gradients were used for the calcu-
lation of the eddy viscosity. It was observed that the eddy viscosity
values reduce with an increase in the radial distance away from
the impeller tip. No attempts were made to obtain the distribution
of the eddy viscosity in the rest of the vessel.
Mahoust et al. (1988) have measured the turbulence charac-
teristics of stirred vessels equipped with a Rushton turbine. The
vessel diameter was 0.2 m and the measurements were made with
the help of LDV. They have made simultaneous measurements of
the radial and tangential velocity components, which enabled the
calculation of the Reynolds shear stresses. It was observed that,
in the impeller discharge stream and close to the impeller tip, the
Reynolds shear stress u i u j  was about three times smaller than
the normal stresses. Whereas, near the wall, it was found to be
about 10 times smaller than the normal stresses.
Mahoust et al. (1989) have established energy balance by
computing the power transmitted from the torque calculations. It
was observed that the power number based on torque was about
4.5, whereas, the experimentally observed power number was
close to 5.
Kemoun et al. (1994) have investigated the turbulent stresses
produced by standard Rushton turbines. The experiments were
carried out in a 0.2 m diameter stirred vessel and the measure-
ments were made with the help of a LDV. Their measurements
have shown that the three components of the turbulent stresses
as well as the shear stresses are not similar in shape and are not
equal in magnitude. This indicates that the turbulence is highly
anisotropic. Also a comparison of the turbulent shear stresses and
the normal stresses shows that the former are smaller by as much
as five times than the latter.
Derksen et al. (1997) have measured the Reynolds stresses in
the stirred vessel equipped with a Rushton turbine. The mea-
surements were made in a 0.3 m diameter tank with the help
of LDV. The Reynolds stresses were also estimated from the
relationship:


2 ∂ui  ∂uj 
u i u j  = kıij + T + (25)
3 ∂xj ∂xi
The values of eddy diffusivity were estimated from the relation:
k2
 T = C␮ (26)
ε
The values of k were measured and that of ε were taken as 15
times the average energy dissipation rate. It was observed that
the predicted Reynolds stresses showed the same trend as that
observed experimentally. However, their magnitude was as much
as 50% higher or lower in the impeller discharge stream.
Derksen and van den Akker (1999) performed three-
dimensional, angle-resolved LDV measurements of the turbulent
flow field (Re = 2.9 × 104 ) in the vicinity of a Rushton turbine in
a baffled mixing tank. They have presented results on the average
flow field, as well as on the complete set of Reynolds stresses. The
anisotropy of the turbulence has been characterised by the invari-
ants of the anisotropy tensor. The trailing vortex structure, which
is characteristic for the flow induced by a Rushton turbine, is
demonstrated to be associated with strong, anisotropic turbulent
activity.
Galletti et al. (2004) used 3-D LDV to measure Reynolds stresses
and triple products in stirred tank with DT. They presented the pro-
files of ensemble-averaged normal and shear stresses throughout
the entire vessel. They observed that near the tank bottom and
vessel axis, the three normal stresses differed significantly. In this
region, radial-tangential shear stress was highest and the other
two being negligible.
Comparison of Reynolds stresses
Extensive comparison of predicted Reynolds stresses by all the
simulations with the experimental data of Kumar (1997) was
carried out. Figure 30 shows the comparison for the predicted

| 68 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | | VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |


(3) It can be concluded from the Table 4 that the CFD models
(4) As mentioned earlier, the working fluid has been water. It
Figure 30. Comparison of Reynolds stresses. Impeller: disc turbine. (A)
Comparison for u  1 u  2  (B) comparison for u  2 u  3 .
Experimental (1):
at x2 /R = 0.586; (2): at x2 /R = 0.24; (3): at x2 /R = −0.24; (4): at
x2 /R = −0.933.
(5) Though some attempts (Lee and Yianneskis, 1997; Schäfer
Reynolds stresses, namely u 1 u 2  (Figure 30A1–A4) and u 2 u 3 
(Figure 30B1–B4), as a result of a simulation by IBC approach
using standard k − ε model at all the four axial locations. It can
be seen that the comparison was poor both qualitatively and
quantitatively. Similar observations were noted for the predic-
tions of Reynolds stresses due to other simulations (comparison
is not shown here). The discrepancy in the comparison may be
attributed to the errors in experimental measurement of Reynolds
stresses and/or turbulence modelling.
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE
WORK
(1) From the extensive literature presented, it can be concluded
that, most of the CFD studies have focussed on the mod-
elling of flows generated by two types of impellers, namely
Rushton turbine and the pitched blade turbines in standard
geometries. Further, most of these studies have been limited
to water as the working fluid.
(2) There have been practically no attempts to simulate wide
variety of stirred reactor configurations encountered indus-
| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | |
trially (even for the single-phase system). In industrial
practice one often comes across multiple impeller systems
consisting of impellers of different types, different D/T
ratios, and placed at various locations within the reactor.
Industrial stirred reactors often use internals like draft tubes,
cooling coils, nozzles, etc. Further, the physicochemical
properties of process stream can vary significantly. It is
important to predict the flow field under such a wide variety
of situations mentioned above and compare the CFD model
predictions with the experimental measurements of mean
velocity field and turbulence properties. Only after such
comparisons have been made, conclusions can be drawn
about the predictive capability of the various turbulence
models and the impeller modelling approaches.
have focussed on a limited region in stirred tank, which is
about 30% of the tank volume. Very little attention has been
paid to the accuracy of predictions near the reactor walls,
baffles, liquid surface and in-between the impeller blades.
Accurate prediction of flow characteristics in these regions
is important to predict the mixing characteristics, heat
transfer coefficients, bubble/drop breakage by impellers,
onset and rates of surface aeration and gas induction,
etc. A comprehensive program needs to be undertaken
to experimentally measure the mean velocity field and
turbulence characteristics in the regions mentioned above
and compare them with the CFD model predictions. Fur-
ther, the validation of the predictions of the CFD models
should be carried out by rigorous quantitative comparison.
Qualitative comparisons in the form of contour plots may
not lead to any conclusion as regards to the accuracy of
predictions. In addition, one should not compare the results
of improvement in impeller/turbulence models by mere
comparison with the predictions of the other models but
with the accurate experimental measurements.
is important to cover a very wide range of Re and for all the
impeller designs. Urgent attention is needed towards flow
visualisation and fluids over a wide range of characteristics.
Future studies need to include the investigation of close
clearance impellers.
et al., 1997, 1998, etc.) have been made to measure the flow
characteristics in the impeller region, their scope has been
limited to the standard impellers and geometries. There is
a need to carry out reliable and extensive measurements of
angle resolved velocity components and quantification of
the random and the periodic components of the turbulent
kinetic energy. Further, accurate measurements with specific
emphasis on the impeller swept region and close to the wall
are required. The reliable measurements of the flow charac-
teristics should be carried out near wall/baffle region, near
liquid surface and in the geometries with internals (such as
draft tubes, cooling coils, etc.). Further, accurate measure-
ment techniques for the energy dissipation rates need to be
developed. All these need to be carried out for a variety of
impeller types with different geometric configurations. All
the experimental data should be processed to quantify error
bars and confidence limits. The reliable sets of experimental
data are expected to be useful for the further validation and
subsequent development of CFD models. For the good exper-
imental practices the reader is referred to papers by Ng et al.
(1998); Baudou et al., (1997); Schäfer et al. (1997, 1998).
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 69 |
 (6) As regards to the grid size, from the comparison presented
in this work, it can be concluded that though complete
grid independent solution is difficult, one can reasonably
succeed in getting grid size, which can yield the solution
with a fair accuracy. Refined grid near the impeller blade, in
the region near the impeller tip, near vessel walls and baffles
should be used and the effect should be quantified. Further,
it is desirable to use higher order differencing scheme to
reduce numerical errors to the extent possible. Once these
issues are resolved, one can comfortably proceed for the
validation of CFD models. The present impeller and turbu-
lence models are capable of predicting the overall flow both
near and away from the impeller for standard geometries
only qualitatively. They are capable of predicting the gross
flow features produced by the single and multiple impellers
(parallel, merging and parallel flows as a result of change in
the inter-impeller clearance between the Rushton turbines
(in the presence and absence of cooling coils); transition
of double to single loop due to decrease in the clearance
between the impeller and the vessel bottom and the trailing
vortices behind the rotating blades). However, they lack
significantly in quantitative predictions, particularly the
tangential velocity and the turbulent kinetic energy.
(7) From the extensive comparison presented in fifth section,
it can seen that the quantitative comparison of axial and
radial velocities in the bulk region is good with the IBC
approach while other impeller modelling approaches result
into very poor comparison for the mean and turbulence
quantities. Due to the requirement of the experimental data,
IBC approach cannot be used for the screening of a variety of
impeller designs in different geometric configurations. This
can be avoided if impeller rotation is modelled properly. In
this regard SM approach offers a promising alternative for
the actual rotation of the impeller. One needs to critically
examine the effects of impeller design and other internal
mountings for the flows in stirred vessel involving strong
interaction between the impeller, vessel wall and the baffles
where the vessel boundary has a significant effect on the
flow generated by the impeller.
(8) The flow patterns encountered in the stirred vessels are of
complex type that depends on various operating conditions
and geometry. An efficient design of stirred vessel requires
knowledge of the hydrodynamics of the flow pattern,
power consumption, and mixing time. Generally, overall
design parameters can give only the global picture but the
local information on hydrodynamics is mandatory for the
reliable design of reactors. Such local parameters are very
much affected by the temporal intermittent flow called
macroinstabilities (MIs). MIs are complex spatiotemporal
phenomenon spanning a large portion of the reactor.
These are low frequency in nature with high amplitude
of oscillatory motions in the low turbulence regions of a
vessel which have the capability of transporting substances
fed to a mixing process over relatively long distances. The
magnitude of the MIs varies with the location in the vessel
and these low frequency motions can severely affect the
transport phenomena (local heat and mass transfer rates,
gas/solid holdup, etc.). Apart from the mixing operation,
these frequencies at higher amplitude can affect on the solid
surfaces inside the reactors causing permanent damage for
baffles, internals, sensors, etc. At low Reynolds number,
the MI peaks are more pronounced near the impeller. Even
if the flow near to the impeller is turbulent (high NRe ), it
| 70 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | |
may become transitional and even laminar with increasing
distance from the blades. Hence the MI frequency must
be investigated extensively to find its effect on mixing.
Finally, the CFD models need to focus in future on the
design objectives, namely, mixing time, heat transfer
coefficients, critical impeller speed for the gas dispersion,
flooding/loading transitions, critical impeller speed for solid
suspension, gas hold-up, bubble/drop size, mass transfer
coefficients, etc.
(9) Murthy and Joshi (2008) measured three-dimensional mean
flow field and the turbulent kinetic energy of the baffled
stirred vessel agitated by five impellers (DT, PBT (60◦ , 45◦ ,
and 30◦ ) and a hydrofoil) have been measured using LDA.
They performed three-dimensional CFD simulations by the
standard k − ε, the Reynolds stress transport and LES tur-
bulence models for all the above cases. The pressure strain
terms in RSM was modelled based on the proposal in the lit-
erature that is suitable for the present flow configuration. In
case of LES, for the first time, one equation dynamic subgrid
scale model has been successfully employed for the stirred
vessel geometry. The predicted flow fields by all the three
turbulence models were comprehensively compared with
the experimental data. The following conclusions can be
drawn from their work. (a) As for as mean flow predictions
are concerned, the RSM performed better than the standard
k − ε model when comparisons were made with DT. The
results reaffirm that the RSM can out-perform the k − ε
model when recirculations are present. This is due to the
overestimation of the eddy viscosity which is a general char-
acteristic of the k − ε model. In general, it can be concluded
that the standard k − ε model performs well when the flow
is unidirectional that is with less swirl and weak recircula-
tion. (b) Both the standard k − ε model and anisotropy RSM
fail to predict the turbulent kinetic energy profiles in the
impeller region when the flow is dominated by the unsteady
coherent flow structures. (c) Using both the LDA and LES
tools, the strength of the precessing vortex instability has
been quantified for all the five impeller designs. It has been
observed that the impeller which generates strong swirl flow
generate equally strong was the main reason for such insta-
bilities. Therefore, among the impeller designs considered
in the present study, the DT produces strongest instabilities
and the HF generates the weakest instabilities. (d) The fre-
quency of the jet instability was found to be linearly related
to the rotational speed (∼0.13–0.2 N, Hz) of all the impeller
designs under consideration. The energies associated with
the jet instability for all the four impellers, that is, DT,
PBTD60, PBTD45, PBTD30, and HF, have been found to
be 42 m2 /s2 , 38 m2 /s2 , 0.64 m2 /s2 , 8 m2 /s2 , and 12 m2 /s2 ,
respectively. (e) Further, consistent occurrence of inter-
mediate instabilities have been observed having frequency
0.04–0.07 N which lies in between the precessional and the
jet instability. The origin of these kinds of instabilities could
be due to the interaction of precessing vortex instability
with either the mean flow or jet/circulation instabilities.
(f) Having demonstrated that the LES model provides pre-
dictions that agree well with the measurements, and these
simulations capture relatively many flow features, these
simulations can be further be utilised to explore a variety
of issues with a reasonable confidence. (g) Energy balance
has been established using both integral ε and torque-based
approaches. It can be concluded that the torque-based
approach seems to be more promising for the estimation
VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |
 of power number for a new impeller design and using by
computationally economical RANS based simulations.
(10) As discussed in ninth section, there are a number of
methods of estimation of energy dissipation rate (ε). These
methods stem from the fact that there are a large number
of ways of defining the characteristic velocity scale and
the characteristic length scale. However, any method has
to satisfy the overall energy balance. That is, the volume-
integrated rate of energy dissipation must be equal to the
energy supplied by the impeller. Any method of estimation
of ε that does not satisfy the overall energy balance cannot
be considered to be realistic. Studies need to be undertaken
to check, which methods of estimation of ε satisfy the over-
all energy balance and which methods do not. The energy
supplied by the impeller can also be calculated from the
outflow of angular momentum and the torque acting on the
impeller blades. The energy supplied using these methods
also needs to be compared with the volume integrated ε.
(11) A quite a few good measurement techniques have been
reported in the literature. Simple measurement techniques
(visual and conductometric) though give quick estimates of
mixing times; they suffer from the accuracy of measurement
while the most sophisticated techniques (e.g., 3-D ERT) are
expensive and require a certain kind of expertise. In this
regards radioactive liquid tracer technique presents a good
alternative because of its non-intrusiveness, applicability
in case of non-transparent vessels and its stability at severe
operating conditions.
(12) Most of the extensive studies reported in literature make
use of the conductivity measurements in a vessel after the
addition of tracer technique due to its simplicity. Extensive
studies have been reported to quantify the effect of various
parameters, namely the location of tracer addition, volume
of tracer, time of tracer addition, location and size of the
detection probe. Further, in case of visual assessment of
mixing, it has been suggested that the indicators in an
acidic pH range should be used as the indicators in alkaline
pH range suffer from the time lag.
(13) The foremost important parameter in the evaluation of the
mixing performance is the definition of the mixing. Most
of the investigations define the mixing time as the time
required to achieve a concentration/temperature of 95%
of the final average concentration/temperature. It has been
reported that the time required for attainment of certain
percentage approach to the final average concentration
depends on the impeller design. In view of this it is
suggested to outline a unique mixing criterion which can
be a correct measure of uniformity and invariant of the
impeller-vessel configuration. In this regard the criterion
suggested by Harnby et al. (1991) can be seen as the
promising one. This criterion is based on the variance of
the concentration measurements at number locations:
 (19)
1 
n
2 = (Ci −C0 )2
n−1
i=0
The value of the variance is representative of the extent
of the overall mixing and should be decided as per the
desired extent of mixing. This criterion has scarcely been
used in the past investigations. This may be due to the
fact that it requires a number of measurements of the
concentration at number of points in order to eliminate
the effect on variance. With the advent/development of
| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | |
more sophisticated techniques (such as three-dimensional
electrical resistivity technique), such kind of measurements
have now become possible.
(14) Various studies have been reported as regards to the effect
of impeller design on the mixing time and the power
consumption. Some of the conclusions drawn suggest that
the mixing time is function of impeller design while some
lead to the same mixing time irrespective of impeller design
at the same power consumption. A critical analysis has
been presented which shows that the liquid phase mixing
in turbulent flow regime is the flow controlled process and
hence depends on the impeller design.
(15) Most of the studies indicate that the axial flow impellers
in general and marine propellers in particular are superior
in mixing performance as compared to the radial flow
impellers as they require smaller amount of energy to
produce vigorous fluid circulation throughout the tank.
(16) Experimental data on the mixing time have been analysed on
the basis of equal power consumption. It has been observed
that the mixing time varies inversely with the cube root of
the power consumption per unit volume of the liquid. The
constants in the proportionality relationship are found to
be impeller design dependent. Also they are found to be the
function of the range of operating parameters investigated.
(17) The second most important parameter to have the major
impact on the mixing performance has been found to be
the impeller diameter. The momentum flux of the fluid
discharging out of the impeller increases with an increase in
impeller diameter leading to lowering of circulation times.
Further, it also affects secondary flow number. All these
ultimately result into the lower mixing times as a result of
an increase in impeller diameters. The mixing time varies
inversely with the square of the impeller diameter.
(18) In the work of Patwardhan and Joshi (1999), it was proved
that blending application prefers all the energy in the form
of mean and minimal turbulent kinetic energy (even <5%).
In contrast, colloidal mills, homogenisers and emulsifiers
need highly turbulent flows. The ultrasound reactors are the
types which still puzzle, even though it has important appli-
cations at specific chemical/biochemical process industries.
Hence, the acoustic streaming and associated turbulence
characteristics of the flow governing the rate of the transport
processes, the detailed understanding of the fluid mechanics
(velocity and stress fields, turbulence structure, distribution
of energy dissipation rates, etc.) must be investigated and
cross check with the postulate of Patwardhan and Joshi
(1999) on the mixing front. All the previous work reported
have used either intrusive measurement techniques or
visual observations techniques like streak photography to
estimate the velocity magnitude prevailing in the ultrasonic
reactors. However, no previous work has yet reported about
the turbulence levels prevailing in such reactors.
For a given type of impeller, the parameters such as blade
number, blade width, blade height, disc thickness (in case
of DT), have been found to have a profound impact on
the overall flow pattern, power number of impeller and the
mixing time. It has been reported that an increase in the
blade width can be more energy efficient as compared to
the increase in impeller diameter. Further, the number and
dimensions of the impeller blades (thickness, in particular)
can be of great help in the optimisation of the mixing pro-
cesses. Further, in view of this a great deal of care should be
taken while comparing mixing performance of same and/or
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 71 |
 different impellers types from the published literature as the impeller-vessel configurations. For such studies the work of
difference in mixing time may also arise due to the difference Patwardhan and Joshi (1999) can be treated as a guideline.
in blade and disc thicknesses, hub and shaft diameters, etc. (24) An extensive CFD studies in conjunction with the LDA
(20) The internals like the baffles and draft tube have been measurements of the flow pattern suggest that the con-
found to affect the flow pattern and hence the mixing vective motion controls the mixing process to a large
performance. The studies have been reported which guide extent in the turbulent regime. Further, the relationship,
the selection of the number, width, and the positioning of  mix ∝ N1/3
P T
2/3
/NQS which relates the mixing time to both
the baffles. Further, few studies indicate that the use of draft the power number and secondary flow number is suggested
tube for the better mixing operation. for the evaluation of the mixing performance of alternative
(21) Position of the impeller with respect to the vessel bottom impeller designs on the basis of equal power consumption
(off bottom clearance) and the location of the impeller shaft per unit mass.
relative to the central axis (impeller eccentricity) have got a (25) The results of CFD studies indicate that there is enormous
significant impact on the flow pattern and the mixing perfor- scope to modify the local values of mean flow and eddy
mance thereof. It has been suggested to use higher impeller viscosity to achieve substantially higher levels of energy
off-bottom clearance in case of the axial flow impellers while efficiency in the mixing process which promises substantial
low clearance for radial flow impellers in order to achieve savings in terms of operating cost.
energy efficient mixing operation. The eccentricity should
be chosen so as to maintain the equality of the distances
between the wall baffle and the impeller tip on one side and NOMENCLATURE
the impeller tip and vessel on the other side where single A empirical constant in Equation (14)
loop formation occurs with maximum flow passage through A1 empirical constant in Equation (22)
the impeller body. Lower or higher eccentricities have been C impeller clearance from bottom, m
found to have detrimental impact on the overall mixing C␮ , Cε1 , Cε2, Cε3 turbulence parameters in the k − ε model
performance. In addition, the eccentric impellers are more D impeller diameter, m
beneficial in case of unbaffled vessel. Further, the impellers dV differential volume in the reactor, m3
mounted on the angled shaft are found to perform better as E energy associated with wave number k1 ,
compared to the impellers mounted on vertical shaft. f frequency, s−1
(22) Many times, process engineers are required to evaluate the Gk turbulence production term in two-equation k − ε
performance of existing equipment, with a view to modify or model
improve its performance. In that case, a very quick estimate H liquid height in the vessel, m
of the mixing time may be required, by the time CFD mod- k dimensionless turbulent kinetic energy (with
elling takes a shape of a very common utility and becomes a U2tip )
short time activity. In such cases the correlations like the one k1 wave number as in Equation (18), (1)/m
proposed by Rewatkar and Joshi (1991c) (which was arrived kp kinetic energy of large vortices in multiple scale
after the analysis of mixing time data due to extensive exper- model
imentations in large sized vessels and over a wide range of kT kinetic energy of transfer eddies in multiple scale
parameters) will be useful. Further, such kind of correlations model
should be developed by using corrected data for the differ- L characteristic length scale, m
ence in operating range and impeller dimensions in addition Lres resultant microscale, m
to the errors in mixing time measurements. In addition it Li miscroscale in ith direction, m
is suggested to prepare and make use of comprehensive N impeller speed, s−1
worksheet like that proposed by Zlokarnik (2001) for the NQS impeller flow number
handy selection of the impeller-vessel configuration for a NP impeller power number
desired mixing time at a given size of operation based on the NDNS number of grids required for DNS in Equation (3)
reliable data due to the recent experimental and theoretical Pk turbulence production term, kg m−1 s−3
investigations with an emphasis on the high efficiency Pij production term, m2 s−3
impellers. p instantaneous pressure, N/m2
(23) In view of the complex interdependency of a wide paramet- p time-averaged pressure, N/m2
ric space (i.e., impeller design, impeller and tank diameters, p̄ filtered pressure, N/m2
impeller location, baffle configuration, draft tube, etc.) R radius of the vessel, m
screening for an optimum configuration using experimen- Re Reynolds number, ND2 /␮
tation becomes a mammoth and almost impossible task. Reh Reynolds number based on channel height and
In this regards CFD can be of great help in screening out mean velocity
various configurations (incorporating a variety of miscella- Sij strain rate tensor, 1/s
neous impeller designs and internals which are difficult to S source term of 
fabricate and time consuming to study experimentally) for T vessel diameter, m
mixing process qualitatively and can significantly reduce t time, s
the experimentation. Further, CFD can be of great help in ui instantaneous velocity vector
order to quantify the contribution of the flow or the power Utip impeller tip velocity, m s−1
consumption and the role of impeller design. In view of this ū mean velocity, m s−1
it is suggested that the thorough analysis of the flow pattern uRMS r.m.s. velocity, m/s
and hence the mixing time should be carried out using the ui  time-averaged velocity in ith direction, m/s
detailed simulation of the mixing process with a variety of u i u j  Reynolds shear stress, m2 /s2

| 72 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | | VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |

u fluctuating velocity component, m/s REFERENCES
VL volume of liquid in the reactor, m3
w baffle width, m Abujelala, M. T. and D. G. Lilley, “Limitations and Empirical
x 1 , x2 , x3 space coordinates in radial, axial, and tangential Extensions of the k − ε Model as Applied to the Turbulent
direction respectively, m Confined Swirling Flow,” Chem. Eng. Commun. 31, 223–236
(1984).
Alcamo, R., G. Micale, F. Grisafi, A. Brucato and M. Ciofalo,
Greek Symbols
“Large-Eddy Simulation of Turbulent Flow in an Unbaffled
ıij Kronecker delta Stirred Tank Driven by a Rushton Turbine,” Chem. Eng. Sci.
ε dimensionless turbulent energy dissipation rate (by 60, 2303–2316 (2005).
U3tip /R) Alopaeus, V., P. Moilanen and M. Laakkonen, “Analysis of
ε̄ average rate of turbulent kinetic energy dissipation, Stirred Tanks with Two-Zone Models,” AIChE J. 55,
m2 /s3 2545–2552 (2009).
εmax maximum rate of turbulent kinetic energy dissipation, Alvarez-Hernández, M. M., T. Shinbrot, J. Zalc and F. J. Muzzio,
m2 /s3 “Practical Chaotic Mixing,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 57, 3749–3753
eff effective diffusivity, m2 s−1 (2002).
 transport property Anandha Rao, M. and R. S. Brodkey, “Continuous Flow Stirred
 von Karman constant Tank Turbulence Parameters in the Impeller Stream,” Chem.

t Taylor microscale, m Eng. Sci. 27, 137–156 (1972).

␮t turbulent viscosity, kg/m s Angeli, P. and G. Hewitt, “Drop Size Distributions in Horizontal
 kinematic viscosity, m2 /s Oil–Water Dispersed Flows,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 55, 3133–3143
t turbulent diffusivity, m2 /s (2000).
 density of liquid, kg m−3 Arjunwadkar, S. J., K. Saravanan, A. B. Pandit and P. R.
ε constant in two-equation k − ε model Kulkarni, “Optimizing the Impeller Combination for
k turbulent Prandtl number Maximum Hold-Up with Minimum Power Consumption,”
 integral time scale, s Biochem. Eng. J. 1, 25–30 (1998).
ω specific dissipation rate, s−1 Armenante, E. M. and D. J. Kirwan, “Mass Transfer to
Microparticles in Agitated Systems,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 44,
Superscripts and Subscripts 2781–2796 (1989).
1, 2, 3 axis indexes of space coordinates Armenante, P. M., Y. Huang and T. Li, “Determination of the
t turbulent Minimum Agitation Speed to Attain the Just Dispersed State
in Solid–Liquid And Liquid–Liquid Reactors Provided with
Multiple Impellers,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 47, 2865–2870 (1992).
Abbreviations Arratia, P. E., J. Kukura, J. Lacombe and F. J. Muzzio, “Mixing
AFT adaptive force field technique of Shear-Thinning Fluids with Yield Stress in Stirred Tanks,”
ASM algebraic stress model AIChE J. 52, 2310–2322 (2006).
CFD computational fluid dynamics Bakker, A. and L. M. Oshinowo, “Modelling of Turbulence in
CTA constant temperature anemometry Stirred Vessels Using Large Eddy Simulation,” Chem. Eng.
DNS direct numerical simulation Res. Des. 82, 1169–1178 (2004).
DSM differential stress model Bakker, A. and H. E. A. van den Akker, “Single-phase flow in
DT disc turbine stirred reactors,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 72, 583–593 (1994).
EFD experimental fluid dynamics Bakker, R. A. and H. E. A. van den Akker, “A Lagrangian
IBC impeller boundary condition approach Description of Micromixing in a Stirred Tank Reactor Using
IO inner outer 1D-Micromixing Model in a CFD Flow Field,” Chem. Eng. Sci.
LDV laser Doppler velocimetry 51, 2643–2648 (1996).
LES large eddy simulation Baldi, S., A. Ducci and M. Yianneskis, “Determination of
MDG moving-deforming grid technique Dissipation Rate in Stirred Vessels Through Direct
MOD modified Measurement of Fluctuating Velocity Gradients,” Chem. Eng.
MRF multiple reference frame technique Technol. 27 (3), 275–281 (2004).
MI macro-instability Barigou, M. and M. Greaves, “Gas Holdup and Interfacial Area
OPT-CK optimised Chen–Kim Distributions in a Mechanically Agitated Gas–Liquid
PBTD pitched blade downflow turbine Contactor,” Trans. Inst. Chem. Engrs. - A: Chem. Eng. Res.
PIV particle image velocimetry and Des. 74 (Part A), 397–405 (1996).
RANS Reynolds averaged Navier–Stokes Barigou, M. and M. Greaves, “Bubble-Size Distributions in a
RMS root mean square Mechanically Agitated Gas–Liquid Contactor,” Chem. Eng.
RNG renormalised group Sci. 47, 2009–2025 (1992).
RSM Reynolds stress model Bartels, C., M. Breuer and F. Durst, “Comparison between Direct
SGS subgrid scale Numerical Simulation and k−ε Prediction of the Flow in a
SM sliding mesh technique Vessel Stirred by a Rushton Turbine,” Proc. 10th Euro. Conf.
SNAP snapshot approach Mix. 239–246 (2000).
SS source-sink approach Bates, R. L., E. L. Fondy and R. R. Corpstein, “An Examination
SST shear stress transport of Some Geometric Parameters of Impeller Power,” Ind. Eng.
ZON zonal Chem. Process Des. Dev. 2, 310–314 (1963).

| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 73 |

Baudou, C., C. Xuereb, J. Costes, G. Ranchin and J. Bertrand,
“Laser Doppler Measurements of Flow Field and Turbulent
Flow Parameters in a Stirred Tank Equipped with Two
Industrial Propellers,” Proc. 9th Euro. Conf. Mix. 11–18
(1997).
Beckner, J. L. and J. M. Smith, “Anchor-Agitated Systems: Power
Input with Newtonian and Pseudo-Plastic Fluids,” Trans. Inst.
Chem. Eng. 44, T224 (1966).
Bertrand, J., J. P. Couderc and H. Angelino, “Power
Consumption, Pumping Capacity and Turbulence Intensity in
Baffled Stirred Tanks: Comparison Between Several Turbines,”
Chem. Eng. Sci. 35, 2157–2163 (1980).
Birch, D. and N. Ahmed, “The Influence of Sparger Design and
Location of Gas Dispersion in Stirred Vessels,” Trans. Inst.
Chem. Eng. 75 (Part A), 487–496 (1997).
Boden, S., M. Bieberle and U. Hampel, “Quantitative
Measurement of Gas Hold-Up Distribution in a Stirred
Chemical Reactor Using X-Ray Cone-Beam Computed
Tomography,” Chem. Eng. J. 139, 351–362 (2008).
Bombač, A. and I. Žun, “Individual Impeller Flooding in Aerated
Vessel Stirred by multiple-Rushton Impellers,” Chem. Eng. J.
116, 85–95 (2006).
Boon-Long, S., C. Laguerie and J. E. Couderc, “Mass Transfer
from Suspended Solids to a Liquid in Agitated Vessels,”
Chem. Eng. Sci. 33, 813–819 (1978).
Bourne, J. R. and H. Butler, “Power Consumption of Helical
Ribbon Impellers in Viscous Liquids,” Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng.
47, T263–270 (1969a).
Bourne, J. R. and H. Butler, “An Analysis of the Flow Produced
by Helical Ribbon Impellers,” Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 47,
159–168 (1969b).
Bowen, R. L., “Agitation Intensity: Key to Scaling Up
Flow-Sensitive Liquid Systems,” Chem. Eng. 92 (6), 159–168
(1985).
Brennan, D. J. and I. H. Lehrer, “Impeller Mixing in Vessels
Experimental Studies on the Influence of Some Parameters
and Formulation of a General Mixing Time Equation,” Trans.
Inst. Chem. Eng. 54, 139–152 (1976).
Brooks, B. W., “Drop Size Distributions in an Agitated
Liquid/Liquid Dispersion,” Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 57,
210–212 (1979).
Brown, D. E. and K. Pitt, “Drop Size Distribution of Stirred
Non-Coalescing Liquid–Liquid System,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 27,
577–583 (1972).
Brown, D. E. and K. Pitt, “Effect of Impeller Geometry on Drop
Break-Up in a Stirred Liquid–Liquid Contactor,” Chem. Eng.
Sci. 29, 345–348 (1974).
Brucato, A., M. Ciofalo, F. Grisafi and G. Micale, “Complete
Numerical Solution of Flow Fields in Baffled Stirred Vessels:
The Inner–Outer Approach,” Proc. 8th Euro. Conf. Mix.
155–162 (1994).
Brucato, A., M. Ciofalo, F. Grisafi and G. Micale, “Numerical
Prediction of Flow Fields in Baffled Stirred Vessels: A
Comparison of Alternative Modelling Approaches,” Chem.
Eng. Sci. 53, 3653–3684 (1998).
Brunazzi, E., C. Galletti, A. Paglianti and S. Pintus, “An
Impedance Probe for the Measurements of Flow
Characteristics and Mixing Properties in Stirred Slurry
Reactors,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 82, 1250–1257 (2004).
Carreau, P. J., I. Patterson and C. Y. Yap, “Mixing of Viscoelastic
Fluids with Helical-Ribbon Agitators. I—Mixing Time and
Flow Patterns,” 54, 135–142 (1976).
| 74 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | |
Carreau, P. J., J. Paris and P. Guérin, “Mixing of Newtonian and
Non-Newtonian Liquids: Screw Agitator and Draft Coil
System,” Can. J. Chem. Eng. 70 (6), 1071–1082 (1992).
Carreau, R. J., J. Paris and E. Guérin, “Heat Transfer to
Newtonian and Non-Newtonian Liquids in a Screw Agitator
and Draft Coil System,” Can. J. Chem. Eng. 72 (6), 966–974
(1994).
Chapple, D. and S. Kresta, “The Effect of Geometry on the
Stability of Flow Patterns in Stirred Tanks,” Chem. Eng. Sci.
49, 3651–3660 (1994).
Chen, Y. S. and S. W. Kim, “Computation of Turbulent Flows
Using an Extended k − ε Turbulence Closure Model,” NASA
CR-179204 (1987).
Chen, H. T. and S. Middleman, “Drop Size Distribution in
Agitated Liquid–Liquid Systems,” AIChE J. 13, 989–995
(1967).
Chen, L., Y. Bao and Z. Gao, “Void Fraction Distributions in
Cold-Gassed and Hot-Parged Three Phase Stirred Tanks with
Multi-Impeller,” Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 17, 887–895
(2009).
Ciofalo, M., A. Brucato, F. Grisafi and N. Torraca, “Turbulent
Flows in Closed and Free Surface Unbaffled Tanks Stirred by
Radial Impellers,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 51, 3557–3573 (1996).
Colenbrander, G. W., “Experimental Findings on the Scale-Up
Behaviour of the Drop Size Distribution of Liquid/Liquid
Dispersions in Stirred Vessels,” 10th Euro. Conf. Mix.
173–180 (2000).
Conti, R. and S. Sicardi, “Mass Transfer from Freely-Suspended
Particles in Stirred Tanks,” Chem. Eng. Commun. 14, 91–98
(1982).
Costes, J. and J. R. Couderc, “Study by Laser Doppler
Anemometry of the Turbulent Flow Induced by a Rushton
Turbine in a Stirred Tank: Influence of the Size of the
Units—I. Mean Flow and Turbulence,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 43,
2751–2764 (1988).
Coulaloglou, C. A. and L. L. Tavlarides, “Description of
Interaction Processes in Agitated Liquid–Liquid Dispersions,”
Chem. Eng. Sci. 32, 1289–1297 (1977).
Coyle, C. K., H. E. Hirschland, B. J. Michel and J. Y. Oldshue,
“Heat Transfer to Jackets with Close Clearance Impellers in
Viscous Materials,” Can. J. Chem. Eng. 48 (3), 275–278
(1970).
Cutter, L. A., “Flow and Turbulence in a Stirred Tank,” AIChE J.
12, 35–44 (1966).
Das, P. K., R. Kumar and D. Ramkrishna, “Coalescence of Drops
in Stirred Dispersion. A White Noise Model for Coalescence,”
Chem. Eng. Sci. 42, 213–220 (1987).
Daskopoulos, P. and C. K. Harris, “Three Dimensional CFD
Simulations of Turbulent Flow in Baffled Stirred Tanks: An
Assessment of the Current Position,” Inst. Chem. Eng. Symp.
Ser. 140, 1–113 (1996).
Davies, J. T., “Drop Sizes of Emulsions Related to Turbulent
Energy Dissipation Rates,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 40, 839–842
(1985).
De Maerteleire, E., “Heat Transfer to a Helical Cooling Coil in
Mechanically Agitated Gas–Liquid Dispersions,” Chem. Eng.
Sci. 33, 1107–1113 (1978).
Deglon, D. A. and C. Meyer, “CFD Modelling of Stirred Tanks:
Numerical Considerations,” Miner. Eng. 19, 1059–1068
(2006).
Delafosse, A., A. Liné, J. Morchain and P. Guiraud, “LES and
URANS Simulations of Hydrodynamics in Mixing Tank:
VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |
 Comparison to PIV Experiments,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 86,
1322–1330 (2008).
Derksen, J. J. and H. E. A. van den Akker, “Large Eddy
Simulations on the Flow Driven by a Rushton Turbine,”
AIChE J. 45, 209–2221 (1999).
Derksen, J. J. and H. E. A. van Den Akker, “Multi-Scale
Simulations of Stirred Liquid–Liquid Dispersions,” Chem.
Eng. Res. Des. 85, 697–702 (2007).
Derksen, J. J., J. H. Stockmann and H. E. A. Akker,
“Three-Dimensional Laser Doppler Anemometry in a Stirred
Tank,” Proc. 9th Euro. Conf. Mix. 11, 81–87 (1997).
Derksen, J. J., K. Kontomaris, J. B. McLaughlin and H. E. A. van
den Akker, “Large-Eddy Simulation of Single-Phase Flow
Dynamics and Mixing in an Industrial Crystallizer,” Chem.
Eng. Res. Des. 85, 169–179 (2007).
Desai, R. B. and J. B. Joshi, “Flow Pattern in the Vicinity of
Gas–Liquid Interface in a Stirred Cell,” J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 29,
568–576 (1996).
Deshmukh, N. A. and J. B. Joshi, “Surface Aerators: Power
Number, Mass Transfer Coefficient, Gas Hold Up Profile and
Flow Patterns,” Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs - A: Chem. Eng.
Res. and Des., 84, 977–992 (2006).
Dohi, N., T. Takahashi, K. Minekawa and Y. Kawase, “Power
Consumption and Solid Suspension Performance of
Large-Scale Impellers in Gas–Liquid–Solid Three-Phase
Stirred Tank Reactors,” Chem. Eng. J. 97, 103–114 (2004).
Dong, L., S. T. Johansen and T. A. Engh, “Flow Induced by an
Impeller in an Unbaffled Tank—II. Numerical Modelling,”
Chem. Eng. Sci. 49, 3511–3518 (1994).
Drbohlav, J., I. Fort, K. Maca and J. Placek, “Turbulent
Characteristics of Discharge Flow from the Turbine Impeller,”
Collect. Czech. Chem. Commun. 43, 3148–3163 (1978).
Ebrahimi-Moshkabad, M. and J. M. Winterbottom, “The
Behaviour of an Intermeshing Twin Screw Extruder with
Catalyst Immobilised Screws as a Three-Phase Reactor,” Catal.
Today 48, 347–355 (1999).
Edney, H. G. S. and M. E. Edwards, “Heat Transfer to
Non-Newtonian and Aerated Fluids in Stirred Tanks,” Trans.
Inst. Chem. Eng. 54, 160–166 (1976).
Eggels, J. G. M., “Direct and Large-Eddy Simulation of Turbulent
Flow using the Lattice-Boltzmann Scheme,” Int. J. Heat Fluid
Flow 17, 307–323 (1996).
Fajner, D., D. Pinelli, R. S. Ghadge, G. Montante, A. Paglianti
and F. Magelli, “Solids Distribution and Rising Velocity of
Buoyant Solid Particles in a Vessel Stirred with Multiple
Impellers,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 63, 5876–5882 (2008).
Fan, J., Y. Wang and W. Fei, “Large Eddy Simulations of Flow
Instabilities in a Stirred Tank Generated by a Rushton
Turbine,” Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 15, 200–208 (2007).
Fentiman, N. J., N. St Hill, K. C. Lee, G. R. Paul and M.
Yianneskis, “A Novel Profiled Blade Impeller for
Homogenisation of Miscible Liquids in Stirred Vessels,”
Chem. Eng. Res. Des 76, 835–842 (1998).
Feranandes, J. B. and M. M. Sharma, “Effective Interfacial Area
in Agitated Liquid–Liquid Contactors,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 22,
1267–1282 (1967).
Figueiredo, M. M. L. and R. H. Calderbank, “The Scale-Up of
Aerated Mixing Vessels for Specified Oxygen Dissolution
Rates,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 34, 1333–1338 (1979).
Fishwick, R. P., J. M. Winterbottom and E. H. Stitt, “Effect of
Gassing Rate on Solid–Liquid Mass Transfer Coefficients and
Particle Slip Velocities in Stirred Tank Reactors,” Chem. Eng.
Sci. 58, 1087–1093 (2003).
| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | |
Ford, J. J., T. J. Heindel, T. C. Jensen and J. B. Drake, “X-Ray
Computed Tomography of a Gas-Sparged Stirred-Tank
Reactor,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 63, 2075–2085 (2008).
Forrester, S. E. and C. D. Rielly, “Modelling the Increased Gas
Capacity of Self-Inducing Impellers,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 49,
5709–5718 (1994).
Forrester, S. E., C. D. Rielly and K. J. Carpenter, “Gas-Inducing
Impeller Design and Performance Characteristics,” Chem.
Eng. Sci. 53, 603–615 (1998).
Fort, L., H. Valešová and V. Kudraa, “Studies on Mixing. XXVII.
Liquid Circulation in a System with Axial Mixer and Radial
Baffles,” Collect. Czech. Chem. Commun. 36, 164–185
(1971).
Galletti, C., E. Brunazzi, S. Pintus, A. Paglianti and M.
Yianneskis, “A Study of Reynolds Stresses, Triple Products
and Turbulence States in a Radially Stirred Tank with 3-D
Laser Anemometry,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 82, 1214–1228
(2004).
Gezork, K. M., W. Bujalski, M. Cooke and A. W. Nienow, “Mass
Transfer and Hold-up Characteristics in a Gassed, Stirred
Vessel at Intensified Operating Conditions,” Chem. Eng. Res.
Des. 79, 965–972 (2001).
Ghadge, R. S., S. B. Sawant and J. B. Joshi, “Enzyme
Deactivation in a Bubble Column, a Stirred Vessel and an
Inclined Plane,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 58, 5125–5134 (2003).
Gillissen, J. J. J. and H. E. A. van den Akker, “Direct Numerical
Simulation of a Turbulently Stirred Tank,” 13th European
Conference on Mixing London, 14–17 (2009).
Gimbun, J., C. D. Rielly and Z. K. Nagy, “Modelling of Mass
Transfer in Gas–Liquid Stirred Tanks Agitated by Rushton
Turbine and CD-6 Impeller: A Scale-Up Study,” Chem. Eng.
Res. Des. 87, 437–451 (2009).
Godleski, E. S. and J. C. Smith, “Power Requirements and Blend
Times in the Agitation of Pseudoplastic Fluids,” AIChE J. 8,
617–620 (1962).
Guha, D., M. P. Dudukovic and P. A. Ramachandran,
“CFD-Based Compartmental Modelling of Single Phase
Stirred-Tank Reactors,” AIChE J. 52, 1836–1846 (2006).
Guiraud, P., J. Costes and J. Bertrand, “Local Measurements of
Fluid and Particle Velocities in a Stirred Suspension,” Chem.
Eng. J. 68, 75–86 (1997).
Günkel, A. A. and M. E. Weber, “Flow Phenomena in Stirred
Tanks,” AIChE J. 21, 931–948 (1975).
Hall, K. R. and J. C. Godfrey, “Power Consumption by Helical
Ribbon Impellers,” Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 48, T201–208
(1970).
Hanjalic,́ K., “Advanced Turbulence Closure Models: A View of
Current Status and Future Prospects,” International J. of Heat
and Fluid Flow 15 (3), 178–203 (1994).
Harnby, N., M. F. Edwards and A. W. Nienow, “Mixing in
Process Chemical Industries,” Butterworth-Henmman
Publications, New Delhi (1991).
Harris, C. K., D. Roekaerts and F. J. J. Rosendal, “Computational
Fluid Dynamics for Chemical Reactor Engineering,” Chem.
Eng. Sci. 51, 1569–1594 (1996).
Hartmann, H., J. J. Derksen and H. E. A. van den Akker,
“Macro-Instabilities Uncovered in a Rushton Turbine Stirred
Tank by Means of LES,” AIChE J. 60, 2383–2393
(2004a).
Hartmann, H., J. J. Derksen, C. Montavo, J. Pearson, I. S. Hamill
and H. E. A. van den Akkar, “Assessment of Large Eddy and
RANS Stirred Tank Simulations by Means of LDA,” Chem.
Eng. Sci. 59, 2419–2432 (2004b).
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 75 |
Hartmann, H., J. J. Derksen and H. E. A. Van Den Akker,
“Mixing Times in a Turbulent Stirred Tank by Means of LES,”
AIChE J. 52, 3696–3706 (2006).
Harvey, P. S. and M. G. Greaves, “Turbulent Flow in an Agitated
Vessel Part-I: A Predictive Model,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 60,
195–200 (1982a).
Harvey, P. S. and M. G. Greaves, “Turbulent Flow in an Agitated
Vessel Part-II: Numerical Solution and Model Predictions,”
Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 60, 201–210 (1982b).
Hiraoka, S., I. Yamada and K. J. Mizoguchi, “Two Dimensional
Model Analysis of Flow Behaviour of Highly Viscous
Non-Newtonian Fluid in Agitated Vessel with Paddle
Impeller,” Chem. Eng. Jpn. 12, 56–62 (1979).
Hiraoka, S., N. Kamei, Y. Kato, Y. Tada, K. Asai, S. Hibino and T.
Yamaguchi, “Mass Transfer Volumetric Coefficient and
Droplet Diameter in Liquid–Liquid Dispersions Stirred with a
Paddle Impeller with Wire Gauze,” J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 26,
227–229 (1993).
Hristov, H., B. Stephan, H. Uwe, K. Holger, H. Günther and S.
Wilfried, “A Study on the Two-Phase Flow in a Stirred Tank
Reactor Agitated by a Gas-Inducing Turbine,” Chem. Eng.
Res. Des. 86, 75–81 (2008).
Hutchings, B. J., R. J. Weetmann and B. R. Patel, “Computation
of flow fields in mixing tanks with experimental verification,”
ASME, Annual meeting, San Francisco, 12, 10–15 (1989).
Jadhav, S. V. and V. G. Pangarkar, “Particle–Liquid Mass Transfer
in Mechanically Agitated Contactors,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
30, 2496–2503 (1991).
Jahoda, M., M. Moštěk, A. Kukuková and V. Machoň, “CFD
Modelling of Liquid Homogenisation in Stirred Tanks with
One and Two Impellers Using Large Eddy Simulation,” Chem.
Eng. Res. Des. 85, 616–6625 (2007).
Javed, K. H., T. Mahmud and J. M. Zhu, “Numerical Simulation
of Turbulent Batch Mixing in a Vessel Agitated by a Rushton
Turbine,” Chem. Eng. Process. 45, 99–112 (2006).
Jaworski, Z., K. N. Dyster, I. P. T. Moore, A. W. Nienow and M.
S. Wyszynski, “The Use of Angle Resolved LDA Data to
Compare Two Differential Turbulence Models Applied to
Sliding Mesh CFD Flow Simulations in a Stirred Tank,” Proc.
9th Euro. Conf. Mix. 11, 187–194 (1997).
Jenne, M. and M. Reuss, “Fluid Dynamic Modelling and
Simulation of Gas–Liquid flow in Baffled Stirred Tank
Reactors,” Proc. 9th Euro. Conf. Mix. 11 (52), 201–208 (1997).
Jenne, M. and M. Reuss, “A Critical Assessment on the Use of
k − ε Turbulence Models for Simulation of the Turbulent
Liquid Flow Induced by a Rushton Turbine in Baffled Stirred
Tank Reactors,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 54, 3921–3941 (1999).
Jones, R. M., A. D. Harvey III and S. Acharya, “Two-Equation
Turbulence Modelling for Impeller Stirred Tanks,” ASME J.
Fluids Eng. 123, 640–648 (2001).
Joshi, J. B., “Modifications in the Design of Gas Inducing
Impellers,” Chem. Eng. Commun. 5, 213–218 (1980).
Joshi, J. B. and D. D. Kale, “Effect of Drag Reducing additives on
Mass Transfer Characteristics in Gas–Liquid Contactors-Gas
Inducing Contactors,” Chem. Eng. Commun. 3, 15–19 (1979).
Joshi, J. B. and A. W. Patwardhan, “Measurement of Gas
Hold-Up Profiles in Stirred Tank Reactors by Gamma Ray
Attenuation Technique,” Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs. 80A,
411–412 (2002).
Joshi, J. B. and V. V. Ranade, “Computational Fluid Dynamics
for Designing Process Equipment: Expectations, Current
Status and Path Forward,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 42,
1115–1128 (2003).
| 76 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | |
Joshi, J. B. and M. M. Sharma, “Mass Transfer Characteristics of
Horizontal Agitated Contactors,” Can. J. Chem. Eng. 54 (6)
560–565 (1976).
Joshi, J. B. and M. M. Sharma, “Mass Transfer and
Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Gas Inducing Type of
Agitated Contactors,” Can. J. Chem. Eng. 55 (6) 683–695
(1977).
Joshi, J. B., M. V. Tabib, S. S. Deshpande and C. S. Mathpati,
“Dynamics of Flow Structures and Transport Phenomena—1:
Experimental and Numerical Techniques for Identification
and Energy Content of Flow Structures,” Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 48, 8244–8284 (2009).
Ju, S. Y., T. M. Mulvahill and R. W. Pike, “Three-Dimensional
Turbulent Flow in Agitated Vessels with a Nonisotropic
Viscosity Turbulence Model,” Can. J. Chem. Eng. 68 (1),
3–16 (1990).
Kadam, B., J. B. Joshi, S. B. Koganti and R. N. Patil, “Dispersed
Phase Hold-Up, Effective Interfacial Area and Sauter Mean
Drop Diameter in Annular Centrifugal Extractors,” Chem.
Eng. Res. Des. 87, 1379–1389 (2009).
Kamienski, J. and R. Wójtowicz, “Dispersion of Liquid–Liquid
Systems in a Mixer with a Reciprocating Agitator,” Chem.
Eng. Process. 42, 1007–1017 (2003).
Karcz, J. and M. Major, “An Effect of a Baffle Length on the
Power Consumption in an Agitated Vessel,” Chem. Eng.
Process. 37, 249–256 (1998).
Kemoun, A., F. Lusseyran, M. Mahouast and J. Mallet,
“Experimental Determination of the Complete Reynolds
Stress Tensor in Fluid Agitated by a Rushton Turbine,” Inst.
Chem. Eng. Symp. Ser. 136, 399–406 (1994).
Khang, S. J. and O. Levenspiel, “New Scale-Up and Design
Method for Stirrer Agitated Batch Mixing Vessels,” Chem.
Eng. Sci. 31, 569–577 (1976).
Kim, W. J. and F. S. Manning, “Turbulence Energy and Intensity
Spectra in a Baffled, Stirred Vessel,” AIChE J. 10, 747–751
(1964).
Komasawa, I., S. Morioka and T. Ohtake, “Studies of the
Interaction Rate of Dispersed Phase and Resulting Chemical
Reaction in a Stirred Tank,” Kagaku Kogaku 34, 538 (1970).
Komasawa, I., R. Kuboi and T. Otake, “Fluid and Particle Motion
in Turbulent Dispersion—I. Measurement of Turbulence of
Liquid by Continual Pursuit of Tracer Particle Motion,” Chem.
Eng. Sci. 29 (3) 659–668 (1974).
Kresta, S. M. and P. E. Wood, “Prediction of the
Three-Dimensional Turbulent Flow in Stirred Tanks,” AIChE
J. 37, 448–460 (1991).
Kresta, S. M. and P. E. Wood, “The Flow Field Produced by a
Pitched Blade Turbine: Characterisation of Turbulence and
Estimation of the Dissipation Rate,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 48,
1761–1774 (1993).
Kuboi, R. and A. W. Nienow, “Intervortex Mixing Rates in
High-Viscosity Liquids Agitated by High-Speed Dual
Impellers,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 41, 123–134 (1986).
Kuboi, R., I. Komasawa, T. Otake and M. Iwasa, “Fluid and
Particle Motion in Turbulent Dispersion—III Particle–Liquid
Hydrodynamics and Mass-Transfer in Turbulent Dispersion,”
Chem. Eng. Sci. 29, 659–668 (1974).
Kukuková, A., M. Moštěk, M. Jahoda and V. Machoň, “CFD
Prediction of Flow and Homogeneisation in Stirred Vessel:
Part I Vessel with One and Two Impeller,” Chem. Eng.
Technol. 28, 1125–1132 (2005).
Kulkarni, A. A., J. B. Joshi, V. Ravi Kumar, and B. D. Kulkarni,
“Application of Multiresolution Analysis for Simultaneous
VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |
 Measurement of Gas and Liquid Velocities and Fractional Gas
Hold-Up in Bubble Column Using LDA,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 56,
5037–5048 (2001).
Kumar, P., “Design of Bioreactors. Ph.D. Thesis,” University of
Mumbai, Mumbai (1997).
Kumar, S., R. Kumar and K. S. Gandhi, “Alternative Mechanisms
of Drop Breakage in Stirred Vessels,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 46,
2483–2489 (1991).
Kumar, S., R. Kumar and K. S. Gandhi, “A Simplified Procedure
for Predicting dmax in Stirred Vessels,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 48,
3092–3096 (1993).
Kumaresan, T. and J. B. Joshi, “Effect of Impeller Design on the
Flow Pattern and Mixing in Stirred Tanks,” Chem. Eng. J.
115, 173–193 (2006).
Kumaresan, T., N. K. Nere and J. B. Joshi, “Effect of Internals on
Flow Pattern and Mixing in Stirred Tanks,” Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 44, 9951–9961 (2005).
Kumaresan, T., N. K. Nere and J. B. Joshi, “Effect of Internals on
the Flow Pattern and Mixing in Stirred Tanks,” Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 45, 4849–4850 (2006).
Kuncewicz, C., A. Heim and M. Pietrzykowski, “A Model of
Laminar Liquid Flow for Flat Bladed Paddles,” Proc. 10th
Euro. Conf. Mix. 113–120 (1997).
Kuriyama, M., H. Inomata, K. Aral and S. Saito, “Numerical
Solution for the Flow of Highly Viscous Fluid in Agitated
Vessel with Anchor Impeller,” AIChE J. 28, 385–391 (1982).
Lai, R., S. Kumar, S. N. Upadhyay and Y. D. Upadhya,
“Solid–Liquid Mass Transfer in Agitated Newtonian and
Non-Newtonian Fluids,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 27, 1246–1259
(1988).
Lamberto, D. J., F. J. Muzzio, P. D. Swanson and A. L.
Tonkovich, “Using Time-Dependent RPM to Enhance Mixing
in Stirred Vessels,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 51, 733–741 (1996).
Lane, G. L., M. P. Schwarz and G. M. Evans, “Modelling of the
Interaction between Gas and Liquid in Stirred Vessels,” Proc.
10th Euro. Conf. Mix. 197–204 (2000).
Laufhutte, H. D. and A. B. Mersmaan, “Dissipation of Power in
Stirred Vessel,” Proc. 5th Euro. Conf. Mix. 331–340 (1985).
Launder, B. E., “Current Capabilities for Modelling Turbulence in
Industrial Flows,” Appl. Sci. Res. 48 (3–4), 247–269 (1990).
Launder, B. E. and D. B. Spalding, “The Numerical Computation
of Turbulent Flows,” Comput. Methods. Appl. Mech. Eng. 3,
269–289 (1974).
Launder, B. E., A. P. Morse, W. Rodi and D. B. Spalding, “The
Prediction of Free Shear Flows—A Comparison of Six
Turbulence Models,” NASA Rep. SP-311 (1972).
Lee, K. C. and M. Yianneskis, “Measurement of Temperature and
Mixing Time in Stirred Vessels with Liquid Crystal
Thermography,” Proc. 9th Euro. Conf. Mix. 121–128
(1997).
Lee, K. C., K. Ng and M. Yianneskis, “Sliding Mesh Predictions
of the Flows around Rushton Impellers,” IChemE. Symp. Ser.
140, 1–12 (1996).
Leszek, R., P. Machniewski, A. Milewska and E. Molga, “CFD
Modelling of Stirred Tank Chemical Reactors: Homogeneous
and Heterogeneous Reaction Systems,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 59,
5233–5239 (2004).
Levins, D. M. and J. R. Glastonbury, “Particle-Liquid
Hydrodynamics and Mass Transfer in a Stirred Vessel Part.
II—Mass Transfer,” Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 50, 132–146
(1972).
Luk, S. and Y. H. Lee, “Mass Transfer in Eddies Close to
Air–Water Interface,” AIChE J. 32, 1546–1555 (1986).
| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | |
Luo, J. Y., A. D. Gosman, R. I. Issa, J. C. Middleton and M. K.
Fitzgerald, “Full Flow Field Computation of Mixing in Baffled
Stirred Vessels,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 71, 342–344
(1993).
Luo, J. Y., A. D. Gosman and I. R. Issa, “Prediction of Impeller
Induced Flows in Mixing Vessels Using Multiple Frames of
Reference,” Proc. 8th Euro. Conf. Mix. 155–162 (1994).
Madden, A. J. and G. L. Damerell, “Coalescence Frequencies in
Agitated Liquid–Liquid Systems,” AIChE J. 8, 233–239
(1962).
Magelli, F., D. Fajner, M. Nocentini and G. Pasquali, “Solid
Distribution in Vessels Stirred with Multiple Impellers,”
Chem. Eng. Sci. 45, 615–625 (1990).
Magelli, F., D. Fajner, M. Nocentini, G. Pasquali, V. Marisko and
P. Ditl, “Solids Concentration Distribution in Slurry Reactors
Stirred with Multiple Axial Impellers,” Chem. Eng. Process.
29, 27–32 (1991).
Mahoust, M., R. David and G. Cognet, “Periodic Phenomena
Generated in the Discharge Flow by a Rushton Turbine in a
CSTR and Investigation of the Reynolds Stresses,” Proc. 6th
Euro. Conf. Mix. 23–28 (1988).
Mahoust, M., G. Cognet and R. David, “Two Component LDV
Measurements in a Stirred Tank,” AIChE J. 35, 1770–1777
(1989).
Marshall, E., A. Haidari and S. Subbiah, AIChE Meeting held at
Chicago, November (1996).
Martı́n, M., F. J. Montes and M. A. Galán, “Mass Transfer Rates
from Bubbles in Stirred Tanks Operating with Viscous
Fluids,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 65, 3814–3824 (2010).
Mathpati, C. S. and J. B. Joshi, “Insight into Theories of Heat
and Mass Transfer at the Solid–Fluid Interface Using Direct
Numerical Simulation and Large Eddy Simulation,” Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 46, 8525–8557 (2007).
Mathpati, C. S., S. S. Deshpande and J. B. Joshi, “Computational
and Experimental Fluid Dynamics of Jet Loop Reactor,”
AIChE J. 55, 2526–2544 (2009).
Mavros, P. and C. Baudou, “Quantification of the Performance of
Agitators in Stirred Vessels: Definition and Use of an Agitation
Index,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 75 (8) 737–745 (1997).
Mavros, P., R. Mann, S. D. Vlaev and J. Bertrand, “Experimental
Visualisation and CFD Simulation of Flow Patterns Induced
by a Novel Energy-Saving Dual-Configuration Impeller in
Stirred Vessels,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 79, 857–866 (2001).
McGuirk, J. and W. Rodi, “A Mathematical Model for a Vertical
Jet Discharging Into a Shallow Lake,” Proc. 17th Congress of
the International Association For Hydraulic Research,
579–586 (1977).
McManamey, W. J., “Sauter Mean and Maximum Drop
Diameters of Liquid–Liquid Dispersions in Turbulent Agitated
Vessels at Low Dispersed Phase Hold-Up,” Chem. Eng. Sci.
34, 432–434 (1979).
Metzner, A. B. and R. E. Otto, “Agitation of Non-Newtonian
Fluid,” AIChE J. 3, 3–10 (1957).
Metzner, A. B., R. H. Feehs, H. L. Ramos, R. E. Otto and J. D.
Tuthill, “Agitation of Viscous Newtonian and Non-Newtonian
Fluids,” AIChE J. 7, 3–9 (1961).
Mhetras, M. B., A. B. Pandit and J. B. Joshi, “Effect of Agitator
Design on Hydrodynamics and Power Consumption in
Mechanically Agitated Gas–Liquid Reactors,” Proc. 8th Euro.
Conf. Mix. Cambridge, U.K., 375–382 (1994).
Micale, G., A. Brucato, F. Grisafi and M. Ciofalo, “Prediction of
Flow Fields in a Dual Impeller Stirred Vessel,” AIChE J. 45,
445–464 (1999).
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 77 |
Micale, G., V. Carrara, F. Grisafi and A. Brucato, “Solids
Suspension in Three-Phase Stirred Tanks,” Chem. Eng. Res.
Des. 78, 319–326 (2000).
Middleton, J. C., F. Peirce and P. M. Lynch, “Computation of
Flow Fields and Complex Reaction Yield in Turbulent Stirred
Reactors and Comparison with Experimental Data,” Chem.
Eng. Res. Des. 64, 18–22 (1986).
Milewska, A. and E. Molga, “Safety Aspects in Modelling and
Operating of Batch and Semibatch Stirred Tank Chemical
Reactors,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 88, 304–319 (2010).
Miller, D. N., “Scale-Up of Agitated Vessels. Mass Transfer from
Suspended Solute Particles,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Proc. Des. Dev.
10, 365–453 (1971).
Miller, D. K., “Scale-Up of Agitated Vessels Gas–Liquid Mass
Transfer,” AIChE J. 20, 445–453 (1974).
Mishra, V. P. and J. B. Joshi, “LDA Measurements of Gas–Liquid
Flows in Mechanically Agitated Reactors,” Proc. 7th Euro.
Conf. Mix. 247–255 (1991).
Mishra, V. P. and J. B. Joshi, “Flow Generated by a Disc
Turbine—III: Effect of Impeller Diameter, Impeller Location
and Comparison with Other Radial Flow Impellers,” Trans.
Instn. Chem. Engrs. (U.K.).-A: Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 71,
563–573 (1993).
Mishra, V. P., P. Kumar and J. B. Joshi, “Flow Generated by a
Disc Turbine in Aqueous Solution of Polyacrylamide,” Chem.
Eng. J. 71, 11–21 (1998).
Mizoguchi, K., E. O’Shima, H. Inoue and I. Inoue, “Break-Up
and Coalescence Rate of Dispersed Liquid Droplets in an
Agitated Vessel,” Kagaku Kogaku 37, 521 (1973).
Mizushina, T., R. Ito, Y. Murakami and M. Kiri, “Experimental
Study of the Heat Transfer of Newtonian Fluid to the Wall of
Agitated Vessel,” Kagaku Kogaku 30, 719 (1966a).
Mizushina, T., R. Ito, Y. Murakami and S. Tanaka,
“Experimental Study of the Heat Transfer of Non-Newtonian
Fluids to the Wall of Agitated Vessel,” Kagaku Kogaku 30, 819
(1966b).
Mlynek, Y. and W. Resnick, “On Local Hold-Up and Average
Drop Size in a Liquid–Liquid Stirred System,” Can. J. Chem.
Eng. 50 (1), 134–135 (1972).
Mochizuki, M. and L. Takashima, “Distribution of Pressure on
the Surface of Blade of Turbine Impeller,” Kagaku Kougaku
Ronbunshu 10, 399 (1984).
Molag, M., G. E. H. Joosten and A. A. H. Drinkenburg, “Droplet
Breakup and Distribution in Stirred Immiscible Two-Liquid
Systems,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 19, 275–281 (1980).
Montante, G., K. C. Lee, A. Brucato and M. Yianneskis,
“Numerical Simulations of the Dependency of Flow Pattern
on Impeller Clearance in Stirred Vessels,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 56,
3751–3770 (2001).
Montante, G., D. Pinelli and F. Magelli, “Scale-Up Criteria for the
Solids Distribution in Slurry Reactors Stirred with Multiple
Impellers,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 58, 5363–5372 (2003).
Montante, G., D. Horn and A. Paglianti, “Gas–Liquid Flow and
Bubble Size Distribution in Stirred Tanks,” Chem. Eng. Sci.
63, 2107–2118 (2008).
Mujumdar, A. S., B. Huang, D. Wolf, M. E. Weber and W. J. M.
Douglas, “Turbulence Parameters in a Stirred Tank,” Can. J.
Chem. Eng. 48 (4), 475–483 (1970).
Murakami, Y., K. Fujimoto, T. Shimada, A. Yamada and K. J.
Asano, “Evaluation of Performance of Mixing Apparatus for
High Viscosity Fluids,” Chem. Eng. Jpn. 5, 297–303 (1972).
Murthy, B. N. and J. B. Joshi, “Assessment of Standard k − ε,
RSM and LES Turbulence Models in a Baffled Stirred Vessel
| 78 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | |
Agitated by Various Impeller Designs,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 63,
5468–5495 (2008).
Murthy, J. Y., S. R. Mathur and D. Choudhary, “CFD Simulation
of Flows in Stirred Tank Rectors using a Sliding Mesh
Technique,” Proc. 8th Euro. Conf. Mix. 155–162 (1994).
Murthy, B. N., N. A. Deshmukh, A. W. Patwardhan and J. B.
Joshi, “Hollow Self-Inducing Impellers: Flow Visualisation
and CFD Simulation,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 62, 3839–3848
(2007a).
Murthy, B. N., R. S. Ghadge and J. B. Joshi, “CFD Simulations of
Gas–Liquid-Solid Stirred Reactor: Prediction of Critical
Impeller Speed for Solid Suspension,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 62,
7184–7195 (2007b).
Murthy, B. N., R. B. Kasundra and J. B. Joshi, “Hollow
Self-Inducing Impellers for Gas–Liquid–Solid Dispersion:
Experimental and Computational Study,” Chem. Eng. J. 141,
332–345 (2008a).
Murthy, B. N., N. Deshmukh, A. W. Patwardhan and J. B. Joshi,
“Hollow Self-Inducing Impellers: Flow Visualisation and CFD
Simulation-II,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 63, 4031–4032 (2008b).
Nagata, S., M. Nishikawa, H. Tada, H. Hirabayashi and S. J.
Gotoh, “Power Consumption of Mixing Impellers in Bingham
Plastic Liquids,” Chem. Eng. Jpn. 3, 237–243 (1970).
Narsimhan, G., G. Nejfelt and D. Ramkrishna, “Breakage
Functions for Droplets in Agitated Liquid–Liquid
Dispersions,” AIChE J. 30, 457–467 (1984).
Nere, N. K., A. W. Patwardhan and J. B. Joshi, “Prediction of
Flow Pattern in Stirred Tanks: New Constitutive Equation for
Eddy Viscosity,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 40, 1755–1772 (2001).
Nere, N. K., A. W. Patwardhan and J. B. Joshi, “Liquid Phase
Mixing in Stirred Vessels: Turbulent Flow Regime,” Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 42, 2661–2698 (2003).
Ng, K. and M. Yianneskis, “Observations on the Distribution of
Energy Dissipation in Stirred Vessels,” Trans. Inst. Chem.
Eng. 78A, 334–347 (2000).
Ng, K., N. J. Fentiman, K. C. Lee and M. Yianneskis,
“Assessment of Sliding Mesh CFD Predictions and LDA
Measurements of the Flow in a Tank Stirred by a Rushton
Impeller,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 76A, 737–747 (1998).
Nienow, A. W., “Gas–Liquid Mixing Studies: A Comparison of
Rushton Turbines with Some Modern Impellers,” Trans. Inst.
Chem. Eng. 74 (Part A), 417–423 (1996).
Nienow, A. W. and W. Bujalski, “Recent Studies on Agitated
Three-Phase (Gas–Solid–Liquid) Systems in the Turbulent
Regime,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 80, 832–838 (2002).
Nienow, A. W. and D. Miles, “Impeller Power Numbers in Closed
Vessels,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Proc. Des. Dev. 10, 41–43 (1971).
Nikiforaki, L., G. Montante, K. C. Lee and M. Yianneskis, “On
the Origin, Frequency and Magnitude of Macro-Instabilities of
the Flows in Stirred Vessels,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 58, 2937–2949
(2003).
Nishikawa, M., K. Ashiwake, N. Hashimoto and S. Nagata,
“Agitation Power and Mixing Time in Off-Centering Mixing,”
Int. Chem. Eng. 19, 153–159 (1979).
Nishikawa, M., T. Kayama, S. Nishioka and S. Nishikawa, “Drop
Size Distribution in Mixing Vessel with Aeration,” Chem.
Eng. Sci. 49, 2379–2384 (1994).
Nocentini, M., D. Pinelli and F. Magelli, “Dispersion Coefficient
and Settling Velocity of the Solids in Agitated Slurry Reactors
Stirred with Multiple Rushton Turbines,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 57,
1877–1884 (2000).
Novák, V. and E. Rieger, “Homogenisation with Helical Screw
Agitators,” Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 47, T335–340 (1969).
VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |
Obot, N. T., “Design Mixing Processes Using the Frictional Law
of Corresponding States,” Chem Eng. Progress 47–54 (1993).
Ochieng, A. and A. E. Lewis, “Nickel Solids Concentration
Distribution in a Stirred Tank,” Miner. Eng. 19, 180–189
(2006).
Ochieng, A., A. M. S. Onyango, A. Kumar, K. Kiriamiti and P.
Musonge, “Mixing in a Tank Stirred by a Rushton Turbine at
a Low Clearance,” Chem. Eng. Process. 47, 842–851
(2008).
Ogawa, K. and C. Kuroda, “A New Scale-Up Rule and Evaluation
of Traditional Rules from a Viewpoint of Energy Spectrum
Function,” in: G.B. Tatterson (Ed.), AIChE Symposium Series,
Industrial Mixing Fundamentals with Application, no. 305,
1995, 95–101.
Okamoto, Y., M. Nishikawa and K. Hashimoto, “Energy
Dissipation Rate Distribution in Mixing Vessels and Its Effect
on Liquid–Liquid Dispersion and Solid–Liquid Mass
Transfer,” Int. Chem. Eng. 21, 88–94 (1981).
Okufi, S., E. S. Perez de Ortiz, and H. Sawistowski, “Scale-Up of
Liquid–Liquid Dispersions in Stirred Tanks,” Can. J. Chem.
Eng. 68 (3), 400 (1990).
Oshinowo, L., Z. Jaworski, K. N. Dyster, E. Marshall and A. W.
Nienow, “Predicting the Tangential Velocity Field in Stirred
Tanks Using Multiple Reference Frames (MRF) Model with
Validation by LDA Measurements,” Proc. 10th Euro. Conf.
Mix. 281–289 (2000).
Pacek, A. W., A. W. Nienow, and I. P. T. Moore, “On the structure
of turbulent liquid–liquid dispersed flows in an agitated
vessel,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 49, 3485–3498 (1994).
Pacek, A., C. Man, and A. Nienow, “On the Sauter mean
diameter and size distributions in turbulent liquid/liquid
dispersions in a stirred vessel,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 53,
2005–2011 (1998).
Paglianti, A., S. Pintus and M. Giona, “Time-Series Analysis
Approach for the Identification of Flooding/Loading
Transition in Gas–Liquid Stirred Tank Reactors,” Chem. Eng.
Sci. 55, 5793–5802 (2000).
Pandit, A. B. and J. B. Joshi, “Mixing in Mechanically Agitated
Contactors, Bubble Columns and Modified Bubble Columns,”
Chem. Eng. Sci. 38, 1189–1215 (1983).
Pandit, A. B., N. Tenefrancia, J. B. Joshi and K. K. Tiwari,
“Power Consumption and Homogenisation Time for
Oleoresin Suspensions,” Chem. Eng. J. 28, 25–38 (1984).
Parsu Veera, U., A. W. Patwardhan and J. B. Joshi,
“Measurement of Gas Hold-Up Profiles in Stirred Tank
Reactors by Gamma Ray Attenuation Technique,” Trans. Inst.
Chem. Eng. 79A, 684–688 (2001).
Patil, V. K., J. B. Joshi and M. M. Sharma, “Solid–Liquid Mass
Transfer Coefficient in Mechanically Agitated Contactors,”
Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs. (U.K.). -A: Chem. Eng. Res. Des.
62, 247–254 (1984).
Patwardhan, A. W., “Prediction of Flow Characteristics and
Energy Balance for a Variety of Axial Flow Impellers,” Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 40, 3806–3816 (2001).
Patwardhan, A. W. and J. B. Joshi, “Relation Between Flow
Pattern and Blending in Stirred Tanks,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
38, 3131–3143 (1999).
Patwardhan, A. W., A. B. Pandit and J. B. Joshi, “The Role of
Convection and Turbulent Dispersion in Blending-I,” Chem.
Eng. Sci. 58, 2951–2962 (2003).
Patwardhan, A. W., A. B. Pandit and J. B. Joshi, “The Role of
Convection and Turbulent Dispersion in Blending-II,” Chem.
Eng. Sci. 59, 729 (2004).
| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | |
Patwardhan, A. W., J. B. Joshi, S. Fotedar and T. Mathew,
“Optimisation of Gas–Liquid Reactor Using Computational
Fluid Dynamics,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 60, 3081–3089 (2005).
Pericleous, K. A. and M. K. Patel, “The Modelling of Tangential
and Axial Agitators in Chemical Reactors,” Physico. Chem.
Hydrodyn. 8, 105–123 (1987).
Perng, C. Y. and J. Y. Murthy, “A moving-deforming-mesh
technique for simulation of flow in mixing tanks,” In: Process
Mixing: Chemical and Biochemical Applications pp. 37–41.
(1993).
Perng, C. Y. and J. Y. Murthy, “A Moving Deforming Mesh
Technique for Simulation of Flow in Mixing Tanks,” Proc. 8th
Euro. Conf. Mix. 37–39 (1994).
Peters, D. C. and J. M. Smith, “Fluid Flow in the Region of
Anchor Agitator Blades,” Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 45,
T360–366 (1967).
Peters, D. C. and J. M. Smith, “Mixing in Anchor Agitated
Vessels,” Can. J. Chem. Eng. 47 (3), 268–271 (1969).
Placek, J., L. L. Talvarides, G. W. Smith and I. Fort, “Turbulent
Flow in Stirred Tanks, Part II: A Two Scale Model of
Turbulence,” AIChE J. 32, 1771–1786 (1986).
Poncin, S., C. Nguyen, N. Midoux and J. Breysse,
“Hydrodynamics and Volumetric Gas–Liquid Mass Transfer
Coefficient of a Stirred Vessel Equipped with a Gas-Inducing
Impeller,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 57, 3299–3306 (2002).
Pope, S. B., “Turbulent Flows,” Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK (2000).
Raghava Rao, K. S. M. S. and J. B. Joshi, “Liquid Phase Mixing
in Mechanically Agitated Three Phase Reactors,” 6th Euro.
Conf. Mix, Pavia, Italy, May 24–26, BHRA 6, 427–433 (1988).
Raghava Rao, K. S. M. S. and J. B. Joshi, “Gas Phase Dispersion
and Power Consumption in Mechanically Agitated Three
Phase Reactors,” Int. J. Eng. Fluid Mech. 2, 305–320 (1989).
Raghava Rao, K. S. M. S., V. B. Rewatkar and J. B. Joshi, “Critical
Impeller Speed for Solid Suspension in Mechanically Agitated
Solid Liquid Contactors,” AIChE J. 34, 1332–1340 (1988).
Ranade, V. V., “An Efficient Computational Model for Simulating
Flow in Stirred Vessels: A Case of Rushton Turbine,” Chem.
Eng. Sci. 52, 4473–4484 (1997).
Ranade, V. V. and S. M. S. Dommeti, “Computational Snapshot
of Flow Generated by Axial Impellers in Baffled Stirred
Vessels,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 74, 476–484 (1996).
Ranade, V. V. and J. B. Joshi, “Flow Generated by Pitched Bladed
Turbine Part I: Experimental,” Chem. Eng. Commun. 81,
197–224 (1989).
Ranade, V. V. and J. B. Joshi, “Flow Generated by a Disc Turbine
I: Experimental,” Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs. (U.K.).-A: Chem.
Eng. Res. Des. 68, 19–33 (1990a).
Ranade, V. V. and J. B. Joshi, “Flow Generated by a Disc Turbine:
Part II Mathematical Modelling and Comparison with
Experimental Data,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 68A, 34–43
(1990b).
Ranade, V. V., J. R. Bourne, J. B. Joshi, “Fluid Mechanics and
Blending in Agitated Tanks” Chem. Eng. Sci. 46, 1883–1893
(1991).
Ranade, V. V., M. Perrard, C. Xuereb, N. Le Sauze and J.
Bertrand, “Trailing Vortices of Rushton Turbine: PIV
Measurements and CFD Simulations with Snapshot
Approach,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 79 (1), 3–12 (2001).
Ranade, V. V., Y. Tayalia and H. Krishnan, “CFD Predictions of
Flow Near Impeller Blades in Baffled Stirred Vessels:
Assessment of Computational Snapshot Approach,” Chem.
Eng. Commun. 189, 895–922 (2002).
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 79 |
Revstedt, J., L. Fuchs and C. Tragardh, “Large Eddy Simulations
of the Turbulent Flow in a Stirred Reactor,” Chem. Eng. Sci.
53, 4041–4043 (1998).
Rewatkar, V. B. and J. B. Joshi, “Role of Sparger Design in
Mechanically Agitated Gas–Liquid Reactor-I: Power
Consumption,” Chem. Eng. Technol. 14, 333–347 (1991a).
Rewatkar, V. B. and J. B. Joshi, “Role of Sparger Design in
Mechanically Agitated Gas–Liquid Reactors-II: Liquid Phase
Mixing,” Chem. Eng. Technol. 14, 386–393 (1991b).
Rewatkar, V. B. and J. B. Joshi, “Effect of Impeller Design on
Liquid Phase Mixing in Mechanically Agitated Reactors,”
Chem. Eng. Commun. 102, 1–34 (1991c).
Rewatkar, V. B. and J. B. Joshi, “Effect of Addition of Alcohol on
Design Parameters in Mechanically Agitated Three Phase
Reactors,” Chem. Eng. J. 49, 107–117 (1992).
Rewatkar, V. B. and J. B. Joshi, “Role of Sparger Design on Gas
Dispersion in Mechanically Agitated Gas/Liquid Reactors,”
Can. J. Chem. Eng. 71 (2) 278–291 (1993).
Rewatkar, V. B., K. S. M. S. Raghava Rao and J. B. Joshi, “Some
Aspects of Solid Suspension in Mechanically Agitated
Reactors,” AIChE J. 35, 1575–1582 (1989).
Rewatkar, V. B., A. J. Deshpande, A. B. Pandit and J. B. Joshi,
“Gas Hold-Up Behaviour of Mechanically Agitated
Gas–Liquid Reactors Using Pitched Blade Downflow Turbine,”
Can. J. Chem. Eng. 71 (2), 226–237 (1993).
Reynolds, W. C., “Fundamentals of Turbulence for Turbulence
Modelling and Simulation,” Lecture Notes for Von Karman
Institute, AGARD CP-93 (1987).
Ribeiro, L. M., P. F. R. Regueiras, M. M. L. Guimarães, C. M. N.
Madureira and J. J. C. Cruz-Pinto, “The Dynamic Behaviour
of Liquid–Liquid Agitated Dispersions—II. Coupled
Hydrodynamics and Mass Transfer,” Comp. Chem. Eng. 21,
543–558 (1996).
Rieger, E. and V. Novák, “Scale-Up Method for Power
Consumption of Agitators in the Creeping Flow Regime,”
Chem. Eng. Sci. 27, 39–44 (1972).
Rielly, C. D., G. M. Evans, J. F. Davidson and K. J. Carpenter,
“Effect of Vessel Scaleup on the Hydrodynamics of a
Self-Aerating Concave Blade Impeller,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 47,
3395–3402 (1992).
Rielly, C. D., M. Habib and J. P. Sherlock, “Flow and Mixing
Characteristics of a Retreat Curve Impeller in a Conical-Based
Vessel,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 85, 953–962 (2007).
Rigby, G. D., G. M. Evans and G. J. Jameson, “Bubble Breakup
from Ventilated Cavities in Multiphase Reactor,” Chem. Eng.
Sci. 52, 3677–3684 (1997).
Robinson, C. W. and C. R. Wilke, “Oxygen Absorption in Stirred
Tanks: A Correlation for Ionic Strength Effects,” Biotechnol.
Bioeng. 15, 755–782 (1973).
Rodi, W., “Turbulence Models and Their Application in
Hydraulics,” IAHR/AIRH Monograph, A. A. Balkema, Ed.
Rotterdam (1993).
Rounsley, R. R., “Oil Dispersion with a Turbine Mixer,” AIChE J.
29, 597–603 (1983).
Roy, S., S. Acharya and M. Cloeter, “Flow Structure and the
Effect of Macro-Instabilities in a Pitched-Blade Stirred Tank,”
Chem. Eng. Sci. 65, 3009–3024 (2010).
Rushton, J. H., E. W. Costich and H. J. Everett, “Power
Characteristics of Mixing Impellers Part 1,” Chem. Eng.
Progress 46, 395–404 (1950a).
Rushton, J. H., E. W. Costich and H. J. Everett, “Power
Characteristics of Mixing Impellers Part 2,” Chem. Eng.
Progress 46, 467–476 (1950b).
| 80 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | |
Sahu, A. K., P. Kumar and J. B. Joshi, “Simulation of Flow in
Stirred Vessels with Axial Flow Impeller: Zonal Modelling
and Optimisation of Parameters,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 37,
2116–2130 (1998).
Sahu, A. K., P. Kumar, A. W. Patwardhan and J. B. Joshi, “CFD
Modelling and Mixing in Stirred Tanks,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 54,
2285–2293 (1999).
Saito, E. and M. J. Kamiwano, “An Extended Technique for
Predicting the Mixing Times of High- Viscosity Liquid in a
Mixer-Mixing Systems with Molecular Diffusion of Solute,” J.
Chem. Eng. Jpn. 22, 491–496 (1989).
Saito, E., K. Aral and M. J. Kamiwano, “An Extended Technique
for Predicting the Mixing Times of High-Viscosity Liquid in a
Mixer-Mixing Systems with Molecular Diffusion and Reaction
of Solute,” J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 23, 222–227 (1990).
Sano, Y. and H. J. Usui, “Interrelations among Mixing Time,
Power Number and Discharge Flow Rate Number in Baffled
Mixing Vessels,” Chem. Eng. Jpn. 18, 47–52 (1985).
Sarvanan, K., V. D. Mundale, A. W. Patwardhan and J. B. Joshi,
“Power Consumption in Gas Inducing Type Mechanically
Agitated Reactors,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 35, 1583–1602
(1996).
Satoh, K., T. Menju, M. Mochizuki and A. Shono, “Mixing Times
of Liquids in Gas–Liquid Contactors with Mechanical
Agitation,” Kagaku Kogaku Ronbunshu 21, 137 (1995).
Sawant, S. B. and J. B. Joshi, “Critical Impeller Speed for the
Onset of Gas Induction in Gas Inducing Types of Agitated
Contactors,” Chem. Eng. J. 18, 87–91 (1979).
Sawant, S. B., J. B. Joshi, V. G. Pangarkar and R. D. Mhaskar,
“Mass Transfer and Hydrodynamics Characteristics of Denver
Type of Floatation Cells” Chem. Eng. J. 21, 11–119
(1981).
Sbrizzai, F., V. Lavezzo, R. Verzicco, M. Campolo and A.
Soldatia, “Direct Numerical Simulation of Turbulent Particle
Dispersion in an Unbaffled Stirred-Tank Reactor,” Chem. Eng.
Sci. 61, 2843–2851 (2006).
Scargiali, F., A. D’Orazio, F. Grisafi and A. Brucato, “Modelling
and Simulation of Gas–Liquid Hydrodynamics in
Mechanically Stirred Tanks,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 85,
637–646 (2007a).
Scargiali, F., R. Russo, F. Grisafi and A. Brucato, “Mass Transfer
and Hydrodynamic Characteristics of a High Aspect Ratio
Self-Ingesting Reactor for Gas–Liquid Operations,” Chem.
Eng. Sci. 62, 1376–1387 (2007b).
Schäfer, M., M. Höfken and F. Durst, “Detailed LDV
Measurements for Visualisation of the Flow Field Within a
Stirred-Tank Reactor Equipped with a Rushton Turbine,”
Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 75, 729–736 (1997).
Schäfer, M. M., M. Yianneskis and F. Durst, “Trailing Vortices
Behind 45◦ Pitched Blade Impeller,” AIChE J. 44, 1233–1246
(1998).
Sciberras, M. A. and G. N. Coleman, “Testing of
Reynolds-Stress-Transport Closures by Comparison with DNS
of an Idealized Adverse-Pressure-Gradient Boundary Layer,”
Eur. J. Mech. B Fluids 26, 551–582 (2007).
Sembira, A. N., J. C. Merchuk and D. Wolf, “Characteristics
of a Motionless Mixer for Dispersion of Immiscible
Fluids—III. Dynamic behaviour of the average drop size and
dispersed phase hold-up,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 43, 373–377
(1988).
Sessiecq, P., P. Mier, F. Gruy and M. Cournil, “Solid Particles
Concentration Profiles in an Agitated Vessel,” Chem. Eng.
Res. Des. 77, 741–746 (1999).
VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |
Shamlou, R. A. and M. E. Edwards, “Heat Transfer to Viscous
Newtonian and Non-Newtonian Fluids for Helical Ribbon
Mixers,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 41, 1957–1967 (1986).
Sheng, J., H. Meng and R. O. Fox, “A Large Eddy PIV Method for
Turbulence Dissipation Rate Estimation,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 55,
4423–4434 (2000).
Shervin, C. R., D. A. Raughley and R. A. Romaszewski, “Flow
Visualisation Scaleup Studies for the Mixing of Viscoelastic
Fluids,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 46, 2867–2873 (1991).
Shewale, S. D. and A. B. Pandit, “Studies in Multiple Impeller
Agitated Gas–Liquid Contactors,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 61,
489–504 (2006).
Shimizu, K., K. Minekawa, T. Hirose and Y. Kawase, “Drop
Breakage in Stirred Tanks with Newtonian and
Non-Newtonian Fluid Systems,” Chem. Eng. J. 72, 117–124
(1999).
Shiue, S. J. and C. W. Wong, “Studies on Homogenisation
Efficiency of Various Agitators in Liquid Blending,” Can. J.
Chem. Eng. 62 (5) 602–609 (1984).
Sprow, E. B., “Distribution of Drop Sizes Produced in Turbulent
Liquid–Liquid Dispersion,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 22, 435–444
(1967).
Sun, H., Z. Mao and G. Yu, “Experimental and Numerical Study
of Gas Hold-Up in Surface Aerated Stirred Tanks,” Chem. Eng.
Sci. 61, 4098–4110 (2006).
Szalaia, E. S., P. Arratia, K. Johnson and F. J. Muzzio, “Mixing
Analysis in a Tank Stirred with Ekato IntermigJ Impellers,”
Chem. Eng. Sci. 59, 3793–3805 (2004).
Tabor, G., A. D. Gosman and R. I. Issa, “Numerical simulation of
the flow in a mixing vessel stirred by a Rushton Turbine,”
IChemE Symposium Series 140, 25–34 (1996).
Tabor, A., A. D. Gosman and R. A. Issa, “Numerical Simulation
of the Flow in a Mixing Vessel Stirred by a Rushton Turbine,”
IChemE Symp. Ser 140, 25–34 (1998).
Takahashi, K. and A. W. Nienow, “Effect of Gas Density on
Power Consumption in Aerated Vessel Agitated by a Rushton
Turbine,” J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 25, 432–434 (1992).
Takahashi, K., T. Yokota and H. Konno, “Mixing of Pseudoplastic
Liquid in a Vessel Equipped with a Variety of Helical Ribbon
Impellers,” J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 21, 63–68 (1988).
Tanaka, M. and T. Izumi, “Gas Entrainment in Stirred-Tank
Reactors,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 65, 195–198 (1987).
Tecante, A., E. Britode la Fuente, L. Choplin and P. A. Tanguy,
“Advances in Engineering Fluid Mechanics: Multiphase
Reactor and Polymerization System Hydrodynamics,” Pages
431-453, 1996.
Thakre, S. S. and J. B. Joshi, “Momentum, Mass and Heat
Transfer in Single Phase Turbulent Flow,” Rev. Chem. Eng.
18, 283–293 (2002).
Thatte, A. R., R. S. Ghadge, A. W. Patwardhan, J. B. Joshi and G.
Singh, “Local Gas Holdup Measurement in Sparged and
Aerated Tanks by Gamma-Ray Attenuation Technique,” Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 43, 5389–5399 (2004).
Uchida, S., H. Moriguchi, H. Maejima, K. Koide and S.
Kageyama, “Absorption of Sulfur Dioxide into Limestone
Slurry in a Stirred Tank Reactor,” Can. J. Chem. Eng. 56 (6),
690–697 (1978).
Unadkat, H., C. D. Rielly, G. K. Hargrave and Z. K. Nagy,
“Application of Fluorescent PIV and Digital Image Analysis to
Measure Turbulence Properties of Solid–Liquid Stirred
Suspensions,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 87, 573–586 (2009).
van der Molen, K. and H. R. E. van Mannen, “Laser Doppler
Measurements of the Turbulent Flow in Stirred Vessels to
| VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 | |
Establish Scaling Rules,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 33, 1161–1168
(1978).
van’t Riet, K. and J. M. Smith, “The Trailing Vortex System
Produced by Rushton Turbine Agitators,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 30,
1093–1105 (1975).
Venneker, B. C. H. and H. E. A. van den Akker, “CFD
Calculations of the Turbulent Flow of Shear-Thinning Fluids
in Agitated Tanks,” Proc. 9th Euro. Conf. Mix. 11, 179–186
(1997).
Verzicco, R., M. Fatica, G. Iaccarino and P. Orlandi, “Flow in an
Impeller-Stirred Tank Using an Immersed-Boundary Method,”
AIChE J. 50, 1109–1118 (2004).
Walas, S. M., “Chemical Process Equipment,”
Butterworth-Heinemann Co, USA (1990).
Wang, K. and S. Yu, “Heat Transfer and Power Consumption of
Non-Newtonian Fluids in Agitated Vessels,” Chem. Eng. Sci.
44, 33–40 (1989).
Warmoeskerken, M. M. C. G. and J. M. Smith, “Flooding of Disc
Turbines in Gas–Liquid Dispersions: A New Description of
the Phenomenon,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 40, 2063–2071
(1985).
Wechsler, K., M. Breuer and F. Durst, “Steady and Unsteady
Computations of Turbulent Flows Induced,” Trans. Am. Soc.
Mech. Eng. J. Fluids Eng. 121, 318–329 (1999).
Weinstein, B. and R. E. Treybal, “Liquid–Liquid Contacting in
Unbaffled, Agitated Vessels,” AIChE J. 19, 304–312
(1973).
Wernersson, E. S. and C. Tragardh, “Scaling of Turbulence
Characteristics in a Turbine-Agitated Tank in Relation to
Agitation Rate,” Chem. Eng. J. 70, 37–45 (1998).
Wernersson, E. S. and C. Tragardh, “Scale-Up of Rushton
Turbine-Agitated Tanks,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 54, 4245–4256
(1999).
Wilcox, D. C., “Turbulence Modelling for CFD,” DCW Industries,
Inc., Canada (1993).
Wong, C. W., J. R. Wang and S. T. Huang, “Investigations of
Fluid Dynamics in Mechanically Stirred Aerated Slurry
Reactors,” Can. J. Chem. Eng. 65 (3), 412–419 (1987).
Wu, H. and G. K. Patterson, “Laser-Doppler Measurements of
Turbulent-Flow Parameters in a Stirred Mixer,” Chem. Eng.
Sci. 44, 2207–2221 (1989).
Xu, Y. and G. McGrath, “CFD Predictions in Stirred Tank Flows,”
Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 74, 471–475 (1996).
Yeoh, S. L., G. Papadakis and M. Yianneskis, “Numerical
Simulation of Turbulent Flow Characteristics in a Stirred
Vessel Using the LES and RANS Approaches with the
Sliding/Deforming Mesh Methodology,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des.
82, 834–848 (2004).
Yeoh, S. L., G. Papadakis and M. Yianneskis, “Determination of
Mixing Time and Degree of Homogeneity in Stirred Vessels
with Large Eddy Simulation,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 60, 2293–2302
(2005).
Yianneskis, M., Z. Popiolek and J. E. Whitelaw, “An
Experimental Study of the Steady and Unsteady Flow
Characteristics of Stirred Reactors,” J. Fluid Mech. 175,
537–555 (1987).
Yung, C. N., C. W. Wong and C. L. Chang, “Gas Holdup and
Aerated Power Consumption in Mechanically Stirred Tanks,”
Can. J. Chem. Eng. 57 (6), 672–676 (1979).
Zaccone, A., A. Gäbler, S. Maaß, D. Marchisio and M. Kraume,
“Drop Breakage in Liquid–Liquid Stirred Dispersions:
Modelling of Single Drop Breakage,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 62,
6297–6307 (2007).
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 81 |
Zadghaffari, R., J. S. Moghaddas and J. Revstedt, “A Mixing
Study in a Double-Rushton Stirred Tank,” Comp. Chem. Eng.
33, 1240–1246 (2009).
Zadghaffari, R., J. S. Moghaddas and J. Revstedt, “Large-Eddy
Simulation of Turbulent Flow in a Stirred Tank Driven by a
Rushton Turbine,” Comp. Fluids 39, 1183–1190 (2010).
Zhang, Y., C. Yang and Z. Mao, “Large Eddy Simulation of Liquid
Flow in a Stirred Tank with Improved Inner–Outer Iterative
Algorithm,” Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 14, 321–329 (2006).
Zhou, G. and S. M. Kresta, “Evolution of Drop Size Distribution
in Liquid–Liquid Dispersions for Various Impellers,” Chem.
Eng. Sci. 53, 2099–2113 (1998).
Zlokarnik, M., “Stirring: Theory and Practice,” Wiley-VCH,
Weinheim, Germany (2001).

Manuscript received November 30, 2009; revised manuscript

received August 4, 2010; accepted for publication August 6, 2010.

| 82 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | | VOLUME 89, FEBRUARY 2011 |