1 | P a g e

B BA AC CH HE EL LO OR R O OF F C CH HE EM MI IC CA AL L E EN NG GI IN NE EE ER RI IN NG G F FI IN NA AL L Y YE EA AR R P PR RO OJ JE EC CT T T TI IT TL LE E: :
C CO OM MP PU UT TA AT TI IO ON NA AL L F FL LU UI ID D D DY YN NA AM MI IC CS S [ [C CF FD D] ]
S SI IM MU UL LA AT TI IO ON N O OF F A A R RO OT TA AT TI IN NG G D DI IS SK K
M ME EM MB BR RA AN NE E M MO OD DU UL LE E



S SO OU UR RA AV V M MO ON ND DA AL L
C CL LA AS SS S R RO OL LL L N NU UM MB BE ER R – – 0 00 00 06 61 10 03 30 01 10 06 61 1
D DE EP PA AR RT TM ME EN NT T O OF F C CH HE EM MI IC CA AL L E EN NG GI IN NE EE ER RI IN NG G
J JA AD DA AV VP PU UR R U UN NI IV VE ER RS SI IT TY Y
K KO OL LK KA AT TA A – – 3 32 2


U UN ND DE ER R T TH HE E G GU UI ID DA AN NC CE E O OF F
D DR R. . C CH HI IR RA AN NJ JI IB B B BH HA AT TT TA AC CH HA AR RJ JE EE E
P PR RE EO OF FE ES SS SO OR R
C CH HE EM MI IC CA AL L E EN NG GI IN NE EE ER RI IN NG G D DE EP PA AR RT TM ME EN NT T
J JA AD DA AV VP PU UR R U UN NI IV VE ER RS SI IT TY Y
2 | P a g e

1. Introduction
Nowadays membrane based processes are the main area of interests growing among the researchers.
Especially in the field of water treatment, membrane applications are the most coveted technologies that are
rarely to be replaced in near future. Cross-flow and dead end processes are the two modes of membrane
applications in generic and extensively applied in different industrial applications. Mainly cross-flow
filtration is an effective separation technology that finds application in a wide range of areas including water
treatment, clean environment technologies, and recovery of worthy components from the waste stream [1].
Main limitations associated with any of the membrane applications are the continuous reduction in its
throughput due to gradual accumulation of solutes on the surface and thereby initiation of the concentration
polarization effect. To alleviate this problem various high shear devices have been used so far. Among
different high shear application cross-flow membrane filtration, frequently termed low shear tangential
filtration is used to clean fluids that are difficult to filter and to separate fine matter such as cells, proteins,
enzymes and viruses [2]. Rotating disk membrane module (RDMM) is another type of high sheared device
which was used previously by many researchers, mainly in the separation of protein [3, 4] from milk or in
any biological separation [5]. Bhattacharjee and Bhattacharya [6] performed ultrafiltration (UF) of Kraft
black liquor (KBL) using RDMM. In case of RDMM mainly the rotation of membrane creates a high
turbulence on membrane surface which ultimately reduces the retention period of solutes on the surface and
thus too some extent alleviate the chances of reversible as well as irreversible fouling of the membrane. To
understand the efficacy of the process, study on hydrodynamics and thereby development of some model
equations describing the actual scenario within the system is inevitable.
Transport modelling in membrane systems has been so far the most complicated element of research
work that were being carried out by several researchers hitherto. Sarkar and Bhattacharjee [5] have already
established an analytical solution for describing the actual hydrodynamics within RDMM based on the back
transport flux mechanism. The main complexity arises during the formulation of these models are the
occurring of different uncertainties associated with the membrane separation processes. Especially in case of
RDMM the inner hydrodynamics is so complicated to understand analytically and thereby limits the
development of mathematical model. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) could be an alternative tool to
overcome this limitation. CFD is a theoretical way to investigate and predict the performance of the process
without creating much complexity from the design aspect for complicated geometrical modules [7]. Torras
et al. [8] made a similar study on RDMM, using CFD simulation of RDMM. In this model they had
compared the CFD simulated shear stress with that one calculated from the analytical correlation and found
a good agreement between the two results. A CFD simulation for a two-dimensional transport in a
membrane module was carried out by Pellerin et al. [9]. They found that the pressure contours for the
laminar and turbulent models are quite similar near the control axis of the module but they are different near
3 | P a g e

the wall region. In membrane separation process the main areas of concern are the concentration polarization
and the flow distribution within the membrane module. The former is responsible for continuous decline in
the permeate flux and the later controls the maximum utilization of the membrane area. In order to reduce
the concentration polarization, present work employs a membrane and a propeller rotating in opposite to
each other within the module. Thus creating high turbulence adverse effect on the permeation through
membrane could be reduced, but at the same this may affect the non-uniform flow distribution within the
module after creating vortex. CFD simulation helps to understand the effect of rotation and provide an
effective way-out to design the module in such a fashion so that both concentration polarization and non-
uniformity in the flow could be reduced.
The true insight of the actual phenomena including the behavioural aspects of the governing
principles was not available in the literature so far. In the present work, RDMM was employed with BSA
solution as a feed to the system. The operational parameters include transmembrane pressure (TMP),
concentration of the solution, rotation of the membrane and propeller. The use of CFD in the analysis of
concentration boundary layer during the steady and unsteady time has been attempted greatly for the purpose
of theoretical interest. The complete simulation to predict the concentration distribution within the module
was conducted with precise level of accuracy using Ansys FLUENT
®
2. Theory
6.3.26.
Ultrafiltration (UF) is one of the mostly adopted technologies in membrane separation field,
especially in the separation of protein. Equation 1 is the typical Darcy equation, relating the permeate flux
with the TMP and resistances occurred on the membrane surface.
( )
m c
P
J
R R
π
u
∆ − ∆
=
+
(1)
However turbulent rotational flow developed within RDMM promotes the appearances of eddies having a
wide range of length scale, which could be a cumbersome task to handle without applying CFD. The most
attractive part to solve the problem is to represent turbulent flow by the mean values of flow properties and
the statistical properties of their fluctuations. Introducing the time-averaged properties for the flow (mean
velocities, mean pressures and mean stresses) to the time dependent Navier–Stokes equations, is led to time-
average Navier–Stokes equations as follows [10]:
Continuity Equation:
( ) 0 div U
t
ρ
ρ

+ =

(2)
4 | P a g e

Momentum Equation:
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
2 ' ' ' ' '
Mx
u u v u w
u
P
div uU div u S
t x x y z
ρ ρ ρ
ρ
ρ u

∂ ∂ ∂



+ = − + ∇ + − − − +

∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂


(3)
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
2 ' ' ' ' '
My
u v v v w
v
P
div vU div v S
t y x y z
ρ ρ ρ
ρ
ρ u

∂ ∂ ∂



+ = − + ∇ + − − − +

∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂


(4)
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
2 ' ' ' ' '
Mz
u w v w w
w
P
div wU div w S
t z x y z
ρ ρ ρ
ρ
ρ u

∂ ∂ ∂



+ = − + ∇ + − − − +

∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂


(5)
where,
j ' ' i
i j ij T
j i
u
u
u u
x x
ρ τ u
| | ∂

− = = + |
|
∂ ∂
\ .
(6)
Here to solve the flow domain within RDMM Renormalization Group (RNG) [11] k-ε model was used
which performs better than the normal k-ε model in case of rotational flow [12] by eliminating the small
scale motion from the turbulence model equation, expressing their effects in terms of larger scale motion and
a modified viscosity. The model provides the following equations for k and ε [13]:
eff T
u u u = + (7)
2
T
k
C
u
u ρ
ε
= (8)
( ) ( )
eff j i i i
T
i i k i j i j
u k ku u u k
t x x x x x x
u ρ ρ
u ρε
σ
| | ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
+ = + + − |

|
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂

\ .
(9)
( ) ( )
2 2
1 2
eff j i i i
T
i i i j i j
u u u u
C C
t x x x k u u u k k
ε ε
ε
u ρε ρε
ε ε ε ε
u ρ αρ
σ
| | ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
+ = + + − − |

|
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂

\ .
(10)
where,
3 0
3
1
1
C
u
η
η
α η
βη

=
+
,
k
E η
ε
= ,
2
2
ij ij
E E E = and 0 5
j
i
ij
j i
u
u
E .
x x
| | ∂

= + |
|
∂ ∂
\ .
(11)
5 | P a g e

3. Experimental setup:

The module, made of SS316, was manufactured by Gurpreet Engineering Works (Kanpur, India) as
per the specified design. The module (Figure 1) was equipped with two motors with speed-controllers to
provide rotation of the stirrer (not used in this study) and membrane housing. A digital tachometer was used
to measure the rotational speed of the membrane. The set-up was equipped with an arrangement for
recycling the permeate to the feed cell to run it in continuous mode with constant feed composition. The later
mode was not investigated in this study. The module was also equipped with an outside water-jacket,
through which provision for water circulation was available. An adequate mechanical sealing mechanism
was provided to prevent leakage from the rotating membrane assembly up to a pressure of 1 MPa. An air
compressor was used to provide compressed air for pressurization of the cell. An intermediate air reservoir
fitted with on-off controller based on pressure sensor was provided which maintains the pressure within
reservoir between 1–1.2 MPa. A differential pressure regulator was used to set the pressure at the desired
level within the module. The complete schematic diagram of the rotating disk module set-up is given in Fig
2. The PES membranes (flat disk of 0.076 m diameter) of 30 kg/kmol molecular weight cut-off (MWCO)
were imported from Millipore (Bedford, USA) through its Indian counterpart (Millipore India). The flat-
sheet membrane operable in a pH range of 1–14 has an actual diameter of 0.076 m, whereas the effective
diameter was 0.056 m.

6 | P a g e

4. Methodology:
Experiments were carried out with 500 mg/l of Bovine-Albumin-Serum (BSA) solution, batch wise for
different combinations of feed concentration (C
b
), membrane speed (ω
m
), stirrer speed and trans-membrane
pressure (TMP) (∆P) in RDMM. After each experiment, the membrane was thoroughly washed for 1200 s
under running water, then soaked in washing solution, as mentioned in section 2.3, for 3600 – 5400 s and
then again thoroughly washed for 1200 s. In each case, the water flux regained by about 98% of its original
value, suggesting the cause of flux decline to be either osmotic pressure limited or due to a reversible fouling
layer.
4.1 The grid generation of the rotating disc membrane module experimental module in GAMBIT.
4.1.1 The propeller design





7 | P a g e

4.1.2 The experimental setup

4.1.3 The grid generation

8 | P a g e


The meshing above generated in GAMBIT is exported as a *.msh file.
4.2 The steps in analysis in FLUENT are as follows
4.2.1 File  Read  Case
Read the mesh file (*.msh) from the specified folder. Internally, FLUENT stores the computational grid in
meters, the SI unit of length. When grid information is read into the solver, it is assumed that the grid was
generated in units of meters. So if the read mesh file is in other unit (say cm) using scale button we can
adjust the dimensions in m unit. So scale button does not change the unit from meter to any other units. It
just converts the other dimensions into meter by multiplying it with proper scale factor. But if we want to do
our work in other units instead of meter we have to click on “Change Length Units”. So the subsequent unit
in Fluent will be only the other unit.
9 | P a g e


In the next step we have to check the grid. During grid check negative volume should not come.
Grid Check
Domain Extents:
x-coordinate: min (m) = -5.600000e-002, max (m) = 5.600000e-002
y-coordinate: min (m) = -5.599999e-002, max (m) = 5.599999e-002
z-coordinate: min (m) = 0.000000e+000, max (m) = 8.000000e-002
Volume statistics:
minimum volume (m3): 3.487422e-011
maximum volume (m3): 2.234592e-008
total volume (m3): 7.866323e-004
Face area statistics:
minimum face area (m2): 1.315645e-007
maximum face area (m2): 1.650526e-005
Checking number of nodes per cell.
Checking number of faces per cell.
Checking thread pointers.
Checking number of cells per face.
Checking face cells.
Checking bridge faces.
Checking right-handed cells.
Checking face handedness.
Checking face node order.
10 | P a g e

Checking element type consistency.
Checking boundary types:
Checking face pairs.
Checking periodic boundaries.
Checking node count.
Checking nosolve cell count.
Checking nosolve face count.
Checking face children.
Checking cell children.
Checking storage.
Done.
4.2.2 Define  Models  Solver
Now we have to select the Solver for the subsequent calculation.. Solver is basically used to define how the
hydrodynamic parameters are going to be set during the solution of the problem (Eg. N-S Equation, Energy
equation etc.). In the present study we have coded the solver as per the following screenshot.

In both methods the velocity field is obtained from the momentum equations. In the Density-Based Approach, the
continuity equation is used to obtain the density field while the pressure field is determined from the equation of
state.
11 | P a g e

On the other hand, in the Pressure-Based Approach, the pressure field is extracted by solving a pressure or
pressure correction equation which is obtained by manipulating continuity and momentum equations. In both the
cases the Finite-Volume approach is taken.
In case of Pressure-Based Approach for the incompressible flow the velocity components are solved for Navier-
Stokes equation using staggered grid technique. Along with the N-S equation the following pressure correction was
used.
0
sound
P u v
a
t x y
| | ∂ ∂ ∂
+ + =
|
∂ ∂ ∂
\ .
(12)
where a
sound
The absolute velocity formulation is preferred in applications where the flow in most of the domain is not rotating
(e.g., a fan in a large room). The relative velocity formulation is appropriate when most of the fluid in the domain is
rotating, as in the case of a large impeller in a mixing tank. In the present study we are simulating Rotating disk
membrane module where most of the fluid domain is rotating. So Relative was opted in the solver.
Here the discretization is mainly Temporal i.e. time based. For the pressure based solver the scheme is Implicit.
Following methods are showing the implicit temporal discretization.
1
is the speed of sound in this pseudo continuity equation.
st
( )
1
1
n n
n
F
t t
φ φ φ
φ
+
+
∂ −
= =
∂ ∆
order Implicit:
(13)
2
nd
( )
1 1
1
3 4
2
n n n
n
F
t t
φ φ φ φ
φ
+ −
+
∂ − +
= =
∂ ∆
order Implicit:
(14)
where, n+1 is at the time step t+∆t, n-1 is at the time step t-∆t. Equation (2) and (3) use the following iterative
scheme.
1. Take initial guess for
1 n
old
φ
+
.
2. Evaluate
( )
1 n
old old
F φ
+
.
3. Evaluate
1 n
new
φ
+
using
( )
1 n
old old
F φ
+
and
n
φ .
4. Check for convergence
1 n
new
φ
+
and
1 n
old
φ
+
.
12 | P a g e

1
φ

5
φ

4
φ

2
φ

3
φ

2 3
2
2
F
φ φ
φ
+
=

5. If convergence criterion was met iteration will be stopped, otherwise go to step 2 after assigning
1 n
old
φ
+
=
1 n
new
φ
+
.
For Non-Iterative Time-Advancement Scheme each equation was solved using the temporal implicit method for
each equation (Pseudo continuity equation, N-S equation, k-equation, ε-equation. Once the entire convergence
criterion was met we will move to next time step.
In the Gradient Option we have used Green-Gauss Node Based. Here the property value at a face of a cell was
evaluated using the weighted average of the node values on that face. The nodal values using this scheme are
evaluated from surrounding cell-centered values on arbitrary unstructured meshes by solving a constrained
minimization problem, preserving a second-order spatial accuracy.
The node-based averaging scheme is known to be more accurate than the default cell-based scheme for unstructured
meshes, most notably for triangular and tetrahedral meshes.
Following diagram and equation explain the process.






1
1
Nodes
N
Face Node
n
Nodes
N
φ φ
=
=

(15)
For Porous Formulation Superficial Velocity will be retained for the entire simulation. It is mainly valid for
porous medium.
4.2.3 Viscous Model
In the viscous model we have chosen two equations (one for kinetic energy [k] and the other one for dissipation
rate [ε]) k-ε mod el. As ou r system is highly strained flo w with swirl we have chosen RNG k-ε model which was
derived from instantaneous N-S equation using ‘Renormalization Group’ (RNG) method. It has an additional term of
strain in the ε eq u ation and also it accou nts for the swirling flo w. So it is far su p erior to stan d ard k-ε model. In
13 | P a g e

realizable k-ε model the only problem is the chances of having multiple reference frame (both rotating and stationary)
on which realizable gives poor performance.
Here the flow is swirl dominated flow. So in fluent we have checked the Swirl Dominated Flow. By default we have
Swirl Factor = 0.07. For highly swirled flow we have to set slightly higher value for this factor. Presently we are
working with the default value. As we have the stationary zones within the system so in some of the zones consist of
low value of Reynold’s Number. To account that we have to check the Differential Viscosity Model (Because by
default Fluent uses high Reynold’s Number). We have chosen here Enhanced Wall Treatment with checking
Pressure Gradient Effects.




14 | P a g e

4.2.4 Define  Materials

4.2.5 Operating pressure
P
absolute
– P
operating
= P
gauge

Here as far as concerned with the normal flow pressure we know that operating pressure given in equation 5
resembles atmospheric pressure. By default it was set for atmospheric pressure i.e. 101325 Pa.
Keep the Reference Pressure Location values to (0, 0, 0). As our system is not affected by the Buoyancy
so we don’t need to activate the Gravity.


15 | P a g e

4.2.6 Setting Boundary Conditions:
/define/boundary-conditions> list-zones
id name type material kind
---- ------------------------- ------------------ -------------------- ----
2 bsa_solution mixture bsa and water cell
3 cell_body wall aluminum face
4 propeller_blade wall aluminum face
5 pressure_top pressure-inlet face
6 membrane wall aluminum face
8 default-interior interior face

 BC for bsa solution (defined in Continuum in GAMBIT as Fluid):

16 | P a g e

To define the axis, set the Rotation-Axis Direction and Rotation-Axis Origin. This axis is independent of
the axis of rotation used by any adjacent wall zones or any other cell zones. For 3D problems, the axis of
rotation is the vector from the Rotation-Axis Origin in the direction of the vector given by your Rotation-
Axis Direction inputs. In our study the origin of the axis is (0, 0, 0) and as the fluid motion is in the
anticlockwise direction so we have set the direction (0, 0, -1) (as the rotation was followed by Right hand
thumb rule). As our system is having multiple rotating reference frame so we are using here as sliding mesh
concept activating Moving Mesh scheme.
 BC for cell_body (defined in Boundary in GAMBIT as Wall):

The species mass fraction is to be specified at the inlet which is considered to be the pressure top.


17 | P a g e

 BC for propeller_blade (defined in Boundary in GAMBIT as Wall):
For one experimental run propeller was fixed, so we have made it stationary in the definition of boundary
condition for the propeller blade.












18 | P a g e

 BC for membrane (defined in Boundary in GAMBIT as Wall):

For membrane we have used Moving Wall and Rotational motion. If the cell zone adjacent to the wall is
moving (e.g., if you are using a moving reference frame or a sliding mesh), you can choose to specify
velocities relative to the zone motion by enabling the Relative to Adjacent Cell Zone option. If you choose
to specify relative velocities, a velocity of zero means that the wall is stationary in the relative frame, and
therefore moving at the speed of the adjacent cell zone in the absolute frame. If you choose to specify
absolute velocities (by enabling the Absolute option), a velocity of zero means that the wall is stationary in
the absolute frame, and therefore moving at the speed of the adjacent cell zone--but in the opposite direction
in the relative reference frame. Here we have assumed that the membrane wall is fixed with respect to the
rotating reference frame and having the same rotational speed of the bsa_solution (Adjacent Cell Zone).





19 | P a g e

 BC for pressure_top (defined in Boundary in GAMBIT as Wall):

Gauge Total Pressure is the static operating pressure with respect to the operating pressure set at
Operating Conditions panel. In case of rotating reference frame static pressure is calculated on the basis
of relative velocity if the velocity formulation will be given as Relative in the Solver panel. Now the
total pressure value is given by the following equation,
2
1
2
tot stat
P P v ρ = +

(16)
and P
tot
= P
absolute
– P
operating
The total pressure and flow direction at a pressure inlet must be specified in the absolute frame if the
absolute velocity formulation is used. For calculations using relative velocities, the total pressure and
flow direction must be specified with respect to the rotating frame. For problems involving multiple
(17)
In our case it is (294300 – 101325 = 192975 Pa).
20 | P a g e

zones (e.g., multiple reference frames or sliding meshes), the coordinate system is defined by the rotation
axis specified in the Fluid (or Solid) panel for the fluid (or solid) zone that is adjacent to the inlet.
For the Turbulence we have adopted the rotational Reynolds Number,
2
m m
N D
Re
ρ
u
= (18)
Turbulent Intensity was calculated using the following equation,
( )
1
8
0 16 I . Re

= (19)
Turbulent length scale is calculated using the following equation,
0 07 l . L = (20)
Turbulent K.E. is calculated as follows,
( )
2 3
2
m m
k N D I = (21)
Turbulent dissipation rate is calculated according to the following equation,
1 5
0 157
.
k
.
l
ε = (22)










21 | P a g e

4.2.7 Solve  Controls  Solution


The Pressure-Implicit with Splitting of Operators (PISO) pressure-velocity coupling scheme with neighbor
correction is highly recommended for all transient flow calculations, especially when you want to use a large
time step. When you use PISO neighbor correction, under-relaxation factors of 1.0 or near 1.0 are
recommended for all equations. If you use just the PISO skewness correction for highly-distorted meshes
(without neighbor correction), set the under-relaxation factors for momentum and pressure so that they sum
to 1 (e.g., 0.3 for pressure and 0.7 for momentum). If you use both PISO methods, follow the under-
relaxation recommendations for PISO neighbor correction, above.

22 | P a g e

4.2.8 Solve  Monitors  Residual

4.2.9 Solve  Initialize  Initialize
Select pressure_top in the Compute From. Automatically it will take the initial values.



23 | P a g e

4.2.10 Solve  Iterate

We have taken the time step size 5 seconds for 2500 s. Therefore Number of time steps = (2500/5).
Click on Iterate.

Solution Strategies for a Single Rotating Reference Frame
The difficulties associated with solving flows in rotating reference frames are similar to those discussed in Section 9.5.5. The primary issue you
must confront is the high degree of coupling between the momentum equations when the influence of the rotational terms is large. A high degree
of rotation introduces a large radial pressure gradient which drives the flow in the axial and radial directions, thereby setting up a distribution
of the swirl or rotation in the field. This coupling may lead to instabilities in the solution process, and hence require special solution techniques
to obtain a converged solution. Some techniques that may be beneficial include the following:
• (Pressure-based solver only) Consider switching the frame in which velocities are solved by changing the velocity formulation setting in
the Solver panel. (See Section 10.7.1 for details.)
• (Pressure-based segregated solver only) Use the PRESTO! scheme (enabled in the Solution Controls panel), which is well-suited for the
steep pressure gradients involved in rotating flows.
• Ensure that the mesh is sufficiently refined to resolve large gradients in pressure and swirl velocity.
• (Pressure-based solver only) Reduce the under-relaxation factors for the velocities, perhaps to 0.3-0.5 or lower, if necessary.
24 | P a g e

• Begin the calculations using a low rotational speed, increasing the rotational speed gradually in order to reach the final desired
operating condition (see below).
Gradual Increase of the Rotational Speed to Improve Solution Stability
• Because the rotation of the reference frame and the rotation defined via boundary conditions can lead to large complex forces in the flow,
your FLUENT calculations may be less stable as the speed of rotation (and hence the magnitude of these forces) increases. One of the most
effective controls you can exert on the solution is to start with a low rotational speed and then slowly increase the rotation up to the desired
level. The procedure you use to accomplish this is as follows:
• 1. Set up the problem using a low rotational speed in your inputs for boundary conditions and for the angular velocity of the reference
frame. The rotational speed in this first attempt might be selected as 10% of the actual operating condition.
• 2. Solve the problem at these conditions.
• 3. Save this initial solution data.
• 4. Modify your inputs (i.e., boundary conditions and angular velocity of the reference frame). Increase the speed of rotation, perhaps
doubling it.
• 5. Restart or continue the calculation using the solution data saved in Step 3 as the initial guess for the new calculation. Save the new
data.
• 6. Continue to increment the rotational speed, following Steps 4 and 5, until you reach the desired operating condition.
The Cylindrical coordinate system uses the axial, radial, and tangential components based on the following coordinate systems:
• For problems involving a single cell zone, the coordinate system is defined by the rotation axis and origin specified in the Fluid panel.
• For problems involving multiple zones (e.g., multiple reference frames or sliding meshes), the coordinate system is defined by the rotation
axis specified in the Fluid (or Solid) panel for the fluid (or solid) zone that is adjacent to the inlet.
Under Non-Iterative Solver Controls, there are several parameters that control the sub-iterations for the individual equations.
The sub-iterations for an equation stop when the total number of sub-iterations exceeds the value specified for Max. Corrections, regardless of
whether or not the convergence criteria (described below) are met.
The sub-iterations for an equation end when the ratio of the residuals at the current sub-iteration and the first sub-iteration is less than the value
specified in the Correction Tolerance field. You can monitor the details of the sub-iteration convergence by looking at the AMG solver
performance (i.e., setting the Verbosity field in the Multigrid Controls panel to 1). Be sure to pay attention to the residuals for the current sub-
iteration (i.e., the residual for the 0-th AMG cycle at the current sub-iteration) and the initial residual of the time step (i.e., the residual for the 0-
th AMG cycle of the first sub-iteration). The ratio of these two residuals is what is controlled by the Correction Tolerance field. These two
residuals are also the residuals plotted when using the Residual Monitor panel and reported in the FLUENT console at the end of a time step.
Note that the residuals reported at the end of a time step can be scaled or unscaled, depending on the settings in the Residual Monitor panel.
The residuals reported when monitoring the AMG solver performance are always unscaled.
For each interim sub-iteration, the AMG cycles continue until the usual AMG termination criteria (0.1 by default, and set in the Multigrid
Controls panel) are met. However, for the last sub-iteration (i.e., either when the maximum number of sub-iterations are reached or when the
correction tolerance is satisfied), the AMG cycles continue until the ratio of the residual at the current cycle to the initial residual (the residual
for the 0-th AMG cycle of the first sub-iteration of the time step) drops below the value specified for Residual Tolerance. You may want to adjust
the Residual Tolerance, depending on the time step selected. The default Residual Tolerance should be well suited for moderate time steps (i.e.,
for cell CFL numbers of 1 to 10). Note that you can display the cell CFL numbers for unsteady problems by selecting Cell Courant Number in
the Velocity... category of all postprocessing panels. For very small time steps (cell CFL << 1), the diagonal dominance of the system is very
high and the convergence should be driven further by reducing the Residual Tolerance value. For larger time steps (cell CFL >> 1), it may be
possible that the residual tolerance cannot be reached due to round-off errors, and unless the Residual Tolerance value is increased, AMG
cycles can be wasted. Again, this can be monitored by monitoring the AMG solver performance.
25 | P a g e

The Relaxation Factor field defines the explicit relaxation of variables between sub-iterations. The relaxation factors can be used to prevent the
solution from diverging. They should be left at their default values of 1, unless divergence is detected. If the solution diverges, you should first try
to stabilize the solution by lowering the relaxation factors for pressure to 0.7- 0.8, and by reducing the time step.
The following is a list of models that are compatible with the non-iterative solver:
• Inviscid flow (excluding ideal gas)
• Laminar flow
• All models of turbulence (including LES and DES)
• Heat transfer
• Non-reacting species transport
• General compressible flows (most subsonic and some transonic applications)
• VOF multiphase model (most applications)
• Phase change (solidification and melting)
The following is a list of models that are compatible with the non-iterative solver, but may result in some instabilities and inaccuracies for
certain flow conditions:
• MDM
• Non-Newtonian fluids
• General compressible flows (aerospace supersonic applications)
• Floating operating pressure
• Reacting species and any type of combustion including PDF
The following is a list of models that are not compatible with the non-iterative solver:
• Eulerian multiphase (all non-VOF models)
• Radiation models
• DPM, spark, and crevice models
• UDS transport
• Porous jump

The PRESTO! pressure interpolation scheme, when compared to using the iterative time-advancement, is less stable when using the
non-iterative time-advancement solver. As a consequence, smaller time steps may be required.

As mentioned above, the default control settings are optimally designed to obtain a second-order solution. In order to save CPU time, in
cases where transient accuracy is not a main concern (i.e., first-order integration in time and space), or when NITA is used to converge
toward a steady state solution, you may want to set the Max. Corrections value to 1 in the Solution Controls panel for all transport
equations except pressure.



26 | P a g e

An user defined function has been incorporated to imply the positive aggregative effect of concentration
boundary layer profile inside the rotating disc membrane module setup.
#include "udf.h"
DEFINE_ADJUST(BSAFlux, d)
{
int i,id;
real flux, Cbulk = 1, k = 7.85*pow(10,-6);
real conc_solids, rho;
face_t f;
cell_t c;
Thread *t;
thread_loop_f(t,d)
{
id = THREAD_ID(t);
if (CURRENT_TIME > CURRENT_TIMESTEP)
{
begin_c_loop(c,t)
{
if(id == 8)
{
rho = ((C_R(F_C0(f,t),THREAD_T0(t))+C_R(F_C1(f,t),THREAD_T1(t))) / 2.0);
conc_solids = rho*(C_YI(F_C0(f,t),THREAD_T0(t),i)+C_YI(F_C1(f,t),THREAD_T1(t),i));
flux = k*log(conc_solids/Cbulk);
}
}
end_c_loop(c,t)
}
}
printf("id = %d:Current Time = %g:density = %g:Flux = %g:conc_solids=%g",id,CURRENT_TIME,rho,flux,conc_solids);
}
27 | P a g e

5. Results
The distribution of static pressure over the membrane surface and inside the RDMM

The dynamic pressure distribution inside the module is

28 | P a g e

The pathlines of velocity magnitude inside the RDMM over the membrane surface

The contours of radial velocity inside the RDMM is

29 | P a g e

The contours of tangential velocity inside the RDMM is portrayed as

The contours of vorticity magnitude over the membrane surface,

30 | P a g e

The contours of helicity inside the RDMM is displayed as

The distribution of local Reynolds inside the module is

31 | P a g e

The degree of turbulence is shown by the contours of turbulent kinetic energy (k) (m
2
/s
2
)

The contours of turbulent dissipation rate (ε) (m
2
/s
3
)

32 | P a g e

The contours of turbulent Reynolds number is shown below

The contours of turbulent viscosity is illustrated below,

33 | P a g e

The contours of density distribution inside the RDMM (almost constant)

The mass fraction of BSA inside the RDMM

34 | P a g e

The plot of mass fraction of BSA with the cartesian co – ordinate position

The effective diffusivity of BSA inside the RDMM is,


35 | P a g e

The wall shear stress across the membrane surface and inside the setup (excluding the propeller blade, since
it has very high and almost constant magnitude)

The local strain rate (s
-1
) distribution in the different zones inside the RDMM


36 | P a g e

The plots of
P
x


,
P
y


and
P
z


with respect to position is displayed as



37 | P a g e

Discussions and Conclusion
In the present work an attempt was made to solve Navier-Stoke's equation within a rotating domain. The
most critical part of this study was to incorporate membrane characteristics with the normal hydrodynamics
within the volume. Deposition on membrane or in other words fouling could be the most critical part that has
to be accounted with the normal CFD application. For that UDF was introduced with the normal finite
element analysis (FEA) to account the deposition on the surface. In the present work we have neglected the
adsorption part or the pore plugging phenomena that could be occurred. Results show that almost the
prediction of concentration on membrane surface was done with 70-75% accuracy. Main advantages with
the CFD modelling are that change in the design parameters for the system in order to have an optimum
model, which can reduce the normal drawbacks with the membrane separation process. Therefore changing
the parameters and solving the domain using FEA to converge to an optimum design could be considered as
a future scope of the work.










Acknowledgement
I am very much grateful to my guide Dr. Chiranjib Bhattacharjee without whose support the successful
completion of this project would only have been a distant dream. I also would like express thanks and
cordial gratitude to Mr. Dwaipayan Sen whose precious suggestion and help has been an invaluable asset to
this project. I also thank for the computer lab facility of our department in providing me technical support.
38 | P a g e

References
1. N.S. Hanspal, A.N.Waghode, V. Nassehi, R.J.Wakeman, Development of a predictive mathematical model for coupled
stokes/Darcy flows in cross-flow membrane filtration, Chemical Engineering Journal 149 (2009) 132–142.

2. Christophe A. Serra, Mark R. Wiesner A comparison of rotating and stationary membrane disk filters using computational
fluid dynamics, J. Membr. Sc. 165 (2000) Pages 19-29.

3. Valentina S. Espina, Michel Y. Jaffrin, Matthieu Frappart, Lu-Hui Ding Separation of casein micelles from whey proteins
by high shear microfiltration of skim milk using rotating ceramic membranes and organic membranes in a rotating disk
module, J. Membr. Sc. 325 (2008) Pages 872-879.

4. Matthieu Frappart, Omar Akoum, Lu Hui Ding, Michel Y. Jaffrin, Treatment of dairy process waters modelled by diluted
milk using dynamic nanofiltration with a rotating disk module, J. Membr. Sc. 282 (2006) Pages 465-472.

5. Debasish Sarkar, Chiranjib Bhattacharjee, Modeling and analytical simulation of rotating disk ultrafiltration module,
Journal of Membrane Science 320 (2008) 344–355.

6. Chiranjib Bhattacharjee, P.K. Bhattacharya, Ultrafiltration of black liquor using rotating disk membrane module,
Separation and Purification Technology 49 (2006) 281–290.

7. M. Rahimi, S.S. Madaeni, K. Abbasi, CFD modeling of permeate flux in cross-flow microfiltration membrane, Journal of
Membrane Science 255 (2005) 23–31.

8. Carles Torras, Jordi Pallarès, Ricard Garcia-Valls, Michel Y. Jaffrin, CFD simulation of a rotating disk flat membrane
module, Desalination 200 (2006) 453–455.

9. E. Pellerin, E. Michelistsch, K. Darcovich, S. Lin, C.M. Tam, Turbulent transport in membrane modules by CFD
simulation in two dimensions, J. Membr. Sci. 100 (1995) 139.

10. H.K. Versteeg, W. Malalasekera, An Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics, in: The Finite Volume Method,
Longman, England, 1995.

11. Leslie M. Smith, Renormalization-group analysis of turbulence, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 30 (1998) 275-310.

12. C. Torrasa, J. Pallaresb*, R. Garcia-Vallsa, M.Y. Jaffrinc, Numerical simulation of the flow in a rotating disk filtration
module, Desalination 235 (2009) 122–138.

13. V. Yakhot, S.A. Orszag, Renormalization group analysis of turbulence. I. Basic theory, J. Sci. Comput. 1 (1986) 3 – 51.

1. Introduction Nowadays membrane based processes are the main area of interests growing among the researchers. Especially in the field of water treatment, membrane applications are the most coveted technologies that are rarely to be replaced in near future. Cross-flow and dead end processes are the two modes of membrane applications in generic and extensively applied in different industrial applications. Mainly cross-flow filtration is an effective separation technology that finds application in a wide range of areas including water treatment, clean environment technologies, and recovery of worthy components from the waste stream [1]. Main limitations associated with any of the membrane applications are the continuous reduction in its throughput due to gradual accumulation of solutes on the surface and thereby initiation of the concentration polarization effect. To alleviate this problem various high shear devices have been used so far. Among different high shear application cross-flow membrane filtration, frequently termed low shear tangential filtration is used to clean fluids that are difficult to filter and to separate fine matter such as cells, proteins, enzymes and viruses [2]. Rotating disk membrane module (RDMM) is another type of high sheared device which was used previously by many researchers, mainly in the separation of protein [3, 4] from milk or in any biological separation [5]. Bhattacharjee and Bhattacharya [6] performed ultrafiltration (UF) of Kraft black liquor (KBL) using RDMM. In case of RDMM mainly the rotation of membrane creates a high turbulence on membrane surface which ultimately reduces the retention period of solutes on the surface and thus too some extent alleviate the chances of reversible as well as irreversible fouling of the membrane. To understand the efficacy of the process, study on hydrodynamics and thereby development of some model equations describing the actual scenario within the system is inevitable. Transport modelling in membrane systems has been so far the most complicated element of research work that were being carried out by several researchers hitherto. Sarkar and Bhattacharjee [5] have already established an analytical solution for describing the actual hydrodynamics within RDMM based on the back transport flux mechanism. The main complexity arises during the formulation of these models are the occurring of different uncertainties associated with the membrane separation processes. Especially in case of RDMM the inner hydrodynamics is so complicated to understand analytically and thereby limits the development of mathematical model. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) could be an alternative tool to overcome this limitation. CFD is a theoretical way to investigate and predict the performance of the process without creating much complexity from the design aspect for complicated geometrical modules [7]. Torras et al. [8] made a similar study on RDMM, using CFD simulation of RDMM. In this model they had compared the CFD simulated shear stress with that one calculated from the analytical correlation and found a good agreement between the two results. A CFD simulation for a two-dimensional transport in a membrane module was carried out by Pellerin et al. [9]. They found that the pressure contours for the laminar and turbulent models are quite similar near the control axis of the module but they are different near

2|Page

the wall region. In membrane separation process the main areas of concern are the concentration polarization and the flow distribution within the membrane module. The former is responsible for continuous decline in the permeate flux and the later controls the maximum utilization of the membrane area. In order to reduce the concentration polarization, present work employs a membrane and a propeller rotating in opposite to each other within the module. Thus creating high turbulence adverse effect on the permeation through membrane could be reduced, but at the same this may affect the non-uniform flow distribution within the module after creating vortex. CFD simulation helps to understand the effect of rotation and provide an effective way-out to design the module in such a fashion so that both concentration polarization and nonuniformity in the flow could be reduced. The true insight of the actual phenomena including the behavioural aspects of the governing principles was not available in the literature so far. In the present work, RDMM was employed with BSA solution as a feed to the system. The operational parameters include transmembrane pressure (TMP), concentration of the solution, rotation of the membrane and propeller. The use of CFD in the analysis of concentration boundary layer during the steady and unsteady time has been attempted greatly for the purpose of theoretical interest. The complete simulation to predict the concentration distribution within the module was conducted with precise level of accuracy using Ansys FLUENT® 6.3.26. 2. Theory Ultrafiltration (UF) is one of the mostly adopted technologies in membrane separation field, especially in the separation of protein. Equation 1 is the typical Darcy equation, relating the permeate flux with the TMP and resistances occurred on the membrane surface.
J= ∆P − ∆π µ ( Rm + Rc )

(1)

However turbulent rotational flow developed within RDMM promotes the appearances of eddies having a wide range of length scale, which could be a cumbersome task to handle without applying CFD. The most attractive part to solve the problem is to represent turbulent flow by the mean values of flow properties and the statistical properties of their fluctuations. Introducing the time-averaged properties for the flow (mean velocities, mean pressures and mean stresses) to the time dependent Navier–Stokes equations, is led to timeaverage Navier–Stokes equations as follows [10]: Continuity Equation:
∂ρ 0 + div ( ρU ) = ∂t

(2)

3|Page

Momentum Equation: ∂ ( ρu ) ∂t  ∂ ρ u' 2 ∂ ρ u' v' ∂ ρ u' w' ∂P − + div ( ρ uU ) = − + div ( µ∇u ) + − −  ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂z    ∂ ρ u' v' ∂ ρ v' 2 ∂ ρ v' w' ∂P − + div ( ρ vU ) = − + div ( µ∇v ) + − −  ∂y ∂x ∂y ∂z   ( ) ( ) ( )  + S    Mx (3) ∂ ( ρv) ∂t ( ) ( ) ( )  + S    My (4) ∂ ( ρ w) ∂t  ∂ ρ u' w' ∂ ρ v' w' ∂ ρ w' 2 ∂P − + div ( ρ wU ) = − + div ( µ∇w ) + − −  ∂z ∂x ∂y ∂z   ( ) ( ) ( )  + S    Mz (5) where. E 2 = 2 Eij Eij and Eij 0.  ∂u ∂u j  τ ij µT − ρ ui' u'j = =  i +   ∂x   j ∂xi  (6) Here to solve the flow domain within RDMM Renormalization Group (RNG) [11] k-ε model was used which performs better than the normal k-ε model in case of rotational flow [12] by eliminating the small scale motion from the turbulence model equation.5  i + j  = 3  ∂x  1 + βη ε  j ∂xi  (11) 4|Page . 1− η 3 α = Cµη  ∂u ∂u  η0 k . η = E . The model provides the following equations for k and ε [13]: µeff= µ + µT µT = ρ Cµ ∂ ( ρk ) ∂t ∂ ( ρε ) ∂t (7) k2 ε (8) +  ∂ui ∂u j  ∂ui ∂ ( ρ kui ) ∂  µeff ∂k  = + − ρε    + µT   ∂x  ∂xi ∂xi  σ k ∂xi  ∂xi  ∂x j j  ∂ ( ρε ui ) ∂  µeff ∂ε  ε  ∂ui ∂u j = +   + C1ε µT  ∂xi ∂xi  σ ε ∂xi  k  ∂u j ∂ui   ∂ui ε2 ε2 − C2 ε ρ − αρ   ∂u j k k  (9) + (10) where. expressing their effects in terms of larger scale motion and a modified viscosity.

076 m diameter) of 30 kg/kmol molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) were imported from Millipore (Bedford. The PES membranes (flat disk of 0. USA) through its Indian counterpart (Millipore India). through which provision for water circulation was available. The set-up was equipped with an arrangement for recycling the permeate to the feed cell to run it in continuous mode with constant feed composition. The module (Figure 1) was equipped with two motors with speed-controllers to provide rotation of the stirrer (not used in this study) and membrane housing.076 m. whereas the effective diameter was 0. Experimental setup: The module. The complete schematic diagram of the rotating disk module set-up is given in Fig 2.3. India) as per the specified design. A digital tachometer was used to measure the rotational speed of the membrane.2 MPa. made of SS316. An adequate mechanical sealing mechanism was provided to prevent leakage from the rotating membrane assembly up to a pressure of 1 MPa. was manufactured by Gurpreet Engineering Works (Kanpur. An air compressor was used to provide compressed air for pressurization of the cell. The module was also equipped with an outside water-jacket.056 m. An intermediate air reservoir fitted with on-off controller based on pressure sensor was provided which maintains the pressure within reservoir between 1–1. A differential pressure regulator was used to set the pressure at the desired level within the module. 5|Page . The flatsheet membrane operable in a pH range of 1–14 has an actual diameter of 0. The later mode was not investigated in this study.

3. the membrane was thoroughly washed for 1200 s under running water. membrane speed (ω m ). suggesting the cause of flux decline to be either osmotic pressure limited or due to a reversible fouling layer. 4.4. batch wise for different combinations of feed concentration (C b ).1 The grid generation of the rotating disc membrane module experimental module in GAMBIT. then soaked in washing solution. for 3600 – 5400 s and then again thoroughly washed for 1200 s. stirrer speed and trans-membrane pressure (TMP) (∆P) in RDMM. After each experiment. as mentioned in section 2. In each case.1.1 The propeller design 6|Page . the water flux regained by about 98% of its original value. 4. Methodology: Experiments were carried out with 500 mg/l of Bovine-Albumin-Serum (BSA) solution.

3 The grid generation 7|Page .4.1.1.2 The experimental setup 4.

8|Page . the SI unit of length.2 The steps in analysis in FLUENT are as follows 4. FLUENT stores the computational grid in meters.2.1 File  Read  Case Read the mesh file (*. But if we want to do our work in other units instead of meter we have to click on “Change Length Units”. So if the read mesh file is in other unit (say cm) using scale button we can adjust the dimensions in m unit.The meshing above generated in GAMBIT is exported as a *. When grid information is read into the solver. So the subsequent unit in Fluent will be only the other unit.msh file.msh) from the specified folder. it is assumed that the grid was generated in units of meters. Internally. So scale button does not change the unit from meter to any other units. 4. It just converts the other dimensions into meter by multiplying it with proper scale factor.

000000e+000.487422e-011 maximum volume (m3): 2. Checking face node order.000000e-002 Volume statistics: minimum volume (m3): 3. During grid check negative volume should not come. Checking number of cells per face.600000e-002 y-coordinate: min (m) = -5.In the next step we have to check the grid.600000e-002.599999e-002. max (m) = 5. 9|Page . Grid Check Domain Extents: x-coordinate: min (m) = -5. Checking bridge faces. Checking number of faces per cell.866323e-004 Face area statistics: minimum face area (m2): 1.599999e-002 z-coordinate: min (m) = 0. max (m) = 8. Checking right-handed cells. Checking face handedness.234592e-008 total volume (m3): 7.650526e-005 Checking number of nodes per cell.315645e-007 maximum face area (m2): 1. Checking face cells. Checking thread pointers. max (m) = 5.

Checking boundary types: Checking face pairs.. Checking node count. Done. Checking nosolve cell count. Checking storage. Checking face children.Checking element type consistency.2. In both methods the velocity field is obtained from the momentum equations. Checking nosolve face count. Energy equation etc. 4. Solver is basically used to define how the hydrodynamic parameters are going to be set during the solution of the problem (Eg. In the present study we have coded the solver as per the following screenshot. In the Density-Based Approach. the continuity equation is used to obtain the density field while the pressure field is determined from the equation of state. 10 | P a g e . Checking periodic boundaries.2 Define  Models  Solver Now we have to select the Solver for the subsequent calculation. Checking cell children.). N-S Equation.

in the Pressure-Based Approach. Evaluate Fold φold . Equation (2) and (3) use the following iterative scheme. a fan in a large room). Take initial guess for φold . For the pressure based solver the scheme is Implicit. In case of Pressure-Based Approach for the incompressible flow the velocity components are solved for NavierStokes equation using staggered grid technique. So Relative was opted in the solver. 3. n+1 is at the time step t+∆t. Here the discretization is mainly Temporal i. In the present study we are simulating Rotating disk membrane module where most of the fluid domain is rotating. Check for convergence φnew and φold . n-1 is at the time step t-∆t. time based. (12) The absolute velocity formulation is preferred in applications where the flow in most of the domain is not rotating (e.g. In both the cases the Finite-Volume approach is taken. 1st order Implicit: ∂φ φ n +1 − φ n = = F (φ n +1 ) ∂t ∆t 2nd order Implicit: (13) ∂φ 3φ n +1 − 4φ n + φ n −1 = = F (φ n +1 ) ∂t 2∆t (14) where. The relative velocity formulation is appropriate when most of the fluid in the domain is rotating.e. n +1 n +1 ( ) 4. 1.On the other hand. Along with the N-S equation the following pressure correction was used. Evaluate n +1 ( ) n +1 φnew using Fold φold and φ n .  ∂u ∂v  ∂P 0 + asound  +  = ∂t  ∂x ∂y  where a sound is the speed of sound in this pseudo continuity equation.. as in the case of a large impeller in a mixing tank. 11 | P a g e n +1 n +1 . 2. Following methods are showing the implicit temporal discretization. the pressure field is extracted by solving a pressure or pressure correction equation which is obtained by manipulating continuity and momentum equations.

It has an additional term of strain in the ε eq u aion and also it accou nts for the swirling flo w So it is far su p eior to stan d ad k-ε model.5. As ou r system is highly strained flo w with swirl we have chosen RNG k-ε model which was derived from instantaneous N-S equation using ‘Renormalization Group’ (RNG) method. 4. N-S equation. ε-equation. In t . most notably for triangular and tetrahedral meshes. The node-based averaging scheme is known to be more accurate than the default cell-based scheme for unstructured meshes.2. preserving a second-order spatial accuracy. k-equation. otherwise go to step 2 after assigning φold = φnew . If convergence criterion was met iteration will be stopped. In the Gradient Option we have used Green-Gauss Node Based. The nodal values using this scheme are evaluated from surrounding cell-centered values on arbitrary unstructured meshes by solving a constrained minimization problem. r r 12 | P a g e . Once the entire convergence criterion was met we will move to next time step. Here the property value at a face of a cell was evaluated using the weighted average of the node values on that face. Following diagram and equation explain the process. n +1 n +1 For Non-Iterative Time-Advancement Scheme each equation was solved using the temporal implicit method for each equation (Pseudo continuity equation.3 Viscous Model In the viscous model we have chosen two equations (one for kinetic energy [k] and the other one for dissipation rate [ε]) k-ε mod el. It is mainly valid for porous medium. φ1 φ4 φ5 φ2 φ2 + φ3 2 φF 2 = φ3 φFace = 1 N Nodes N Nodes n =1 ∑φ Node (15) For Porous Formulation Superficial Velocity will be retained for the entire simulation.

realizable k-ε model the only problem is the chances of having multiple reference frame (both rotating and stationary) on which realizable gives poor performance. We have chosen here Enhanced Wall Treatment with checking Pressure Gradient Effects. Here the flow is swirl dominated flow. As we have the stationary zones within the system so in some of the zones consist of low value of Reynold’s Number. 13 | P a g e . By default we have Swirl Factor = 0.07. Presently we are working with the default value. To account that we have to check the Differential Viscosity Model (Because by default Fluent uses high Reynold’s Number). For highly swirled flow we have to set slightly higher value for this factor. So in fluent we have checked the Swirl Dominated Flow.

5 Operating pressure Pabsolute – Poperating = Pgauge Here as far as concerned with the normal flow pressure we know that operating pressure given in equation 5 resembles atmospheric pressure.e. 14 | P a g e . As our system is not affected by the Buoyancy so we don’t need to activate the Gravity. 0). Keep the Reference Pressure Location values to (0. By default it was set for atmospheric pressure i.4 Define  Materials 4.2. 101325 Pa. 0.4.2.

4.2.6 Setting Boundary Conditions: /define/boundary-conditions> list-zones id ---2 3 4 5 6 8 name ------------------------bsa_solution cell_body propeller_blade pressure_top membrane default-interior type -----------------material -------------------kind ---- mixture wall wall pressure-inlet wall interior bsa and water aluminum aluminum cell face face face aluminum face face  BC for bsa solution (defined in Continuum in GAMBIT as Fluid): 15 | P a g e .

16 | P a g e .To define the axis. set the Rotation-Axis Direction and Rotation-Axis Origin. This axis is independent of the axis of rotation used by any adjacent wall zones or any other cell zones. 0) and as the fluid motion is in the anticlockwise direction so we have set the direction (0. In our study the origin of the axis is (0. the axis of rotation is the vector from the Rotation-Axis Origin in the direction of the vector given by your RotationAxis Direction inputs. -1) (as the rotation was followed by Right hand thumb rule).  BC for cell_body (defined in Boundary in GAMBIT as Wall): The species mass fraction is to be specified at the inlet which is considered to be the pressure top. 0. As our system is having multiple rotating reference frame so we are using here as sliding mesh concept activating Moving Mesh scheme. For 3D problems. 0.

 BC for propeller_blade (defined in Boundary in GAMBIT as Wall): For one experimental run propeller was fixed. so we have made it stationary in the definition of boundary condition for the propeller blade. 17 | P a g e .

Here we have assumed that the membrane wall is fixed with respect to the rotating reference frame and having the same rotational speed of the bsa_solution (Adjacent Cell Zone). and therefore moving at the speed of the adjacent cell zone in the absolute frame. and therefore moving at the speed of the adjacent cell zone--but in the opposite direction in the relative reference frame. 18 | P a g e .. you can choose to specify velocities relative to the zone motion by enabling the Relative to Adjacent Cell Zone option. if you are using a moving reference frame or a sliding mesh). a velocity of zero means that the wall is stationary in the relative frame. If you choose to specify absolute velocities (by enabling the Absolute option). a velocity of zero means that the wall is stationary in the absolute frame. If you choose to specify relative velocities.g. If the cell zone adjacent to the wall is moving (e. BC for membrane (defined in Boundary in GAMBIT as Wall): For membrane we have used Moving Wall and Rotational motion.

The total pressure and flow direction at a pressure inlet must be specified in the absolute frame if the absolute velocity formulation is used. For problems involving multiple 19 | P a g e . Now the total pressure value is given by the following equation. In case of rotating reference frame static pressure is calculated on the basis of relative velocity if the velocity formulation will be given as Relative in the Solver panel. BC for pressure_top (defined in Boundary in GAMBIT as Wall): Gauge Total Pressure is the static operating pressure with respect to the operating pressure set at Operating Conditions panel. Ptot Pstat + = 1 2 ρv 2 (16) (17) and Ptot = P absolute – Poperating In our case it is (294300 – 101325 = 192975 Pa). the total pressure and flow direction must be specified with respect to the rotating frame. For calculations using relative velocities.

multiple reference frames or sliding meshes).16 ( Re ) −1 8 (19) Turbulent length scale is calculated using the following equation.E.zones (e.. Re = 2 N m Dm ρ µ (18) Turbulent Intensity was calculated using the following equation. ε = 0. I = 0.07 L (20) Turbulent K. is calculated as follows. l = 0. the coordinate system is defined by the rotation axis specified in the Fluid (or Solid) panel for the fluid (or solid) zone that is adjacent to the inlet. k= 3 2 ( N m Dm I ) 2 (21) Turbulent dissipation rate is calculated according to the following equation.g.5 l (22) 20 | P a g e . For the Turbulence we have adopted the rotational Reynolds Number.157 k 1.

If you use both PISO methods.7 Solve  Controls  Solution The Pressure-Implicit with Splitting of Operators (PISO) pressure-velocity coupling scheme with neighbor correction is highly recommended for all transient flow calculations.0 are recommended for all equations.7 for momentum).3 for pressure and 0.0 or near 1. 21 | P a g e .. set the under-relaxation factors for momentum and pressure so that they sum to 1 (e.2. 0.g. above. under-relaxation factors of 1. follow the underrelaxation recommendations for PISO neighbor correction.4. especially when you want to use a large time step. If you use just the PISO skewness correction for highly-distorted meshes (without neighbor correction). When you use PISO neighbor correction.

Automatically it will take the initial values.2.8 Solve  Monitors  Residual 4.4.2. 22 | P a g e .9 Solve  Initialize  Initialize Select pressure_top in the Compute From.

(See Section 10.1 for details. which is well-suited for the steep pressure gradients involved in rotating flows. Solution Strategies for a Single Rotating Reference Frame The difficulties associated with solving flows in rotating reference frames are similar to those discussed in Section 9. A high degree of rotation introduces a large radial pressure gradient which drives the flow in the axial and radial directions. Therefore Number of time steps = (2500/5). and hence require special solution techniques to obtain a converged solution. Some techniques that may be beneficial include the following: • • • • (Pressure-based solver only) Consider switching the frame in which velocities are solved by changing the velocity formulation setting in the Solver panel. perhaps to 0. thereby setting up a distribution of the swirl or rotation in the field.5. 23 | P a g e .5 or lower.2.5. The primary issue you must confront is the high degree of coupling between the momentum equations when the influence of the rotational terms is large.10 Solve  Iterate We have taken the time step size 5 seconds for 2500 s. if necessary. Click on Iterate.7. (Pressure-based solver only) Reduce the under-relaxation factors for the velocities.3-0. This coupling may lead to instabilities in the solution process.4. Ensure that the mesh is sufficiently refined to resolve large gradients in pressure and swirl velocity.) (Pressure-based segregated solver only) Use the PRESTO! scheme (enabled in the Solution Controls panel).

it may be possible that the residual tolerance cannot be reached due to round-off errors... the coordinate system is defined by the rotation axis and origin specified in the Fluid panel. You can monitor the details of the sub-iteration convergence by looking at the AMG solver performance (i. the residual for the 0th AMG cycle of the first sub-iteration). The default Residual Tolerance should be well suited for moderate time steps (i. the diagonal dominance of the system is very high and the convergence should be driven further by reducing the Residual Tolerance value. the residual for the 0-th AMG cycle at the current sub-iteration) and the initial residual of the time step (i. boundary conditions and angular velocity of the reference frame). following Steps 4 and 5. Corrections. Save this initial solution data. You may want to adjust the Residual Tolerance. and set in the Multigrid Controls panel) are met. and tangential components based on the following coordinate systems: • • For problems involving a single cell zone. 2.e.. perhaps doubling it.e. The procedure you use to accomplish this is as follows: • • • • • data. The sub-iterations for an equation stop when the total number of sub-iterations exceeds the value specified for Max. The Cylindrical coordinate system uses the axial. Restart or continue the calculation using the solution data saved in Step 3 as the initial guess for the new calculation. setting the Verbosity field in the Multigrid Controls panel to 1). 4.g. for cell CFL numbers of 1 to 10). Be sure to pay attention to the residuals for the current subiteration (i. Modify your inputs (i. Solve the problem at these conditions.e. 3. Set up the problem using a low rotational speed in your inputs for boundary conditions and for the angular velocity of the reference frame. depending on the time step selected. For larger time steps (cell CFL >> 1). depending on the settings in the Residual Monitor panel. Again. Note that the residuals reported at the end of a time step can be scaled or unscaled.e. your FLUENT calculations may be less stable as the speed of rotation (and hence the magnitude of these forces) increases. The residuals reported when monitoring the AMG solver performance are always unscaled. the coordinate system is defined by the rotation axis specified in the Fluid (or Solid) panel for the fluid (or solid) zone that is adjacent to the inlet. The rotational speed in this first attempt might be selected as 10% of the actual operating condition. Continue to increment the rotational speed. The sub-iterations for an equation end when the ratio of the residuals at the current sub-iteration and the first sub-iteration is less than the value specified in the Correction Tolerance field.e. for the last sub-iteration (i. Under Non-Iterative Solver Controls. For each interim sub-iteration. These two residuals are also the residuals plotted when using the Residual Monitor panel and reported in the FLUENT console at the end of a time step. there are several parameters that control the sub-iterations for the individual equations.e. For very small time steps (cell CFL << 1). Save the new • 6.. until you reach the desired operating condition. increasing the rotational speed gradually in order to reach the final desired operating condition (see below). the AMG cycles continue until the usual AMG termination criteria (0. the AMG cycles continue until the ratio of the residual at the current cycle to the initial residual (the residual for the 0-th AMG cycle of the first sub-iteration of the time step) drops below the value specified for Residual Tolerance. 1.. 5... Gradual Increase of the Rotational Speed to Improve Solution Stability • Because the rotation of the reference frame and the rotation defined via boundary conditions can lead to large complex forces in the flow. AMG cycles can be wasted. The ratio of these two residuals is what is controlled by the Correction Tolerance field.1 by default. either when the maximum number of sub-iterations are reached or when the correction tolerance is satisfied). regardless of whether or not the convergence criteria (described below) are met. this can be monitored by monitoring the AMG solver performance. and unless the Residual Tolerance value is increased. Increase the speed of rotation. Note that you can display the cell CFL numbers for unsteady problems by selecting Cell Courant Number in the Velocity. multiple reference frames or sliding meshes). One of the most effective controls you can exert on the solution is to start with a low rotational speed and then slowly increase the rotation up to the desired level.. 24 | P a g e . radial. For problems involving multiple zones (e. However.• Begin the calculations using a low rotational speed.. category of all postprocessing panels.

when compared to using the iterative time-advancement. smaller time steps may be required. the default control settings are optimally designed to obtain a second-order solution. first-order integration in time and space). The following is a list of models that are compatible with the non-iterative solver: • • • • • • • • Inviscid flow (excluding ideal gas) Laminar flow All models of turbulence (including LES and DES) Heat transfer Non-reacting species transport General compressible flows (most subsonic and some transonic applications) VOF multiphase model (most applications) Phase change (solidification and melting) The following is a list of models that are compatible with the non-iterative solver.7. In order to save CPU time.8.. They should be left at their default values of 1. or when NITA is used to converge toward a steady state solution. As mentioned above. 25 | P a g e .0. If the solution diverges. unless divergence is detected.e. but may result in some instabilities and inaccuracies for certain flow conditions: • • • • • MDM Non-Newtonian fluids General compressible flows (aerospace supersonic applications) Floating operating pressure Reacting species and any type of combustion including PDF The following is a list of models that are not compatible with the non-iterative solver: • • • • • Eulerian multiphase (all non-VOF models) Radiation models DPM. Corrections value to 1 in the Solution Controls panel for all transport equations except pressure. and by reducing the time step. spark. you should first try to stabilize the solution by lowering the relaxation factors for pressure to 0. and crevice models UDS transport Porous jump The PRESTO! pressure interpolation scheme. As a consequence. in cases where transient accuracy is not a main concern (i.The Relaxation Factor field defines the explicit relaxation of variables between sub-iterations. The relaxation factors can be used to prevent the solution from diverging. you may want to set the Max. is less stable when using the non-iterative time-advancement solver.

CURRENT_TIME. } } end_c_loop(c.85*pow(10.h" DEFINE_ADJUST(BSAFlux. if (CURRENT_TIME > CURRENT_TIMESTEP) { begin_c_loop(c.THREAD_T1(t).-6).t).THREAD_T0(t))+C_R(F_C1(f. real flux.THREAD_T1(t))) / 2.t).conc_solids).0).d) { id = THREAD_ID(t). d) { int i.t) { if(id == 8) { rho = ((C_R(F_C0(f. k = 7. rho. } 26 | P a g e .THREAD_T0(t). cell_t c.id.i)).rho.t). face_t f.flux.An user defined function has been incorporated to imply the positive aggregative effect of concentration boundary layer profile inside the rotating disc membrane module setup. Cbulk = 1. flux = k*log(conc_solids/Cbulk).t).i)+C_YI(F_C1(f. #include "udf. conc_solids = rho*(C_YI(F_C0(f.t) } } printf("id = %d:Current Time = %g:density = %g:Flux = %g:conc_solids=%g". real conc_solids. Thread *t. thread_loop_f(t.id.

5. Results The distribution of static pressure over the membrane surface and inside the RDMM The dynamic pressure distribution inside the module is 27 | P a g e .

The pathlines of velocity magnitude inside the RDMM over the membrane surface The contours of radial velocity inside the RDMM is 28 | P a g e .

The contours of tangential velocity inside the RDMM is portrayed as The contours of vorticity magnitude over the membrane surface. 29 | P a g e .

The contours of helicity inside the RDMM is displayed as The distribution of local Reynolds inside the module is 30 | P a g e .

The degree of turbulence is shown by the contours of turbulent kinetic energy (k) (m2/s2) The contours of turbulent dissipation rate (ε) (m2/s3) 31 | P a g e .

32 | P a g e .The contours of turbulent Reynolds number is shown below The contours of turbulent viscosity is illustrated below.

The contours of density distribution inside the RDMM (almost constant) The mass fraction of BSA inside the RDMM 33 | P a g e .

34 | P a g e .The plot of mass fraction of BSA with the cartesian co – ordinate position The effective diffusivity of BSA inside the RDMM is.

since it has very high and almost constant magnitude) The local strain rate (s-1) distribution in the different zones inside the RDMM 35 | P a g e .The wall shear stress across the membrane surface and inside the setup (excluding the propeller blade.

and with respect to position is displayed as ∂x ∂y ∂z 36 | P a g e .The plots of ∂P ∂P ∂P .

For that UDF was introduced with the normal finite element analysis (FEA) to account the deposition on the surface. Results show that almost the prediction of concentration on membrane surface was done with 70-75% accuracy. Acknowledgement I am very much grateful to my guide Dr. Dwaipayan Sen whose precious suggestion and help has been an invaluable asset to this project. which can reduce the normal drawbacks with the membrane separation process. Therefore changing the parameters and solving the domain using FEA to converge to an optimum design could be considered as a future scope of the work.Discussions and Conclusion In the present work an attempt was made to solve Navier-Stoke's equation within a rotating domain. In the present work we have neglected the adsorption part or the pore plugging phenomena that could be occurred. I also would like express thanks and cordial gratitude to Mr. Main advantages with the CFD modelling are that change in the design parameters for the system in order to have an optimum model. Chiranjib Bhattacharjee without whose support the successful completion of this project would only have been a distant dream. Deposition on membrane or in other words fouling could be the most critical part that has to be accounted with the normal CFD application. The most critical part of this study was to incorporate membrane characteristics with the normal hydrodynamics within the volume. I also thank for the computer lab facility of our department in providing me technical support. 37 | P a g e .

Darcovich. 1 (1986) 3 – 51. Jaffrin. Sci. 5. Pellerin. Journal of Membrane Science 320 (2008) 344–355. Desalination 235 (2009) 122–138.. M. C. 2. Nassehi. Chiranjib Bhattacharjee. Sc. Lu Hui Ding. Michelistsch. Valentina S.M. 10. Lin. Abbasi. Comput. Separation and Purification Technology 49 (2006) 281–290. CFD modeling of permeate flux in cross-flow microfiltration membrane. Bhattacharya. 3. Michel Y.References 1. J. Serra. in: The Finite Volume Method. Turbulent transport in membrane modules by CFD simulation in two dimensions. Christophe A. 11. Debasish Sarkar. J. Numerical simulation of the flow in a rotating disk filtration module. V. 38 | P a g e .A.Wakeman. M. 4. Basic theory. E. Sc. Sci. Mark R. Jaffrin. Chemical Engineering Journal 149 (2009) 132–142. 100 (1995) 139. C. Matthieu Frappart. An Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics. Omar Akoum. Ricard Garcia-Valls. Espina. 1995. Carles Torras. J. Membr. Madaeni. Smith. Leslie M. S. P. Treatment of dairy process waters modelled by diluted milk using dynamic nanofiltration with a rotating disk module. Membr. Jaffrinc. Fluid Mech. E. CFD simulation of a rotating disk flat membrane module. Rev. Orszag. K. Annu.Waghode.K. England. Renormalization-group analysis of turbulence. Modeling and analytical simulation of rotating disk ultrafiltration module. Jordi Pallarès. Membr. 13. Michel Y. Development of a predictive mathematical model for coupled stokes/Darcy flows in cross-flow membrane filtration. S. 9. Membr. Tam. J. Jaffrin. Sc.N. K. J. Yakhot. Hanspal. Torrasa. Malalasekera. H. W.J. V. 282 (2006) Pages 465-472. Wiesner A comparison of rotating and stationary membrane disk filters using computational fluid dynamics. Chiranjib Bhattacharjee. Journal of Membrane Science 255 (2005) 23–31. I. Versteeg.Y. 30 (1998) 275-310. R. Rahimi. 7. Ultrafiltration of black liquor using rotating disk membrane module. 325 (2008) Pages 872-879. Longman. 165 (2000) Pages 19-29. Pallaresb*. N. Lu-Hui Ding Separation of casein micelles from whey proteins by high shear microfiltration of skim milk using rotating ceramic membranes and organic membranes in a rotating disk module. 6. 12. Garcia-Vallsa. Desalination 200 (2006) 453–455. 8. A.K. Matthieu Frappart. S. R. J.S. Michel Y. Renormalization group analysis of turbulence.S.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful