!etd - Send File

EFFECT OF IMPELLER TYPE AND NUMBER
AND LIQUID LEVEL ON TURBULENT BLEND TIME
Thesis
Submitted to
The School of Engineering of the
UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
The Degree of
Master of Science in Chemical Engineering
By
Jing Li
Dayton, OH
May 2017
Name: Li, Jing
APPROVED BY:
___________________________ ___________________________
Kevin J. Myers, D.Sc., P.E. Eric E. Janz, P.E.
Advisory Committee Chairman Research Advisor
Research Advisor & Professor Global Research and NPD Director
Chemical & Materials Engineering Mixing Technologies
National Oilwell Varco, L.P.
___________________________ ___________________________
Robert J. Wilkens, Ph.D., P.E. Robert J. Strong
Committee Member Committee Member
Professor Research Engineer
Chemical & Materials Engineering National Oilwell Varco, L.P.
____________________________ ___________________________
Robert J. Wilkens, Ph.D., P.E. Eddy M. Rojas, Ph.D., M.A., P.E.
Associate Dean for Research and Innovation Dean, School of Engineering
Professor
School of Engineering
ii
© Copyright by
Jing Li
All rights reserved
2017
iii
ABSTRACT
Name: Li, Jing

University of Dayton
Advisors: Kevin J. Myers

Eric E. Janz
Impellers are the core element of a mixing system. The size and the number of
impellers affect the performance of a mixing system. There have been literature studies
reporting a correlation among the power number, the blend time and the impeller size of a
single impeller mixing system using one general equation. This current research tested
numerous axial-flow and radial-flow impellers. This study found that the widely accepted
FMP Parameter may not be as accurate as often stated, especially for multiple impeller
system or higher liquid level. The impeller type may affect the value of FMP Parameter.
Also the correlation between dimensionless blend time and impeller size may need to be
developed individually for each impeller type. The FMP correlation indicates that for a
fixed blend time and impeller diameter, the impeller power requirement should be the
same for all impellers, regardless of type. This research found that this FMP correlation
iv
predicts the mixing time reasonably well for most of the impeller types. As for the
sawtooth impeller, it has larger experimental power requirement than the prediction.
Based on the result above, FMP correlation has its limitation when predicting single
impeller blend times.
Further, double and triple impeller systems have been studied. Two methods of
correlating the data are used for this multiple impeller blending study: (i) A modified
FMP correlation among impeller system power number, the liquid level, and the blend
time. (ii) Blend time correlation among impeller type, impeller number and liquid level
separately for each impeller style based on Fasano and Penney approach (1991). The
modified FMP correlation method offers a reasonable way that the blend time of all types
of impeller can be predicted via the same correlation while taking liquid level into
consideration. The second method that predicts the blend time according to impeller type
has a smaller deviation between experimental data and correlation than first method.
Key Words: Blend time; Power consumption; Multiple impeller system; Modified FMP
correlation
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Kevin Myers for his help during these three years. He
encouraged me to go further not only on my thesis but with my academic courses. He
taught me to focus on details and always summarize the material on hand. I learned how
to think about problems and how to analyze problems based on the data I have obtained.
Every effort he makes with me makes me closer to being a chemical engineer. I also
thank NOV Mixing Technologies for letting me complete my thesis with their impellers
and lab equipment in the last two years. The experience and knowledge I have learned in
the laboratory are my treasure.
I would also like to thank University of Dayton Graduate School who offered me the
chance to study in the United States and the opportunity to study chemical engineering.
Thanks to UD’s international student scholarship and service center. Their international
peer orientation leader program helped me with my leadership and make a lot of new
friends.
I also want to thank Dr. Myers’ wife, Shiow-Meei, for her kind assistance in
reviewing this thesis and helping with my writing.
Finally, I want to thank my parents who offered me a chance to study abroad and
give me the chance to open my eyes and to be a chemical engineer.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................................ vi
LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................................viii
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................................... x
NOMENCLATURE....................................................................................................................................... xv
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................1
CHAPTER 2 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND PROCEDURE......................................................................9
2.1 Experimental Equipment and Materials.................................................................................................9
2.2 Experimental Procedure....................................................................................................................... 12
2.2-1 Blend Time Measurement............................................................................................................ 12
2.2-2 Power Number Measurement.......................................................................................................16
CHAPTER 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............................................................................................. 18
3.1 Single-impeller Systems at Z / T =1.................................................................................................... 18
3. 2 Multiple-impeller Systems.................................................................................................................. 30
CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................ 50
BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................................................................................................... 53
APPENDIX A Single Impeller Experimental Blend Time Data....................................................................55
Down-Pumping System and Radial-Flow Systems...............................................................................55
Up-Pumping Systems............................................................................................................................ 66
Changing Liquid Level Systems............................................................................................................67
APPENDIX B Single Impeller Experimental Power Number Data.............................................................. 72
Changing Liquid Level Systems............................................................................................................75
APPENDIX C Two Impeller Experimental Blend Time Data.......................................................................78
APPENDIX D Two Impeller Experimental Power Number Data................................................................. 83
APPENDIX E Three Impeller System Experimental Blend Time Data........................................................ 86
APPENDIX F Three Impeller System Experimental Power Number Data................................................... 91
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Relation between impeller power number and its pumping number………………………...6
Figure 2-1 Radial-flow impellers………....………………………………………………………........10
Figure 2-2 Axial-flow impellers ………...……………………………………………………….…… 11
Figure 2-3 Turbulent blend time measurement………………….……..................................................14
Figure 2-4 Multiple impeller system……………………………………………………….….…....….16
Figure 3-1 Effect of impeller type on FMP parameters of six inch single impellers……………..........19
Figure 3-2 Effect of impeller type on FMP parameters of other size single impellers…………...........21
Figure 3-3 Effect of D/T (impeller diameter to tank diameter) on FMP parameter of the radial-flow
S-4 and down-pumping HE-3 and P-4 impellers…………………………… ...……......….22 ..
Figure 3-4 Relation between dimensionless blend time (Ntb) and (D/T) …………………..……….....23
Figure 3-5 Comparison of all six-inch single-impeller normalized power requirement with fixed
blend time……………………………………………..……………………………....……27
Figure 3-6 Effect of D/T on normalized power requirement of the radial-flow S-4 and
down-pumping HE-3 and P-4 impellers with fixed blend time………………................... .27 ..
Figure 3-7 Comparison of all six-inch single-impeller normalized torque requirements with fixed
blend time……………………………………………………………………………..…....28
Figure 3-8 Effect of D/T on normalized torque requirement of the radial-flow S-4 and
down-pumping HE-3 and P-4 impellers with fixed blend time………………………........ 29 .......
Figure 3-9 Comparison of FMP Parameter of multiple impeller systems at three different
liquid levels...........................................................................................................................33
Figure 3-10 Relationship between FMP Parameter of multiple impeller systems and liquid level…......33
viii
Figure 3-11 Comparison of predicted and experimental dimensionless blend times…………....….......34
Figure 3-12 Comparison of multiple-impeller normalized power requirement with fixed blend time
at Z/T = 1…………………….…………………………………………………...…..….....35
at Z/T = 1.5………………………………………………………………………................35
at Z/T = 2………………………………………………………………………...…..…......35
Figure 3-15 Comparison of multiple-impeller normalized torque requirement with fixed blend time
at Z/T = 1………………………………………………………………………...…........…37
at Z/T = 1.5……………………………………………………….………………...…........37
at Z/T = 2…………………………………………………………………………....….......37
Figure 3-18 HE-3 impeller relation between dimensionless blend time and liquid level with different
impeller numbers…………………………………………………………………..….........40
Figure 3-19 HE-3 blend time correlation liquid level exponent (β) relation to the number of
impellers………………………………………………………………….…….……..........41
Figure 3-20 HE-3 blend time correlation to number of impellers…….…………….……………..........42
Figure 3-21 HE-3 parity plot………………………………………………………………….................42
Figure 3-22 P-4 impeller relation between dimensionless blend time and liquid level with different
impeller numbers…………………………………………………………………...............43
Figure 3-23 P-4 blend time correlation to number of impellers…………………………………........…44
Figure 3-24 P-4 parity plot………………………………………………………………………........…44
Figure 3-25 S-4 impeller relation between dimensionless blend time and liquid level with different
impeller numbers……………………………….…………………………………........…..45
Figure 3-26 S-4 parity plot…………………………………………………………………….…...........46
Figure 3-27 Comparison of Magelli et al. correlation and the data of this study………..........................49
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Fasano and Penney’s a and b values…………………………………………………....4
Table 1-2 Selected axial flow impeller pumping number and power number data…………………….5
Table 3-1 Six-inch single impeller turbulent blending data (Z/T = 1, C/T= 1/3) ………………….....19
Table 3-2 Other size single impeller turbulent blending data (Z/T = 1, C/T= 1/3) …………………..21
Table 3-3 Comparison of current and Fasano and Penney D/T exponent values…………………......24
Table 3-4 Comparison of all single impeller speed, torque, and power requirement data…………....26
Table 3-5 Average blend time and associated parameters for multiple impeller systems
(D/T = 0.34, Ci /T = (i/ (n+1)) (Z/T)) ……...…………………………………...……….....31 .
Table 3-6 Comparison of all multiple impeller modified FMP Parameter, predicted blend time,
and power and torque requirement data………………..………….………….…................32
Table 3-7 Analysis of normalized power and torque requirements for equal blend time at three
different liquid levels..............................….......................................................................... 39

....
Table 3-8 Analysis of Magelli et al. correlation using the data of this study.......………………...….. 48 ....
Table A-1 3.5 inch HE-3 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)...................55
Table A-2 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)......................56
Table A-3 8.75 inch HE-3 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3).................56
Table A-4 3.5 inch P-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)......................57
Table A-5 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3).........................57
Table A-6 8.75 inch P-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)....................58
Table A-7 3.5 inch S-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)......................58
Table A-8 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3).........................59
x
Table A-9 8.75 inch S-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)....................59
Table A-11 6 inch D-6 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3).........................60
Table A-12 5.66 inch D-8 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)....................61
Table A-13 6 inch D-8 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3).........................61
Table A-14 5.7 inch CD-6 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)...................62
Table A-15 6 inch CD-6 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)......................62
Table A-16 5 inch ChemShear impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)............63
Table A-17 6 inch ChemShear impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)............63
Table A-18 5.93 inch Maxflo W impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3).........64
Table A-19 6.02 inch RL-3 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3).................64
Table A-20 6.03 inch SC-3 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)..................65
Table A-21 7.25 inch Sawtooth impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)...........65
Table A-25 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1.5, C / T = 3 / 4)......................67
Table A-26 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 2, C / T = 1)..............................68
Table A-28 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1.5, C / T = 3 / 4)......................69
Table A-29 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 2, C / T = 1)..............................69
Table A-31 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1.5, C / T = 3 / 4)...................70
Table A-32 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 2, C / T = 1)...........................71
Table B-1 HE-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)...........................72
Table B-4 P-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)..............................72
xi
Table B-7 S-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)..............................73
Table B-10 Maxflo W impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)...................73
Table B-11 Sawtooth impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)....................74
Table B-12 D-6 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3).............................74
Table B-13 D-8 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3).............................74
Table B-14 CD-6 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)...........................74
Table B-15 SC-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)...........................74
Table B-16 RL-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)...........................74
Table B-17 ChemShear impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3).................75
Table B-18 ChemShear impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3).................75
Table B-22 S-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1.5, C / T = 3 / 4)...........................76
Table B-23 P-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1.5, C / T = 3 / 4)...........................76
Table B-24 HE-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1.5, C / T = 3 / 4)........................76
Table B-25 S-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 2, C / T = 1)...................................76
Table B-26 P-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 2, C / T = 1)...................................76
Table B-27 HE-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 2, C / T = 1)................................77
Table C-1 Two 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1)....................................78
Table C-2 Two 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1.5).................................79
Table C-3 Two 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 2)....................................79
Table C-4 Two 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1).......................................80
Table C-5 Two 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1.5)....................................80
xii
Table C-6 Two 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 2).......................................81
Table C-7 Two 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1).......................................81
Table C-8 Two 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1.5)....................................82
Table C-9 Two 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 2).......................................82
Table D-1 Two 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1)............................. 83 ..
Table D-2 Two 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1.5)..........................83
Table D-3 Two 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 2.0)..........................83
Table D-4 Two 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1)................................84
Table D-5 Two 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1.5).............................84
Table D-6 Two 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 2)................................84
Table D-7 Two 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1)................................84
Table D-8 Two 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1.5).............................84
Table D-9 Two 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 2)................................85
Table E-1 Three 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1).................................86
Table E-2 Three 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1.5)..............................87
Table E-3 Three 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 2).................................87
Table E-4 Three 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1)....................................88
Table E-5 Three 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1.5 )................................88
Table E-6 Three 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 2)....................................89
Table E-7 Three 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1)....................................89
Table E-8 Three 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1.5).................................90
Table E-9 Three 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 2)....................................90
Table F-1 Three 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1)...........................91
Table F-2 Three 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1.5)........................91
Table F-3 Three 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 2)...........................91
Table F-4 Three 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1)..............................92
Table F-5 Three 6 inch P-4impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1.5)............................92
Table F-6 Three 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 2)..............................92
xiii
Table F-7 Three 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1)..............................92
Table F-8 Three 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1.5)...........................92
Table F-9 Three 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 2)..............................93
xiv
NOMENCLATURE
a,b Impeller-dependent constants reported by Fasano and Penny (Equation 1-7)
C Impeller off-bottom clearance, measured from the lowest point of the impeller to the tank bottom
C1 FMP Parameter constant (Equation 3-4)
D Impeller diameter
i Impeller number in multiple impeller system
k Turbulent mixing rate constant reported by Fasano and Penny
M Agitator torque
n Number of impellers
N Rotation speed
Ntb Dimensionless blend time
Np Impeller power number (dimensionless)
Np1 Single impeller power number (dimensionless)
Nps Impeller power number for the system (dimensionless)
NQ1 Single impeller pumping number (dimensionless)
P Power requirement
tb Blend time
tU Time required to reach a given uniformity
T Tank diameter
U Uniformity (%)
Z Liquid level
α Multiple impeller correlation constant (Equation 3-9)
xv
β Multiple impeller correlation tank to liquid level (Z/T) exponent (Equation 3-9)
ρ Density of blending solution
xvi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Blending is a common mixing operation used in chemical processing. Impellers are
the core element of a mixing system. The size and the number of impellers will affect the
performance of a mixing system. For a tall vessel, multiple impellers are typically used.
The time taken to reach a degree of homogeneity is called blend time (tb). Blend time is a
method used to measure the impeller blending efficiency. Estimation of blend time is
important for agitator design. There are many studies reporting the relationship between
the blend time and the impeller and vessel characteristics for single impeller systems;
however, few works report a thorough study on multiple impeller systems.
The product of blend time and rotational speed (Ntb) is dimensionless. Grenville and
Nienow (2004) reported a general correlation for the dimensionless blend time (Ntb). For
their experiments the impeller to tank diameter ratio (D/T) varied from 1/3 to 1/2 and the
impeller clearance to tank diameter ratio (C/T) was 1/3. The experiments were performed
with near square batch geometry (the liquid level to tank diameter ratio Z/T≈1). The
power number (Np) is a dimensionless number included in the correlation. The resulting
correlation for 95% uniformity was reported as follows with standard deviation of 10% in
1
the right-hand side constant.
FMP Parameter = Np1/3 N t95 (D / T) 2 = 5.20 (1-1)
Where Np = power number for each impeller, N = rotational speed, t95 = blend time,
D = impeller diameter, T = tank diameter
The following equation gives the definition of the power number for an impeller (Wei et
al. 1991).
Np = P / (ρ N3 D5) (1-2)
Where P = power requirement = 2πNM, M = torque requirement,
ρ = density of agitated liquid
When these two equations are combined, it becomes
P N3 tb3 (D / T) 6 / (ρ N3 D5) = constant (1-3)
Since the tank diameter (T) and the density (ρ) may be considered constant, the equation
becomes
N3tb3 P D6 / (N3 D5) = constant (1-4)
Simplifying the equation above yields
tb3 P D = constant (1-5)
When the blend time is fixed, this further simplifies as follows.
P ∝ D-1 (1-6)
This derivation shows that the power requirement is inversely proportional to the
impeller diameter for a blending system with constant tank diameter, constant fluid
density, and fixed blend time; the larger the impeller, the lower the power consumption.
This correlation also shows that for fixed D / T and power input per mass, turbulent blend
time is independent of impeller type.
2
Fasano and Penney (1991) reported the following equation.
k = a N (D / T) b (Z / T) -0.5 (1-7)
Where k = turbulent mixing rate constant, N = rotational speed,
a and b = impeller-dependent constants, Z = liquid level, T = tank diameter
In this study, single impellers such as pitched blade, straight blade, disk turbine, and
marine propeller were tested with the impeller Reynolds number greater than 5,000 with
the impeller to tank diameter ratio (D/T) ranging from 0.15 to 0.55. The time to reach a
given uniformity (tU) is related to the mixing rate constant as follows according to Khang
and Levenspiel (1976) and reported by Fasano and Penney (1991).
tU = - ln (1-U)/ k (1-8)
Where U = uniformity
Combining Equations 1-7 and 1-8
a N (D / T) b (Z / T) - 0.5 tU = - ln (1 - U) (1-9)
Rearranging the equation yields
N tU = - ln (1 - U) (Z / T) 0.5/ (a (D / T) b) (1-10)
With Z / T = 1, Equation 1-10 is simplified as below.
NtU = - ln (1 - U) (D / T) - b / a (1-11)
According to Equation 1-7, single impeller turbulent mixing rate constant is affected by
two impeller - related constants (a and b). Equation 1-11 shows that dimensionless blend
time (NtU) is affected by impeller size (D / T) and type (a and b). Table 1-1 contains the a
and b values reported by Fasano and Penney (1991).
3
Table 1-1 Fasano and Penney’s a and b values
Impeller a b
D-6 1.06 2.17

S-4 1.01 2.30
P-4 0.641 2.19
HE-3 0.272 1.67
The result obtained above disagrees with FMP correlation which indicates that the
dimensionless blend time can be predicted by a single relation regardless of the impeller
type. In order to better understand other factors like the liquid level or impeller location
on the blend time, more work is needed for the blend time correlation.
On industrial scale, tall vessels are often used which require the use of multiple
impellers. The number of impellers used to achieve the blending affects the cost and
efficiency of a project. However, blending with multiple impellers in tall vessels has
seldom been studied. There is not a widely accepted correlation which shows the effect of
impeller type, diameter, number, and the liquid level on turbulent blend time.
Cooke et al. (1988) found
Nt90Np1/3 (Z / D) -2.43 = 3.3 (COV = 12%) (1-12)
Where t90 = time required for all tracer concentrations to reach±10% of the equilibrium
value, Np = power number for the impeller system
Equation 1-12 shows the relation between dimensionless blend time, liquid level,
impeller system power number and size. However, the effect of number of impellers and
liquid level were not studied independently. They apparently only studied single impeller
system at Z / T = 1 and three impellers system at Z / T = 3. Limited experiments may lead
to unreliable blend time prediction. More work may be needed to determine the reliability
of this equation.
4
Magelli et al. (2013) reported a blend time correlation for multiple axial flow
impeller system with the hypothesis that blending is complete after a certain number of
liquid circulations as shown below.
tb ∝ (V / (NQ1 N D3) (1-13)
Where tb = blend time, V = vessel volume, NQ1 = single impeller pumping number,
N = rotational speed, D = impeller diameter
Magelli et al. used pumping number here and assumed that impeller spacing is large
enough that NQ1 of single impellers apply to each impeller of multiple impeller systems.
Power number is more often used than pumping number in blend time correlations. Post
(2013: http://postmixing.com) presented impeller pumping number and power number
information and Table 1-2 shows this data.
Table 1-2 Selected axial flow impeller pumping number and power number data
Type Np1 NQ1
P-4 1.27 0.79
Lightnin A310 0.30 0.56
HE-3 D/T = 0.5 0.20 0.46
HE-3 D/T = 0.4 0.22 0.47
HE-3 D/T = 0.3 0.26 0.49
HE-3 D/T = 0.2 0.30 0.50
Lightnin A320 0.64 0.64
Lightnin A340 0.64 0.64
Lightnin A315 0.75 0.73
Lightnin A345 0.75 0.73
5
Figure 1-1 Relation between impeller power number and its pumping number (Data from Table 1-2）
According to Figure 1-1, NQ1 is related to Np1 in the following manner.
NQ1 = 0.77 Np1 1 / 3 (1-14)
Where Np1 = single impeller power number
Substituting Equation 1-14 into Equation 1-13 yields
tb ∝ (V / (NP1 1/3 N D3) (1-15)
Equation 1-15 can be written as follows after substitution for volume (V = π T2 Z / 4) and
rearrangement.
Ntb ∝ (Z / T) (D / T) -3 NP1 -1 / 3 (1-16)
According to Equation 1-16, the D / T dependence is stronger than FMP correlation and
that reported by Fasano and Penney (1991). As shown in Equation 1-16, the Magelli et al.
approach uses single impeller power number and lacks impeller number dependence,
making this correlation unreasonable.
It is reasonable to modify Magelli et al.(2013)’s Equation 1-13 to add number of
impellers (n) to denominator to get total pumping rate as below.
Ntb ∝ (V / (n Np11 / 3 N D3) (1-17)
6
Ntb ∝ (T2 Z / (n Np11 / 3 N D3) (1-18)
Ntb ∝ (Z / T) (D / T) - 3 Np1 -1 / 3 n -1 (1-19)
Where n = number of impellers of the system, NP1 = power number for single impeller
The correlation obtained by Magelli et al. is difficult to compare to other similar
works, especially for this research, since the correlation obtained in this research
measured power number for the impeller system, Np, not the single impeller power
number Np1. Assuming that the impeller system power number is equal to the number of
impellers multiplied by the single impeller power number.
Np = n Np1 (1-20)
Where Np = power number for multiple impeller system, Np1 = power number for single
impeller
the correlation of Equation 1-19 then can be rewritten as
Ntb ∝ (Z / T) (D / T) -3 NP -1 / 3 n -2 /3 (1-21)
In Equation 1-21 the power number is adjusted to impeller system power number.
Equation 1-21 shows that the dimensionless blend time is dependent on impeller size and
power number, liquid level and number of impellers. It is more reasonable than Equation
1-16 that does not include impeller number dependence. The Magelli et al. approach of
Equation 1-13 is only for axial flow impellers, but Magelli et al. also developed a
radial-flow impeller correlation that will not be considered here.
For a single impeller system, Grenville and Nienow’s FMP parameter approach has
been widely accepted and applied to most impellers. The general idea with FMP
correlation is that impeller type is accounted by impeller power number. Fasano and
Penny (1991) correlation shows that the impeller type does have effect on single impeller
7
blend time. The present study includes experiments, blend time and power number data,
for different types of single impeller systems with the liquid level to tank diameter ratio
equal to one (Z / T =1). The experimental data are presented as (i) Effect of impeller type
on FMP parameter, (ii) Effect of D / T (impeller diameter to tank diameter) on FMP
Parameter of the radial-flow S-4 and down-pumping HE-3 and P-4 impellers, and (iii)
Relation between dimensionless blend time (Ntb) and (D / T). Additionally, all
single-impeller normalized power and torque requirement with fixed blend time are
compared. The comparison helps to show the efficiency of different impeller systems and
may help with system selection. The effect of D / T on normalized power and torque
requirement of the radial-flow S-4 and down-pumping HE-3 and P-4 impellers with fixed
blend time are presented.
Due to the lack of general correlation for estimating the multiple impeller system
blend time, a correlation taking the impeller type, size, number and liquid level into
consideration is needed. Industrially common impellers HE-3, P-4 and S-4 are studied in
this work with liquid levels of Z / T = 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 with multiple impeller systems
(number of impellers, n = 1, 2, 3). FMP Parameter of multiple impeller systems at three
different liquid levels (1 ≤ Z ≤ 2) are compared. Modified FMP Parameter correlation for
multiple impeller systems and different liquid level is found. Multiple-impeller
normalized power and torque requirements with fixed blend time at different liquid level
are compared. HE-3, P-4 and S-4 impeller relations between dimensionless blend time
and liquid level with different impeller numbers are worked out separately.
8
CHAPTER 2
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND PROCEDURE
2.1 Experimental Equipment and Materials
Flat bottom clear acrylic tank with four flat-plate baffles was used as a blending
vessel. Tank diameter, T, was equal to 0.445m (17.5 in) and its height was equal to
0.660m (36 in). The width of the four flat-plate baffles to tank diameter ratio was 3/35.
Calibrated reaction strain gauge torque sensor was used to measure the torque
requirement of each impeller system. A zero velocity magnetic rotational speed sensor
was used to measure and control the shaft speed.
Thirteen types of impellers with various diameters, supplied by NOV Mixing
Technologies (Dayton, OH), were studied to investigate the effect of impeller type and
diameter on turbulent blend time with single impeller system. Later three impeller types
(HE-3, P-4 and S-4) were studied with multiple impeller system. All the impeller types
are shown in Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2.
All the radial-flow impellers studied in this work are shown in Figure 2-1. The S-4
impeller is a commonly used inexpensive impeller with four flat blades. The S-6 is a six
flat
9
blade impeller. The CS-6 (ChemShear-6) is a narrow-blade turbine with tapered blades. The
D-6 impeller (also known as the Rushton turbine) is a flat-blade disc turbine with six straight
blades. It is the traditional impeller for dispersion of immiscible fluids. The D-8 impeller is a
flat-blade disc turbine with eight straight blades. The CD-6 impeller (also known as the
Smith turbine) is a concave-blade disc turbine. Its direction of rotation is important
(clockwise as viewed in Figure 2-1). It is optimal for gas-liquid dispersion. The CS-5
(ChemShear-5) is a narrow-blade turbine with short trapezoid blades at the outer edge of
a disc. Sawtooth is a disc turbine with twenty angled teeth (ten up and ten down). CS-5,
CS-6 and Sawtooth impeller are high-shear impellers used in high speed operations that
do not produce as much flow as other impellers.
Figure 2-1 Radial-flow impellers
10
The axial-flow impellers are generally used for blending, solids suspension, and heat
transfer applications. All of these impellers can be used in up-pumping or down-pumping
mode. Impellers studied in this work are shown in Figure 2-2. The HE-3 is a
narrow-blade, high-efficiency impeller. It is usually used for low-viscosity blending and
solid suspension. P-4 impeller is a pitched-blade turbine with four blades at
forty-five-degree angle. P-4 impeller produces mainly axial-flow but with some radial
flow. It is usually used in miscible fluid blending and solids suspension. HE-3 and P-4
impellers are the most commonly used impellers for blending. The Maxflo W is a
wide-blade, high-efficiency impeller used for solids suspension, liquid-solid-gas and
boiling or near boiling applications and is good at mass transfer. RL-3 is a wide pitched
blade rag shedding impeller usually used as down-pumping system in wastewater
treatment. SC-3 is a narrow curved blade impeller. It is engineered for deep tank
applications.
Figure 2-2 Axial-flow impellers (shown in down-pumping mode when rotated clockwise)
For blend time measurements, phenolphthalein indicator (1% solution from
11
Riedel-deHaen) was used as reaction detector. Aqueous solution of Sodium Hydroxide
(NaOH, 5.0 N) and Hydrochloric Acid (HCl, 5.0 N) (both from GFS Chemicals Inc.)
were used as reaction system. Digital contact tachometer was from Extech instruments,
stop watch was from Sport Line and micrometer for dimension measurements was from
Mitutoyo Corporation.
2.2 Experimental Procedure
2.2-1 Blend Time Measurement
Phenolphthalein (C20H14O4) is a weak organic binary acid which is sensitive to the
solution’s pH that can be used as an acid-base indicator. Phenolphthalein molecules in
acidic aqueous solution (pH < 8.5) are colorless. Phenolphthalein in the base solution
(pH > 9) is in ionic state and can show a color from light pink to red. Tap water was used
in the blending tank. The general experiment is shown in Figure 2-3. When
phenolphthalein is added into the water, it changes water to light pink. As base is added
to the water, the phenolphthalein changes from light pink to dark pink. Before each
experiment, base is added to adjust the clear water to light pink as the starting point. In
order to reduce errors, a small beaker was set up as the baseline, to make sure every time
the experiment started at the same light pink color. Then 10ml of base was added to the
light pink water. After mixing, as shown in Figure 2-3 (a), the water is dark pink and
blend time experiment is ready to start. Acid (twice stoichiometric amount of acid was
used for these experiments) is added quickly and close to the shaft above the top of the
liquid level into the dark pink solution while starting the stop watch. Figure 2-3 (b) is
12
shortly after addition, when some clearing can be seen. The dark pink turns lighter as
shown in Figure 2-3 (c) as time goes on. Finally, the tank water turns to clear as in Figure
2-3 (d) and the stop watch is stopped as the last pink disappears. The time taken from the
addition of the acid to the last light pink disappearing in the tank is recorded as one
experimental turbulent blend time for a particular impeller system. After one experiment,
base is added to adjust the clear water to light pink baseline for next test. Since the blend
time is found by visual determination, all the experiments were repeated ten times. Blend
time data used in this report is the average of the ten individual measurements. The speed
used in the experiment was adjusted to provide blend time around 20 to 25 seconds for
each impeller system to reduce the error caused by the experiment method.
13
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 2-3 Turbulent blend time measurement
(a) Base was added to make the water dark pink and the test is ready to start.
(b) Twice stoichiometric amount of acid was added to start the blend time experiment.
(c) Dark pink turns lighter as blending occurs.
(d) Record blend time as all water turns clear (last pink disappears).
For single impeller system, the turbulent blend time measuring experiment is started
14
by fixing a chosen type and size impeller (six inch S-4 impeller is shown in Figure 2-3)
on the shaft and installing the shaft on the tank centerline. The liquid level was 0.44m (Z
/ T =1) with 20 ml phenolphthalein solution. The impeller clearance from the tank bottom
was 0.15 m (C / T = 0.33). Ten ml of the base solution was added into the water after
achieving the light pink baseline color and starting impeller rotation. The experiment was
performed after waiting for about two minutes to make sure the solution is well mixed.
The stop watch was started to record the blend time as 20ml of the acid was added into
the system. The blend time is recorded as one experimental data point. Ten individual
experiments were repeated to reduce the error.
The multiple S-4 impeller system is shown in Figure 2-4. For multiple impellers, the
experiment was started by fixing some chosen number of impellers on the shaft (three six
inch S-4 impellers shown in Figure 2-4). The shaft was installed on the tank centerline
and all impellers are spaced uniformly in the axial direction. The lowest impeller
clearance from the tank bottom was changed according to different liquid level (Ci / T = i
/ (n + 1); n = number of impellers; for n = 3, C1 / T = 0.25, C2 / T = 0.50, C3 / T = 0.75 as
in Figure 2-4). The blend time measurement of the multiple impeller system was similar
to single impeller system, with speed adjusted to keep the blend time between 20 and 25
seconds. Use the same amount of acid and base as single impeller system. Again, the
turbulent blend time is an average of ten individual measurements.
15
Figure 2-4 Multiple impeller system
2.2-2 Power Number Measurement
The impeller system was assembled and connected with calibrated reaction strain
gauge torque sensor and zero velocity magnetic rotational speed sensor with the same
tank used for blend time measurement experiment. The impeller locations and spacing are
the same as blending experiment. The rotational speed is adjusted to provide torques from
10 to 20 in·lbf to reduce measurement errors while avoiding air entrainment. The torque
(M) and the rotation speed (N) were read from the calibrated stain gauge torque sensor.
Record the speed and torque shown on the sensor after the numbers become “steady”
around a value. Then increase the speed to change the reading of the speed and torque.
Repeat the procedures to obtain more data points (usually five). The power requirement is
calculated from the measured torque using Equation 2-1 shown below. Power number is
16
calculated after knowing the power requirement for each experiment with Equation 2-2
shown below. Power number data used in this report are the average of five individual
measurements.
P = 2πNM (2-1)
Np = P / (ρ N3 D5) (2-2)
17
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Single-impeller Systems at Z / T =1
The single-impeller blend time data for impellers with diameters very close to six
inches (D / T ≈ 1/3) with the impeller off-bottom clearance equal to one-third of the tank
diameter (C / T = 1/3) is compiled in Table 3-1. Recall the power number of each
impeller is the average of five individual power number measurements at different speeds.
All blend time data for a given impeller were taken at a fixed rotational speed and the
tabulated blend time for each impeller is the average of ten individual blend time
measurements. The speed used for each impeller was selected to provide a blend time
between 20 and 25 seconds. The variation in blend time for each impeller is characterized
by the coefficient of variation, COV. To make a comparison of different types of
impellers, the dimensionless blend times (Ntb) and FMP Parameters (FMP Parameter =
Np1/3 N tb (D / T) 2) are included in Table 3-1. The single-impeller FMP Parameters are
also plotted in Figure 3-1.
18
Table 3-1 Six-inch single impeller turbulent blending data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)
D/T Np N N Ave tb COV tb N tb FMP

Impeller
(-) (-) (rpm) (rps) (s) (-) (-) Parameter
HE-3 0.343 0.235 110 1.83 23.89 5.79% 43.80 3.19

HE-3(UP) 0.343 0.264 130 2.17 23.96 3.48% 51.92 3.93
RL-3 0.344 0.349 110 1.83 21.55 4.80% 39.51 3.29
SC-3 0.344 0.508 110 1.83 23.04 3.85% 42.23 3.99
Maxflo W 0.339 0.877 110 1.83 21.33 4.72% 39.10 4.30
P-4 0.346 1.14 95 1.58 22.99 10.7% 36.39 4.54
P-4(UP) 0.346 1.19 80 1.33 23.47 1.47% 31.29 3.97
ChemShear 6 0.340 0.775 120 2.00 23.85 2.69% 47.70 5.06
S-4 0.343 3.07 75 1.25 22.77 8.43% 28.46 4.86
S-6 0.342 2.47 75 1.25 22.91 7.54% 28.64 4.53
CD-6 0.341 2.52 67 1.12 24.38 4.33% 27.22 4.31
D-6 0.345 5.20 52 0.87 17.78 1.95% 15.41 3.18
D-8 0.345 5.77 50 0.83 17.13 5.70% 14.28 3.05
Figure 3-1 Effect of impeller type on FMP parameters of six inch single impellers
The average FMP parameter of all the impellers with diameter close to six inches
(D / T ≈ 1 / 3) is 4.02 and the COV is 17%. In their review, Grenville and Nienow (2004)
reported an FMP Parameter of 5.20 and a COV of 10% (FMP Parameter Ratio = 4.02 /
19
5.20 = 0.77, COV Ratio = 17% / 10% = 1.7). Comparing the FMP Parameters of this
study indicates that the difference in FMP Parameter can be as large as a factor of 1.66
(from D-8: 3.05 to ChemShear 6: 5.06). The average FMP Parameter of radial flow
impellers is 9% higher than that of axial flow impellers (radial flow: 4.18 and axial flow:
3.82). The up-pumping and down-pumping FMP Parameters of HE-3 and P-4 are also
different. For HE-3, the up-pumping FMP Parameter is almost 25% higher than
down-pumping. The P-4 up-pumping FMP Parameter is around 13% less than
down-pumping. The current research found a lower FMP Parameter value but higher
COV than Grenville and Nienow. This difference may be caused by more types of
impellers being studied in this research. Differences in measurement method may also be
partly responsible.
The single-impeller blend time data for impellers of various diameters other than six
inches is compiled in Table 3-2. As before, the rotational speed was adjusted to provide
blend times between 20 and 25 seconds and the reported blend times are averages of ten
individual measurements. The effect of impeller type on FMP Parameters (FMP
Parameter = Np1 / 3 N tb (D / T) 2) of diameters other than six inches is plotted in Figure
3-2.
20
Table 3-2 Other size single impeller turbulent blending data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)
D/T Np N N Ave tb COV tb N tb FMP

Impeller
(-) (-) (rpm) (rps) (s) (-) (-) Parameter
HE-3: 3.5 0.201 0.330 385 6.42 21.77 10.9% 139.8 3.91
HE-3: 8.75 0.503 0.255 80 1.33 24.87 10.8% 33.16 5.32
P-4: 3.5 0.201 1.35 325 5.42 22.08 11.0% 119.6 5.35
P-4: 8.75 0.502 1.38 50 0.83 21.48 11.7% 17.90 5.02
S-4: 3.5 0.199 2.77 298 4.97 21.89 4.72% 108.7 6.07
S-4: 8.75 0.501 3.29 30 0.50 21.52 5.88% 10.76 4.01
ChemShear 5 0.286 0.200 300 5.00 24.28 3.17% 121.4 5.80
CD-6 0.326 2.87 95 1.58 23.20 5.96% 36.73 5.55
D-8 0.323 6.19 60 1.00 23.52 7.93% 23.52 4.51
Sawtooth 0.414 0.703 170 2.83 20.14 5.34% 57.06 8.71
Figure 3-2 Effect of impeller type on FMP parameters of other size single impellers
According to Figure 3-2, the average FMP Parameter of the impellers of other sizes
is 5.42 and the COV is 25%. Figure 3-2 shows obviously that sawtooth impeller has a
much higher FMP Parameter value. When the sawtooth FMP value is eliminated, the
average FMP Parameter of the remaining impellers is reduced to 5.06 with a COV of
15%. The variation is now similar to Table 3-1, but FMP Parameter is 25% higher. The
average FMP Parameter of radial flow impellers is 32% higher than that of axial flow
21
impellers (radial flow: 5.19 and axial flow: 3.92). Considering the sawtooth impeller is
designed for dispersion operations, it may not have sufficient bulk flow to blend
effectively. According to the behavior of sawtooth, the impeller type can affect the FMP
Parameter value, contrary to common belief.
To further investigate the FMP Parameter relation, the effect of D / T (impeller
diameter to tank diameter ratio) on FMP Parameter of the radial-flow S-4 and
down-pumping HE-3 and P-4 impellers is shown in Figure 3-3.
Figure 3-3 Effect of D / T (impeller diameter to tank diameter) on FMP Parameter of the radial-flow S-4
and down-pumping HE-3 and P-4 impellers
Figure 3-3 shows that for down-pumping axial flow P-4 and HE-3 impellers, six inch
impellers have the smallest FMP Parameters. For radial flow S-4 impellers, the
FMP Parameter decreases as the impeller diameter increases. Figure 3-3 shows that
impeller size relative to the tank diameter does affect the FMP Parameter.
Compiling the results of these experiments, current experimental results do not quite
agree with widely accepted FMP Parameter correlation reported by Grenville (1992). The
22
FMP correlation which said all impellers exhibit same D / T dependence (Ntb ∝ (D / T)-2),
cannot predict all current impeller type blending. The impeller type may also affect the
value of FMP Parameter. The correlation between dimensionless blend time and size may
need to be developed individually for each impeller type.
Figure 3-4 shows the relation between dimensionless blend time (Ntb) and impeller
diameter to tank diameter ratio (D / T).
Figure 3-4 Relation between dimensionless blend time (Ntb) and (D / T)
The correlating equations between dimensionless blend time (Ntb) and D / T in
Figure 3-4 are shown below.
S-4: Ntb = 1.91(D / T)-2.51 (R² = 1.00) (3-1)
P-4: Ntb = 4.14(D / T)-2.09 (R² = 1.00) (3-2)
HE-3: Ntb = 9.70 (D / T)-1.61 (R² = 0.94) (3-3)
According to Table 3-3, the D / T exponent for each impeller found in this study is
almost equal to Fasano and Penney reported value. Recall Fasano and Penney’s (1991)
parameter b is impeller type dependent constant (k = a N (D / T) b (Z / T) - 0.5, with
tb ∝ k-1).
23
Table 3-3 Comparison of current and Fasano and Penney D / T exponent values
Current Fasano and
Type
Exponent Penney Exponent
S-4 2.51 2.30
P-4 2.09 2.19
HE-3 1.61 1.67
So based on the data presented above, the Fasano and Penney method, which
separated the dimensionless blend time prediction equation according to the impeller type,
is more consistent with the current study than the FMP method that uses a general
impeller independent equation.
Implications of the FMP blend time correlation will now be considered as Equation
1-6. (P ∝ D-1) Thus, the power required is independent of impeller type for a given
blend time (with fixed density of the solution ρ, tank diameter T, and impeller diameter
D). For fixed density and blend time, the power requirement only depends on impeller
size and scale.
Table 3-4 shows the comparison of all single impeller blending power requirements
with fixed blend time. Rotation speed is obtained from each impeller’s measured
dimensionless blend time (Ntb) and then normalized by six inch single HE-3 impeller
rotation speed. Power is determined using each impeller’s measured power number
(P = ρ Np N3 D5) and then normalized by six inch single HE-3 impeller power
requirement. Torque is determined using each impeller’s power requirement (M = P / 2 π
N) and then normalized by six inch single HE-3 impeller torque requirement. Figure 3-5
24
shows the comparison of all six-inch single-impeller normalized power requirements with
fixed blend time. Figure 3-6 shows the effect of impeller diameter to tank diameter ratio
(D / T) on normalized power requirement of the radial-flow S-4 and down-pumping HE-3
and P-4 impellers with fixed blend time. Note that all impeller speed, torque, and power
requirements are normalized by six inch HE-3 impeller.
25
Table 3-4 Comparison of all single impeller speed, torque, and power requirement data
Impeller Np D/T N tb FMP Normalized Normalized Normalized
(-) (-) (-) Parameter N* (-) P** (-) M*** (-)
S-4: 3.5 2.77 0.199 108.7 6.07 2.48 11.9 4.80
S-4: 6 3.07 0.343 28.46 4.86 0.65 3.55 5.47
S-4: 8.75 3.29 0.501 10.76 4.01 0.25 1.36 5.55
P-4: 3.5 1.35 0.201 119.6 5.35 2.73 8.05 2.95
P-4: 6 1.14 0.346 36.39 4.54 0.83 2.88 3.46
P-4: 8.75 1.38 0.502 17.9 5.02 0.41 2.67 6.53
HE-3: 3.5 0.330 0.201 139.8 3.91 3.19 3.15 0.99
HE-3: 6 0.235 0.343 43.80 3.19 1 1 1
HE-3: 8.75 0.255 0.503 33.16 5.32 0.76 3.17 4.19
S-6 2.47 0.342 28.64 4.53 0.65 2.88 4.40
D-6: 6 5.20 0.345 15.41 3.18 0.35 0.99 2.81
D-8 6.19 0.323 23.52 4.51 0.54 3.00 5.59
D-8: 6 5.77 0.345 14.28 3.05 0.33 0.87 2.68
CD-6 2.87 0.326 36.73 5.55 0.84 5.55 6.62
CD-6: 6 2.52 0.341 27.22 4.31 0.62 2.49 4.01
ChemShear: 5 0.200 0.286 121.4 5.80 2.77 7.22 2.61
ChemShear: 6 0.775 0.340 47.70 5.06 1.09 4.05 3.72
Maxflo W 0.877 0.339 39.10 4.30 0.89 2.48 2.78
RL-3 0.349 0.344 39.51 3.29 0.90 1.10 1.22
SC-3 0.508 0.344 42.23 3.99 0.96 1.95 2.03
Sawtooth 0.703 0.414 57.06 8.71 1.30 16.9 13.0
HE-3(UP) 0.264 0.343 51.92 3.93 1.19 1.87 1.58
P-4(UP) 1.19 0.346 31.29 3.97 0.71 1.91 2.68
*Normalized N = (Ntb) / (Ntb) (HE-3: 6)
**Normalized P = P / P (HE-3: 6)
***Normalized M = M / M (HE-3: 6)
26
Figure 3-5 Comparison of all six-inch single-impeller normalized power requirements with fixed blend
time
Figure 3-6 Effect of D / T on normalized power requirement of the radial-flow S-4 and down-pumping
HE-3 and P-4 impellers with fixed blend time
Figure 3-5 shows that for six-inch diameter single impellers at fixed blend time, the
power requirement varies with impeller type. The normalized power requirement
variation is from 0.87 to 4.05 with a COV of 47%. According to the FMP blend time
correlation, the power requirement at fixed blend time and impeller diameter should be
independent of impeller type. The result of this study found that the power requirement is
affected by the impeller type.

27
As seen in Equation 3-7, Grenville and Nienow (2004) reported that the power
required by each impeller should be inversely proportional to impeller size (P ∝ D-1).
Figure 3-6 shows a general trend that for S-4 and P-4 impellers, the larger the impeller,
the less power it will consume. This result shows the effect of impeller diameter to tank
diameter ratio (D / T) on power required is similar to the FMP correlation. For HE-3 the
six-inch impeller has the lowest power requirement, inconsistent with the FMP
correlation.
Comparison of all six-inch single-impeller normalized torque (M = P / 2πN)
requirements with fixed blend time is compiled in Figure 3-7. Effect of D / T on
normalized torque requirement of the radial-flow S-4 and down-pumping HE-3 and P-4
impellers with fixed blend time is compiled in Figure 3-8. Note that torque requirement is
normalized by HE-3 six-inch single impeller.
Figure 3-7 Comparison of all six-inch single-impeller normalized torque requirements with fixed blend
time
28
Figure 3-8 Effect of D / T on normalized torque requirement of the radial-flow S-4 and down-pumping
HE-3 and P-4 impellers with fixed blend time
Figure 3-7 shows that for all six-inch diameter single impellers at fixed blend time
the torque requirement varies with impeller type. The torque requirement variation is
from 1 to 5.47 with the COV of 45%. Comparing the power and the torque results, they
have similar variation range with a similar COV.
Figure 3-8 shows a general trend that for S-4, P-4 and HE-3, the larger the impeller,
the more torque it will require. Compared with P-4 and HE-3 impeller, the S-4 impeller
torque required is generally higher and fairly constant. For P-4 and HE-3 two smaller
impellers, the torque is relatively constant, increasing significantly for the largest
impeller.
To summarize, current experimental results show that the FMP Parameter has a
larger variation than previously reported. The impeller power was not the same for all
impellers at fixed blend time and impeller diameter, and D / T dependence is not the same
for all impellers. The impeller type and size do affect the FMP Parameter. The current
impeller type dependent b (impeller to tank diameter ratio exponent) is close to
previously reported values of Fasano and Penney (1991)
29
3.2 Multiple-impeller Systems
All blending data for six inch radial flow S-4 and down-pumping axial flow P-4 and
HE-3 impellers with one, two, and three impellers is compiled in Table 3-5. All the
impellers are spaced uniformly in the system (Ci = i Z / (n+1), where n is the number of
impellers). The power number of each impeller is the average of five individual power
number measurements at different speeds. All blend time data for a given impeller were
taken at a fixed rotational speed and the tabulated blend time for each impeller is the
average of ten individual blend time measurements. The speed used for each impeller
system was selected to provide a blend time between 20 and 25 seconds. The variation in
blend time for each impeller is characterized by the coefficient of variation, COV
(COV = Standard Deviation / Mean).
30
Table 3-5 Average blend time and associated parameters for multiple impeller systems (D / T = 0.34,
Ci / T = (i / (n+1)) (Z / T))
FMP
n Z/T Np N N Avg. tb COV tb Ntb
Type Parameter
(-) (-) (-) (rpm) (rps) (s) (%) (-)
(-)
1 3.26 68 1.13 20.55 1.6% 23.29 2.56
1 1.5 3.47 85 1.42 22.75 2.9% 32.23 3.62
2 3.52 135 2.25 20.57 1.6% 46.28 5.22
1 4.92 40 0.67 23.10 5.7% 15.40 1.94
S-4 2 1.5 4.69 63 1.05 23.32 3.8% 24.48 3.04
2 6.28 152 2.53 20.66 3.2% 52.33 7.17
1 6.93 35 0.58 21.39 0.7% 12.48 1.77
3 1.5 6.75 50 0.83 22.02 2.3% 18.35 2.57
2 6.91 114 1.90 21.31 2.4% 40.49 5.72
1 1.09 90 1.50 23.58 2.2% 35.37 2.70
1 1.5 1.17 113 1.88 21.16 3.3% 39.86 3.12
2 1.14 215 3.58 21.60 1.0% 77.41 6.00
1 2.19 65 1.08 22.63 4.3% 24.52 2.36
P-4 2 1.5 2.15 90 1.50 21.67 4.2% 32.51 3.12
2 2.17 133 2.22 22.53 2.1% 49.95 4.80
1 2.85 48 0.80 21.92 3.2% 17.53 1.84
3 1.5 2.81 81 1.35 22.16 1.1% 29.92 3.13
2 3.12 100 1.67 22.02 2.0% 36.70 3.98
1 0.24 112 1.87 22.66 2.1% 42.14 1.94
1 1.5 0.27 230 3.83 23.61 0.8% 90.49 4.34
2 0.27 431 7.18 21.51 1.7% 154.53 7.41
1 0.41 85 1.42 23.92 2.7% 33.89 1.87
HE-3 2 1.5 0.45 154 2.57 22.60 4.6% 58.02 3.29
2 0.46 260 4.33 22.08 3.2% 95.45 5.48
1 0.55 80 1.33 21.63 3.9% 28.84 1.75
3 1.5 0.60 130 2.17 23.32 0.6% 50.52 3.16
2 0.65 191 3.18 21.44 1.3% 68.25 4.39
31
Table 3-6 Comparison of all multiple impeller modified FMP Parameter, predicted blend time, and power
and torque requirement data
Modified
Experimental Predicted Normalized Normalized
n Z/T Np FMP
Type
(-) (-) (-) Parameter
Ntb Ntb* P** M***
(-) (-) (-) (-)
(-)
1 3.26 4.06 23.29 18.42 2.27 4.11
1 1.5 3.47 3.25 32.23 31.73 6.42 8.39
2 3.52 3.14 46.28 47.12 19.27 17.54
1 4.92 3.08 15.40 16.09 0.99 2.70
S-4 2 1.5 4.69 2.73 24.48 28.74 3.78 6.51
2 6.28 4.30 52.33 38.91 49.52 39.88
1 6.93 2.80 12.48 14.36 0.74 2.50
3 1.5 6.75 2.31 18.35 25.47 2.29 5.26
2 6.91 3.44 40.49 37.72 25.18 26.21
1 1.09 4.28 35.37 26.11 2.78 3.31
1 1.5 1.17 2.80 39.86 44.83 4.26 4.51
2 1.14 3.60 77.41 67.49 30.44 16.57
1 2.19 3.74 24.52 20.81 1.83 3.15
P-4 2 1.5 2.15 2.80 32.51 36.76 4.21 5.45
2 2.17 2.88 49.95 54.73 15.37 12.96
1 2.85 2.92 17.53 19.01 0.88 2.11
3 1.5 2.81 2.81 29.92 33.59 4.30 6.05
2 3.12 2.39 36.70 48.41 8.80 10.11
1 0.24 3.08 42.14 43.81 1 1
1 1.5 0.27 3.90 90.49 74.07 11.14 5.19
2 0.27 4.45 154.5 110.5 55.44 15.12
1 0.41 2.96 33.89 36.44 0.90 1.12
HE-3 2 1.5 0.45 2.95 58.02 62.29 4.92 3.57
2 0.46 3.29 95.45 91.73 22.79 10.06
1 0.55 2.78 28.84 33.01 0.75 1.09
3 1.5 0.60 2.84 50.52 56.38 4.38 3.65
2 0.65 2.63 68.25 81.93 11.70 7.22
*Predicted Ntb: Using the modified FMP Parameter correlation to predict dimensionless blend time (Ntb):
Ntb = 3.21 Np -1 / 3 (D / T) -2 (Z / T) 1.4
**Normalized P = P / P (HE-3: n =1 at Z / T = 1)
***Normalized M = M / M (HE-3: n =1 at Z / T = 1)
Figure 3-9 shows the comparison of FMP Parameter data at three different liquid
levels, with this figure and Figure 3-10 indicating that the FMP Parameter,
32
Np1 / 3 Ntb (D / T) 2, is proportional to (Z / T) 1.4.
Figure 3-9 Comparison of FMP Parameter of multiple impeller systems at three different liquid levels
Figure 3-10 Relationship between FMP Parameter of multiple impeller systems and liquid level
The FMP Parameter correlation is modified to the following for multiple impeller
systems (n = 1, 2, or 3) in taller vessels (1 ≤ Z / T ≤ 2).
Np1 / 3 Ntb (D / T) 2 (Z / T) -1.4 = 3.21 (COV = 18%) (3-4)
33
Table 3-6 contains the modified FMP Parameter for each system studied. The
comparison of predicted dimensionless blend time obtained from modified FMP
correlation and experimental data is shown in Table 3-6 and Figure 3-11. The average and
maximum differences between the predicted and experimental blend times are 14.4% and
38.8%, respectively.
Figure 3-11 Comparison of predicted and experimental dimensionless blend times
The impeller blending power requirements for multiple impeller systems is shown in
Table 3-6. All power requirements were normalized by the one HE-3 impeller system at
Z / T = 1 power requirement. Comparison of multiple impeller system power
requirements at three different liquid levels with fixed blend time and impeller diameter
are shown in Figures 3-12, 3-13, and 3-14.
34
at Z / T = 1
at Z / T = 1.5
at Z / T = 2
35
Figure 3-12, Figure 3-13, and Figure 3-14 show that the power requirement varies
significantly with impeller number, type and liquid level. At each liquid level multiple
impeller systems usually have lower power requirements than single impeller systems.
There is a trend that the more impellers in a system, the less power the impeller system
required, except for S-4 impeller in the tallest vessel (at Z / T = 2). For S-4 impeller at Z /
T = 2, single impeller system has lowest power requirement, while the two impeller
system requires the most power. At tallest liquid level (Z / T = 2), down-pumping
axial-flow three P-4 impeller system has the lowest power requirement. The higher the
liquid level is, the more power is required to maintain constant blend time. The result of
this study found that the power requirement for multiple impeller systems is affected by
the impeller type and number of impellers and liquid level.
Comparison of all multiple-impeller normalized torque (M = P / 2πN) requirements
at three different liquid levels with fixed blend time are compiled in Figure 3-15, 3-16,
and 3-17.
36
at Z / T = 1
at Z / T = 1.5
at Z / T = 2
37
Figures 3-15 through 3-17 show at fixed blend time the torque requirement varies
with impeller type, impeller number and liquid level. For many of the systems, the torque
decreases with increase of number of impellers. However, for down-pumping HE-3 at Z /
T = 1, the torque requirement is relatively constant. At Z / T = 1.5, the torque requirement
increases with increasing number of down-pumping axial-flow P-4. In the tallest vessel
(Z / T = 2), single impeller required least torque for radial-flow S-4. For a given type and
number of impellers, the taller the liquid level, the more torque the system required.
Among all the impeller systems, multiple down-pumping axial-flow HE-3 always has the
lowest torque requirement.
Table 3-7 rearranges the Table 3.6 normalized power and torque requirements at
equal blend time. The table includes the average normalized power and torque, the
standard deviation, and the coefficient of variation of each impeller at three different
liquid levels. The modified FMP correlation (Equation 3-4) indicates constant power at
any Z / T. However, Table 3-7 does not show this, not even for a given impeller type. The
average normalized power requirement COV is 47%, while the average normalized
torque requirement COV is 24% for a given impeller type and liquid level. This indicates
that torque is significantly less variable than power.
38
Table 3-7 Analysis of normalized power and torque requirements for equal blend time at three different
liquid levels
Z/T Normalized P Normalized M
Type n Analysis of data Analysis of data
(-) (-) (-)
1 2.27 Ave. = 1.33 4.11 Ave. = 3.10
S-4 2 0.99 St. Dev. = 0.82 2.70 St. Dev. = 0.88
3 0.74 COV = 62% 2.50 COV = 28%
1 2.78 Ave. = 1.83 3.31 Ave. = 2.86
P-4 1 2 1.83 St. Dev. = 0.95 3.15 St. Dev. = 0.65
3 0.88 COV = 52% 2.11 COV = 23%
1 1.00 Ave. = 0.88 1.00 Ave. = 1.07
HE-3 2 0.90 St. Dev. = 0.13 1.12 St. Dev. = 0.062
3 0.75 COV = 14% 1.09 COV = 5.8%
1 6.42 Ave. = 4.16 8.39 Ave. = 6.72
S-4 2 3.78 St. Dev. = 2.09 6.51 St. Dev. = 1.58
3 2.29 COV = 50% 5.26 COV = 23%
1 4.26 Ave. = 4.26 4.51 Ave. = 5.34
P-4 1.5 2 4.21 St. Dev. = 0.045 5.45 St. Dev. = 0.78
3 4.30 COV = 1.1% 6.05 COV = 15%
1 11.14 Ave. = 6.81 5.19 Ave. = 4.14
HE-3 2 4.92 St. Dev. = 3.76 3.57 St. Dev. = 0.91
3 4.38 COV = 55% 3.65 COV = 22%
1 19.27 Ave. = 31.3 17.54 Ave. = 27.9
S-4 2 49.52 St. Dev. = 16.0 39.88 St. Dev. = 11.3
3 25.18 COV = 51% 26.21 COV = 40%
1 30.44 Ave. = 18.2 16.57 Ave. = 13.2
P-4 2 2 15.37 St. Dev. = 11.1 12.96 St. Dev. = 3.24
3 8.80 COV = 61% 10.11 COV = 25%
1 55.44 Ave. = 30.0 15.12 Ave. = 10.8
HE-3 2 22.79 St. Dev. = 22.8 10.06 St. Dev. = 4.00
3 11.70 COV = 76% 7.22 COV = 37%
The blend time data can also be studied separately by impeller type. The
dimensionless blend time data shown in Table 3-5 is still applicable. The blend time is
assumed to be a combined power law function of number of impellers (n) and liquid level
(Z / T).
Ntb = α nb (Z / T) β (3-5)
The HE-3 blend time correlation is obtained from Figures 3-18, 3-19, 3-20 and 3-21.
39
Figure 3-18 HE-3 impeller relation between dimensionless blend time and liquid level with different
impeller numbers
Figure 3-18 indicates the relation between dimensionless blend time and liquid level
changes with number of impellers for the HE-3.
For one HE-3 impeller system
Ntb = 42(Z / T) 1.9 (R² = 1.00) (3-6)
For two HE-3 impeller system
Ntb = 33(Z / T) 1.5 (R² = 0.99) (3-7)
For three HE-3 impeller system
Ntb = 29(Z / T) 1.3 (R² = 0.99) (3-8)
The relation between liquid level exponent (β) and the number of impellers is shown in
Figure 3-19.
40
Figure 3-19 HE-3 blend time correlation liquid level exponent (β) relation to the number of impellers
β = 1.9n-0.37 (R² = 1.00) (3-9)
Combining Equations 3-5 and 3-9, the correlation between number of impellers and
the blending data is show in Figure 3-20, leading to the following equation.
Ntb / (Z / T) β= 42n-0.33 (R2 = 1.00) (3-10)
The final equation to predict the dimensionless blend time for HE-3 is then obtained
by combining Equations 3-5, 3-9, and 3-10.
Ntb = 42n-0.33 (Z / T) β β = 1.9n-0.37 (3-11)
41
Figure 3-20 HE-3 blend time correlation to number of impellers
Figure 3-21 HE-3 parity plot
According to the parity plot of Figure 3-21, the average absolute error is only 2%,
with a maximum error of 4.4%. The comparison shows that this relation can very
accurately predict the blend time of HE-3 impeller systems from the impeller number and
liquid level.
The P-4 blend time correlation is obtained from Figures 3-22, 3-23, and 3-24.
42
Figure 3-22 P-4 impeller relation between dimensionless blend time and liquid level with different
impeller numbers
Figure 3-22 and the following equations indicate the relation between dimensionless
blend time and liquid level changes little with number of impellers.
For one P-4 impeller system
Ntb = 32(Z / T) 1.08 (R² = 0.79) (3-12)
For two P-4 impeller system

1.00
Ntb = 24(Z / T) (R² = 0.95) (3-13)
For three P-4 impeller system

1.08
Ntb = 18(Z / T) (R² = 0.98) (3-14)
According to the equations shown above, the liquid level to tank diameter ratio
(Z / T) exponent can be treated as constant at 1.06. Substituting (Z / T) 1.06 into the general
equation, and plotting the dimensionless blend time correlation with impeller number in
Figure 3-23 yields
Ntb / (Z / T) 1.06 = 33 n-0.53 (R2 = 1.00) (3-15)
Rearranging this equation leads to the final equation to predict the dimensionless blend
43
time for the P-4.
Ntb = 33 n-0.53 (Z / T) 1.06 (3-16)
Figure 3-23 P-4 blend time correlation to number of impellers
Figure 3-24 P-4 parity plot
According to the parity plot of Figure 3-24, the average absolute error is 8%, with a
maximum error of 23.9%. This equation does not work as well as that for the HE-3 but
44
still works reasonably well for predicting the blend time.
The S-4 blend time correlation is obtained from Figures 3-25 and 3-26.
Figure 3-25 S-4 impeller relation between dimensionless blend time and liquid level with different
impeller numbers
Figure 3-25 indicates the correlation between liquid level and dimensionless blend
time for S-4.
For one S-4 impeller system
Ntb = 23(Z / T) 0.98 (R² = 0.98) (3-17)
For two S-4 impeller system
Ntb = 14(Z / T) 1.7 (R² = 0.95) (3-18)
For three S-4 impeller system
Ntb = 11(Z / T) 1.6 (R² = 0.92) (3-19)
According to the equations shown above, one general relation cannot describe the
data very well. So the correlation is separated by impeller number.
For n = 1
45
Ntb = 23 (Z / T) 0.98 (3-20)
For n = 2, 3
Ntb = 37.4 (Z / T) 1.7 n-0.61 (3-21)
Figure 3-26 S-4 parity plot
According to the parity plot of Figure 3-26, the average absolute error is 10% and the
maximum error is 22.2%. The error is higher than that for the axial-flow down-pumping
HE-3 and P-4.
Compared with the modified FMP correlation method (average absolute error =
14%), the method to describe the blending correlation separately by impeller type is a
better choice for predicting radial-flow S-4 and axial-flow down-pumping P-4 and HE-3
impeller blend times in systems with multiple impellers. The average absolute error can
be as small as 2% for HE-3 and no more than 10% for S-4.
Magelli et al. (2013) developed a correlation to predict the dimensionless blend time
for multiple axial flow impeller systems (Equation 1-13). However, due to the lack of
46
number of impellers in the correlation, the prediction seems unreasonable. The
correlation is revised in this study to Equation. 1-21 which includes impeller number in
the correlation. Magelli et al.’s (revised) correlation is compared with the data obtained
during this study in Table 3-8. Recall that multiple impeller systems with six inch S-4,
P-4 and HE-3 at three different liquid levels were considered in this study. The
correlation power number is adjusted to impeller system power number. The Magelli et al.
revised correlation parameters are compiled in Table 3-4. The relation between Magelli et
al. (revised) parameter ((Z/T) (D/T) -3 Np -1/3 n -2/3) and the dimensionless blend time is
shown in Figure 3-27.
47
Table 3-8 Analysis of Magelli et al. correlation using the data of this study
Type Z/T Ntb Np n D/T (Z/T) (D/T) -3 Np -1/3 n -2/3
1 23.29 3.26 1 0.34 0.964
1.5 32.23 3.47 1 0.34 1.416
2 46.28 3.52 1 0.34 1.879
1 15.4 4.92 2 0.34 0.529
S-4 1.5 24.48 4.69 2 0.34 0.807
2 52.33 6.28 2 0.34 0.976
1 12.48 6.93 3 0.34 0.36
1.5 18.35 6.75 3 0.34 0.545
2 40.49 6.91 3 0.34 0.722
1 35.37 1.09 1 0.35 1.384
1.5 39.86 1.17 1 0.35 2.028
2 77.41 1.14 1 0.35 2.728
1 24.52 2.19 2 0.34 0.692
P-4 1.5 32.51 2.15 2 0.34 1.043
2 49.95 2.17 2 0.34 1.388
1 17.53 2.85 3 0.35 0.483
1.5 29.92 2.81 3 0.35 0.729
2 36.7 3.12 3 0.35 0.938
1 42.14 0.24 1 0.34 2.298
1.5 90.49 0.27 1 0.34 3.314
2 154.53 0.27 1 0.34 4.419
1 33.89 0.41 2 0.34 1.211
HE-3 1.5 58.02 0.45 2 0.34 1.765
2 95.45 0.46 2 0.34 2.323
1 28.84 0.55 3 0.34 0.837
1.5 50.52 0.6 3 0.34 1.22
2 68.25 0.65 3 0.34 1.583
48
Figure 3-27 Comparison of Magelli et al. correlation and the data of this study
According to Figure 3-27, the relation between Magelli et al. parameter and
dimensionless blend time is
Ntb = 31.16 (Z/T) (D/T) -3 Np -1/3 n -2/3 (3-22)
A comparison between predicted dimensionless blend time obtained from Equation
3-26 and the experimental dimensionless blend time shows that the average absolute error
for S-4 is 22.9%, for P-4 is 19.4%, and for HE-3 is 22.0%. The average for all three types
of impeller is 21.4%. It shows that Magelli et al.’s revised correlation could be a way to
predict the dimensionless blend time for multiple impeller systems. However, the
maximum absolute error can be as high as 69.9 % which is far higher than the method to
describe the blending correlation separately by impeller type. Magelli et al. correlation
shows a stronger D / T effect than other correlations (Ntb ∝ (D / T) -3 rather than Ntb ∝
(D / T) -2 for the FMP single impeller correlation) and the single impeller data of this
work Ntb ∝ (D / T) -m with m ranging from 1.61 to 2.51). However, in current work this
parameter was not varied for multiple impeller systems.
49
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to find a way to analyze the efficiency of each impeller
and help with impeller selection in industrial applications. Impeller system blend time is a
useful and common way to predict the effectiveness of a system. Finding a general
correlation of impeller blend time for single impeller system and multiple impeller
systems is the core part of this research. Grenville and Nienow (2004) presented a general
FMP correlation to predict single impeller system blend times for all the impeller types.
Fasano and Penney (1991) separated the dimensionless blend time prediction equation
according to the impeller type. Neither of these correlations is intended for multiple
impeller systems. This current research tested numerous axial flow and radial flow
impellers. This study tested single impeller system and multiple impeller systems with
impeller number (n) equal to 1, 2 and 3. The effect of changing liquid level was also
studied during this research.
This study found:
1. Widely accepted FMP Parameter might not be as accurate as often stated, especially
for multiple impeller systems or higher liquid level. This work found a lower single
impeller FMP Parameter value but higher variation than Grenville and Nienow reported.
50
2. The impeller type and size (D / T) may affect the value of FMP Parameter. The
sawtooth impeller has a much higher FMP Parameter value due to its flow pattern. For
down-pumping axial flow P-4 and HE-3 impellers, intermediate D / T impellers have the
smallest FMP Parameters. For radial flow S-4 impellers, the FMP Parameter decreases as
the impeller diameter increases. The average FMP Parameter of radial flow impellers is
9% higher than that of axial flow impellers. For HE-3, the up-pumping FMP Parameter is
nearly 25% higher than down-pumping. The P-4 up-pumping FMP Parameter is around
13% less than down-pumping. The result of this study also found that the power
requirement is affected by the impeller type, contrary to the predictions of the FMP
correlation.
3. The FMP correlation was modified to Np1 / 3 Ntb (D / T) 2 (Z / T) -1.4 = 3.21 for
multiple impeller systems. Impeller type and number are implicitly included via the
system power number. To make the prediction of dimensionless blend time more reliable,
correlations are developed separately according to impeller type. The correlation involves
impeller number, type and liquid level factors directly in the relationship. The newly
obtained correlations are better than the modified general FMP Parameter correlation.
The average absolute error can be as small as 2% for HE-3 and no more than 10% for
S-4.
4. Magelli (2013) developed a correlation to predict the dimensionless blend time for
multiple impeller systems. The D / T dependence of Magelli et al’s correlation is stronger
than FMP correlation and that reported by Fasano and Penney (1991). However, using
single impeller power number and lack of impeller number dependence make this
correlation unreasonable. This study revised Magelli et al.’s correlation by converting
51
single impeller power number to impeller system power number. The revised correlation
between impeller size, impeller system power number, number of impeller and blend
time has average absolute error of 22.9% for S-4, 22.0% for P-4 and 19.4% for HE-3. The
average absolute error for all impeller types is 21.4%.
The effect of impeller diameter to tank diameter ratio (D/T) was not studied for the
multiple impeller system in this research. Once the D/T effect is added to the modified
FMP correlation, the correlation will be more broadly applicable.
The prediction correlation for multiple S-4 impeller system needs to be developed to
a better general equation. This work developed it separably according to number of
impellers. Magelli et al. (2013) reported the effect on the flow pattern for multiple radial
flow impeller systems. Accounting for flow pattern might be a way that the behavior of
single and multiple impeller systems can be described more effectively.
52
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cited References
1. M. Cooke, J. C. Middleton, and J.R. Bush, “Mixing and Mass Transfer in

Filamentous Fermentations” 2nd International Conference on Bioreactor Fluid
Dynamics (1988) Paper B1:37-64.
2. J. B. Fasano and W. R. Penny, “Avoid Blending Mix-Ups and Cut Reaction
By-Products by Proper Feed Blending” Chemical Engineering Progress October
(1991): 55-63.
3. Richard K. Grenville and Alvin W. Nienow, “Blending of Miscible Liquids”
Handbook of Industrial Mixing: Science and Practice (2004) Chapter 9: 507-513.
4. Richard K. Grenville, “Blending of Viscous Newtonian and Pseudo-Plastic
Fluids”Ph.D. Dissertation, Cranfield Institute of Technology (1992).
5. Khang, S. J. and O. Levenspiel, “The Mixing-Rate Number for Agitator Stirred
Tanks” Chemical Engineering (1976) October 141-143.
6. Franco Magelli, Giuseppina Montante, Davide Pinelli and Alessandro Paglianti,
“Mixing Time in High Aspect Ratio Vessels Stirred with Multiple Impellers”
Chemical Engineering Science 101 (2013) 712-720.
7. Post (2013) http://postmixing.com
8. J Wei and J L Anderson, K B Bischoff, Advances in Chemical Engineering, Volume
17 (1991) 44
General References
9. Joëlle Aubin and Catherine Xuereb, “Design of Multiple Impeller Stirred Tanks for
the Mixing of Highly Viscous Fluids Using CFD” Chemical Engineering Science 61
(2006) 2913 – 2920.
10. Robert R. Corpstein, Julian B. Fasano and Kevin J. Myers, “The High-Efficiency
Road to Liquid-Solid Agitation” Chemical Engineering Vol.101, No. 10 (1994)
138-144.
11. David S. Dickey and John G. Fenic, “Dimensional Analysis for Fluid Agitation
Systems” Chemical Engineering January 5 (1976).
53
12. Kevin J. Myers, Jeremy K. Jones, Eric E. Janz and Julian B. Fasano, “Effect of Liquid
Level and Agitator Pumping Direction on Turbulent Blend Times” The Canadian
Journal of Chemical Engineering Volume 92, April (2014): 643-647.
13. Kevin Myers, Mark Reeder, Andre Bakker and Martin Rigden, “Agitating for
Success” The Chemical Engineer 10 October (1996): 39-41.
14. A. W. Nienow, “On Impeller Circulation and Mixing Effectiveness in the Turbulent
Flow Regime” Chemical Engineering Science Vol. 52, No. 15 (1997): 2557-2565.
15. Steve Ruszkowski, “A Rational Method for Measuring Blending Performance, and
Comparison of Different Impeller Types” IChem E Symposium (1994) Series No. 136:
283-291.
16. John A. Shaw, “Understand the Effects of Impeller Type, Diameter, and Power on
Mixing Time” Chemical Engineering Progress February (1994): 45-48.
17. E.S. Szalai, P. Arratia, K. Johnson and F.J. Muzzio, “Mixing Analysis in a Tank
Stirred with Ekato Intermig® Impellers” Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004)
3793 – 3805.
54
APPENDIX A
Single Impeller Experimental Blend Time Data

Down-Pumping System and Radial-Flow Systems
Table A-1: 3.5 inch HE-3 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)
Rotation Ntb Mean Absolute deviation
Blend time Standard
No. Speed between each data COV
(s) Deviation
(rpm) (-) (-) point and Average
1 385 21.91 140.59 0.78
2 385 23.57 151.24 11.43
3 385 22.69 145.59 5.78
4 385 20.16 129.36 10.45
5 385 23.53 150.98 11.17
6 385 18.62 119.48 20.34
139.81 15.21 10.88%
7 385 21.93 140.72 0.90
8 385 19.91 127.76 12.06
9 385 20.75 133.15 6.67
10 385 19.78 126.92 12.89
11 385 27.53 176.65 36.84
12 385 21.09 135.33 4.49
Average tb (s) 21.79
55
Table A-2: 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)
Absolute
Rotation Ntb Mean
Blend time deviation between Standard
No. Speed COV
(s) each data point Deviation
(rpm) (-) (-)
and Average
1 110 22.67 41.56 2.24
2 110 23.22 42.57 1.23
3 110 23.90 43.82 0.02
4 110 23.80 43.63 0.16
5 110 24.25 44.46 0.66
43.80 2.54 5.79%
6 110 22.75 41.71 2.09
7 110 22.00 40.33 3.47
8 110 26.19 48.02 4.22
9 110 24.00 44.00 0.20
10 110 26.12 47.89 4.09
Table A-3: 8.75 inch HE-3 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)
Absolute
Rotation Ntb Mean
No. Speed COV
(rpm) (-) (-)
and Average
1 80 23.53 31.37 1.79

2 80 21.78 29.04 4.12
3 80 25.34 33.79 0.63
4 80 25.50 34.00 0.84
5 80 23.00 30.67 2.49
6 80 24.45 32.60 0.56
33.16 3.56 10.75%
7 80 21.66 28.88 4.28
8 80 23.65 31.53 1.63
9 80 26.25 35.00 1.84
10 80 23.91 31.88 1.28
11 80 28.66 38.21 5.05
12 80 30.70 40.93 7.77
56
Table A-4: 3.5 inch P-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)
Absolute
Rotation Ntb Mean
No. Speed COV
(rpm) (-) (-)
and Average
1 325 20.27 109.80 9.78
2 325 23.52 127.40 7.83
3 325 21.61 117.05 2.52
4 325 17.35 93.98 25.59
5 325 24.25 131.35 11.78
119.57 13.18 11.02%
6 325 24.16 130.87 11.29
7 325 21.50 116.46 3.11
8 325 25.44 137.80 18.23
9 325 19.99 108.28 11.29
10 325 22.66 122.74 3.17
Table A-5: 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)

Absolute
Rotation Ntb Mean
No. Speed COV
(rpm) (-) (-)
and Average
1 95 20.42 32.33 4.06
2 95 25.37 40.17 3.78
3 95 20.16 31.92 4.47
4 95 24.87 39.38 2.98
5 95 23.84 37.75 1.35
36.39 3.90 10.71%
6 95 22.60 35.78 0.61
7 95 25.76 40.79 4.39
8 95 18.80 29.77 6.63
9 95 25.13 39.79 3.40
10 95 22.90 36.26 0.13
57
Table A-6: 8.75 inch P-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)
Absolute
Rotation Ntb Mean
No. Speed COV
(rpm) (-) (-)
and Average
1 50 23.11 19.26 1.36
2 50 23.82 19.85 1.95
3 50 19.47 16.23 1.68
4 50 18.27 15.23 2.68
5 50 19.75 16.46 1.44
17.90 2.10 11.74%
6 50 25.00 20.83 2.93
7 50 21.82 18.18 0.28
8 50 19.94 16.62 1.28
9 50 18.92 15.77 2.13
10 50 24.70 20.58 2.68
Table A-7: 3.5 inch S-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)
Absolute
Rotation Ntb Mean deviation
Blend time Standard
No. Speed between each COV
(s) Deviation
(rpm) (-) (-) data point and
Average
1 298 22.41 111.30 2.57

2 298 21.19 105.24 3.49
3 298 20.00 99.33 9.40
4 298 23.88 118.60 9.87
5 298 22.37 111.10 2.37
108.74 5.14 4.72%
6 298 21.72 107.88 0.86
7 298 21.98 109.17 0.43
8 298 21.31 105.84 2.90
9 298 21.45 106.54 2.20
10 298 22.62 112.35 3.61
58
Table A-8: 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)
Absolute
Blend time Standard
(s) Deviation
Average
1 75 22.33 27.91 0.55

2 75 24.52 30.65 2.19
3 75 22.08 27.60 0.86
4 75 23.93 29.91 1.45
5 75 25.51 31.89 3.43
28.46 2.40 8.43%
6 75 21.30 26.63 1.84
7 75 20.73 25.91 2.55
8 75 20.03 25.04 3.42
9 75 25.26 31.58 3.11
10 75 22.01 27.51 0.95
Table A-9: 8.75 inch S-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)
Absolute
Blend time Standard
(s) Deviation
Average
1 30 22.80 11.40 0.64

2 30 22.84 11.42 0.66
3 30 20.09 10.05 0.72
4 30 19.53 9.77 1.00
5 30 21.47 10.74 0.03
10.76 0.63 5.88%
6 30 21.34 10.67 0.09
7 30 22.25 11.13 0.36
8 30 23.15 11.58 0.81
9 30 20.18 10.09 0.67
10 30 21.56 10.78 0.02
59
Absolute
Rotation deviation
Blend time Ntb Mean Standard
(s) (-) (-) Deviation
(rpm) data point and
Average
1 75 22.46 28.08 0.56

2 75 24.96 31.20 2.56
3 75 24.25 30.31 1.68
4 75 20.34 25.43 3.21
5 75 23.35 29.19 0.55
28.64 2.16 7.54%
6 75 24.16 30.20 1.56
7 75 24.90 31.13 2.49
8 75 22.25 27.81 0.82
9 75 22.25 27.81 0.82
10 75 20.18 25.23 3.41
Table A-11: 6 inch D-6 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)
Absolute
Rotation deviation
Average
1 52 21.47 18.61 18.61

2 52 20.91 18.12 18.12
3 52 20.25 17.55 17.55
4 52 20.17 17.48 17.78 17.48
5 52 20.25 17.55 17.55
0.35 1.95%
6 52 20.53 17.79 17.79
7 52 20.35 17.64 17.64
8 52 20.49 17.76 17.76
9 52 20.47 17.74 17.74
10 52 20.24 17.54 17.54
Average tb(s) 20.51
60
Table A-12: 5.66 inch D-8 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)
Absolute
Rotation deviation
Average
1 60 20.09 20.09 3.43

2 60 24.84 24.84 1.32
3 60 24.59 24.59 1.07
4 60 25.12 25.12 1.60
5 60 21.84 21.84 1.68
23.52 1.87 7.93%
6 60 24.94 24.94 1.42
7 60 21.37 21.37 2.15
8 60 24.78 24.78 1.26
9 60 25.03 25.03 1.51
10 60 22.62 22.62 0.90
Average tb(s) 23.52
Table A-13: 6 inch D-8 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)
Absolute
Rotation deviation
Average
1 50 21.78 18.15 18.15

2 50 19.07 15.89 15.89
3 50 21.91 18.26 18.26
4 50 19.56 16.30 16.30
5 50 19.43 16.19 16.19
17.13 0.98 5.70%
6 50 19.12 15.93 15.93
7 50 21.18 17.65 17.65
8 50 20.90 17.42 17.42
9 50 20.63 17.19 17.19
10 50 21.96 18.30 18.30
Average tb(s) 23.52
61
Table A-14: 5.7 inch CD-6 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)
Absolute
Rotation deviation
Average
1 95 22.35 35.39 1.34

2 95 23.06 36.51 0.21
3 95 23.09 36.56 0.17
4 95 24.12 38.19 1.46
5 95 24.44 38.70 1.97
36.73 2.19 5.96%
6 95 24.88 39.39 2.67
7 95 21.10 33.41 3.32
8 95 20.87 33.04 3.68
9 95 24.22 38.35 1.62
10 95 23.82 37.72 0.99
Average tb(s) 23.20
Table A-15: 6 inch CD-6 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)
Absolute
Rotation deviation
Average
1 67 22.18 24.77 24.77

2 67 20.53 22.93 22.93
3 67 22.22 24.81 24.81
4 67 21.28 23.76 23.76
5 67 22.29 24.89 24.89
24.38 1.06 4.33%
6 67 23.78 26.55 26.55
7 67 20.62 23.03 23.03
8 67 21.53 24.04 24.04
9 67 22.25 24.85 24.85
10 67 21.68 24.21 24.21
Average tb(s) 21.84
62
Table A-16: 5 inch ChemShear impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)
Absolute
Rotation deviation
Average
1 300 24.44 122.20 0.74

2 300 23.47 117.35 4.11
3 300 24.25 121.25 0.21
4 300 24.29 121.45 0.01
5 300 24.63 123.15 1.69
121.41 3.84 3.17%
6 300 25.59 127.95 6.49
7 300 23.50 117.50 3.96
8 300 23.09 115.45 6.01
9 300 24.41 122.05 0.59
10 300 25.15 125.75 4.29
Average tb(s) 24.28
Table A-17: 6 inch ChemShear impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)
Absolute
Rotation deviation
Average
1 120 22.59 45.18 2.52

2 120 23.67 47.34 0.36
3 120 24.12 48.24 0.54
4 120 23.78 47.56 0.14
5 120 24.07 48.14 0.44
47.70 1.28 2.69%
6 120 23.72 47.44 0.26
7 120 23.94 47.88 0.18
8 120 24.56 49.12 1.42
9 120 24.84 49.68 1.98
10 120 23.19 46.38 1.32
Average tb(s) 23.85
63
Table A-18: 5.93 inch Maxflo W impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)
Absolute
Rotation deviation
Average
1 110 21.56 39.53 0.43
2 110 20.43 37.46 1.64
3 110 22.03 40.39 1.29
4 110 20.09 36.83 2.26
5 110 23.19 42.52 3.42
39.10 1.84 4.72%
6 110 22.41 41.09 1.99
7 110 20.87 38.26 0.83
8 110 21.60 39.60 0.50
9 110 20.38 37.36 1.73
10 110 20.69 37.93 1.16
Average tb(s) 21.33
Table A-19: 6.02 inch RL-3 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)
Absolute
Rotation deviation
Average
1 110 21.00 38.50 1.01

2 110 21.44 39.31 0.20
3 110 20.53 37.64 1.87
4 110 21.69 39.77 0.25
5 110 20.54 37.66 1.85
39.51 1.90 4.80%
6 110 22.03 40.39 0.88
7 110 23.62 43.30 3.79
8 110 22.66 41.54 2.03
9 110 20.34 37.29 2.22
10 110 21.66 39.71 0.20
Average tb(s) 21.55
64
Table A-20: 6.03 inch SC-3 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)
Absolute
Rotation deviation
Average
1 110 22.38 41.03 1.20

2 110 23.69 43.43 1.20
3 110 24.13 44.24 2.01
4 110 22.29 40.87 1.37
5 110 23.34 42.79 0.56
42.23 1.63 3.85%
6 110 21.21 38.89 3.35
7 110 23.94 43.89 1.66
8 110 23.50 43.08 0.85
9 110 22.88 41.95 0.29
10 110 23.00 42.17 0.07
Average tb(s) 23.04
Table A-21: 7.25 inch Sawtooth impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)
Absolute
Rotation deviation
Average
1 170 20.93 59.30 2.24
2 170 19.44 55.08 1.98
3 170 20.26 57.40 0.34
4 170 21.78 61.71 4.65
5 170 18.06 51.17 5.89
57.06 3.05 5.34%
6 170 19.38 54.91 2.15
7 170 20.47 58.00 0.94
8 170 19.50 55.25 1.81
9 170 21.19 60.04 2.98
10 170 20.38 57.74 0.68
Average tb(s) 20.14
65
Up-Pumping Systems
Absolute
Rotation deviation
Average
1 80 23.04 30.72 0.57

2 80 23.09 30.79 0.51
3 80 23.29 31.05 0.24
4 80 23.94 31.92 0.63
5 80 23.41 31.21 0.08
31.29 0.46 1.47%
6 80 23.60 31.47 0.17
7 80 23.16 30.88 0.41
8 80 23.53 31.37 0.08
9 80 24.07 32.09 0.80
10 80 23.56 31.41 0.12
Average tb(s) 23.47
Absolute
Rotation deviation
Average
1 130 22.37 48.47 3.45

2 130 23.00 49.83 2.09
3 130 24.84 53.82 1.90
4 130 23.14 50.14 1.79
5 130 24.44 52.95 1.03
51.92 1.81 3.48%
6 130 24.68 53.47 1.55
7 130 24.31 52.67 0.75
8 130 24.00 52.00 0.08
9 130 24.27 52.59 0.66
10 130 24.59 53.28 1.36
Average tb(s) 23.96
66
Changing Liquid Level Systems
Absolute
Rotation deviation
Average
1 68 20.57 23.31 0.02

2 68 20.50 23.23 0.06
3 68 20.28 22.98 0.31
4 68 20.31 23.02 0.27
5 68 20.97 23.77 0.48
23.29 0.36 1.55%
6 68 20.78 23.55 0.26
7 68 20.31 23.02 0.27
8 68 20.10 22.78 0.51
9 68 20.59 23.34 0.05
10 68 21.09 23.90 0.61
Average tb(s) 20.55
Table A-25: 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1.5, C / T = 3 / 4)
Absolute
Rotation deviation
Average
1 85 22.35 31.66 0.57

2 85 22.62 32.05 0.19
3 85 22.34 31.65 0.58
4 85 22.03 31.21 1.02
5 85 22.78 32.27 0.04
32.23 0.92 2.87%
6 85 23.66 33.52 1.29
7 85 22.00 31.17 1.07
8 85 22.53 31.92 0.31
9 85 23.78 33.69 1.46
10 85 23.43 33.19 0.96
Average tb(s) 22.75
67
Table A-26: 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 2, C / T = 1)
Absolute
Rotation deviation
Average
1 106 22.44 39.64 2.16

2 106 24.86 43.92 2.11
3 106 23.66 41.80 0.01
4 106 23.28 41.13 0.68
5 106 23.24 41.06 0.75
41.80 1.54 3.67%
6 106 24.28 42.89 1.09
7 106 22.51 39.77 2.04
8 106 23.23 41.04 0.76
9 106 24.47 43.23 1.43
10 106 24.66 43.57 1.76
Average tb(s) 23.66
Absolute
Rotation deviation
Average
1 90 23.06 34.59 0.78

2 90 23.03 34.55 0.83
3 90 24.60 36.90 1.53
4 90 23.29 34.94 0.44
5 90 24.09 36.14 0.76
35.37 0.78 2.22%
6 90 23.38 35.07 0.30
7 90 23.63 35.45 0.07
8 90 23.87 35.81 0.43
9 90 23.85 35.78 0.40
10 90 23.03 34.55 0.83
Average tb(s) 23.58
68
Table A-28: 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1.5, C / T = 3 / 4)
Absolute
Rotation deviation
Average
1 113 21.87 41.19 1.33

2 113 22.25 41.90 2.05
3 113 21.94 41.32 1.46
4 113 20.37 38.36 1.49
5 113 20.63 38.85 1.00
39.86 1.31 3.29%
6 113 20.31 38.25 1.61
7 113 21.21 39.95 0.09
8 113 21.34 40.19 0.33
9 113 21.18 39.89 0.03
10 113 20.53 38.66 1.19
Average tb(s) 21.63
Table A-29: 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 2, C / T = 1)
Absolute
Rotation deviation
Average
1 215 21.32 76.40 1.02

2 215 21.66 77.62 0.20
3 215 21.63 77.51 0.09
4 215 21.49 77.01 0.41
5 215 21.36 76.54 0.87
77.41 0.76 0.98%
6 215 21.62 77.47 0.06
7 215 21.68 77.69 0.27
8 215 21.98 78.76 1.35
9 215 21.43 76.79 0.62
10 215 21.87 78.37 0.95
Average tb(s) 21.60
69
Absolute
Rotation deviation
Average
1 111.6 22.68 42.18 0.04

2 111.6 22.59 42.02 0.12
3 111.6 22.18 41.25 0.89
4 111.6 23.59 43.88 1.74
5 111.6 22.56 41.96 0.18
42.14 0.90 2.14%
6 111.6 23.43 43.58 1.44
7 111.6 22.31 41.50 0.64
8 111.6 22.18 41.25 0.89
9 111.6 22.63 42.09 0.05
10 111.6 22.41 41.68 0.46
Average tb(s) 22.66
Table A-31: 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1.5, C / T = 3 / 4)
Absolute
Rotation deviation
Average
1 230 23.59 90.43 0.06

2 230 23.59 90.43 0.06
3 230 23.78 91.16 0.67
4 230 23.81 91.27 0.79
5 230 23.49 90.05 0.44
90.49 0.72 0.80%
6 230 23.69 90.81 0.33
7 230 23.91 91.66 1.17
8 230 23.44 89.85 0.63
9 230 23.37 89.59 0.90
10 230 23.38 89.62 0.86
Average tb(s) 23.61
70
Table A-32: 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 2, C / T = 1)
Absolute
Rotation deviation
Average
1 431 21.69 155.81 1.28

2 431 21.52 154.59 0.06
3 431 21.06 151.28 3.25
4 431 21.91 157.39 2.86
5 431 20.87 149.92 4.61
154.53 2.68 1.73%
6 431 21.86 157.03 2.50
7 431 21.81 156.67 2.14
8 431 21.75 156.24 1.71
9 431 21.56 154.87 0.34
10 431 21.09 151.50 3.03
Average tb(s) 21.51
71
APPENDIX B
Single Impeller Experimental Power Number Data
D = impeller diameter [=] inch N = rotational speed [=] rpm

M = torque [=] in·lbf
Table B-1: HE-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)

Type D D/T M 2.4
HE-3 3.52 0.20 N 1803
Power Number 0.330

Type D D/T M 7.9 10.25 12.3
HE-3 6.01 0.33 N 1035 1146 1262
Power Number 0.227 0.240 0.238
Average Power Number 0.235
COV 2.99%

Type D D/T M 10.2 12.15 14.75 17.8 19.85
HE-3 8.80 0.50 N 432 467 512 566 593
Power Number 0.250 0.255 0.258 0.254 0.258
COV 1.26%
Table B-4: P-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)

Type D D/T M 5.5 6.3 7 8.3 9
P-4 3.52 0.20 N 1342 1447 1552 1662 1696
Power Number 1.37 1.35 1.30 1.34 1.40
COV 2.69%
72
Type D D/T M 11.1 12.9 15.6 18.4 20.4
P-4 6.05 0.33 N 546 583 632 694 730
Power Number 1.11 1.13 1.16 1.14 1.14
COV 1.72%

Type D D/T M 10.35 11.9 15 17 20.75
P-4 8.78 0.50 N 185 198 229 240 262
Power Number 1.40 1.41 1.32 1.37 1.40
COV 2.49%
Table B-7: S-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)

Type D D/T M 13.8 7.3 8.5 9.95 10.65
S-4 3.49 0.20 N 1496 1141 1213 1266 1340
Power Number 2.88 2.62 2.70 2.90 2.77
COV 4.30%

Type D D/T M 12.1 15.5 17.5 19.7 21.15
S-4 6.00 0.33 N 345 389 424 446 477
Power Number 3.16 3.18 3.02 3.08 2.89
COV 3.85%

Type D D/T M 12.7 14.1 15.7 17.45 19.25
S-4 8.76 0.50 N 137 141 149 157 165
Power Number 3.17 3.32 3.31 3.32 3.31
COV 1.99%
Table B-10: Maxflo W impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)

Type D D/T M 10.2 13.9 16.3 17.7 19.5
Maxflo
5.93 0.33 N 629 733 778 801 850
W
Power Number 0.849 0.852 0.887 0.909 0.889
COV 2.93%
73
Table B-11: Sawtooth impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)
Type D D/T M 11.2 13.25 15.5 17 20.3
Sawtooth 7.25 0.33 N 440 478 515 538 588
Power Number 0.698 0.699 0.705 0.708 0.708
COV 0.70%
Table B-12: D-6 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)

Type D D/T M 10.1 12.5 15.5 17.5 20.65
D-6 5.99 0.33 N 360 394 443 474 511
Power Number 2.44 2.52 2.47 2.44 2.48
COV 1.36%
Table B-13: D-8 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)

Type D D/T M 10.05 11.85 14.15 16 19.6
D-8 5.66 0.33 N 262 284 309 325 360
Power Number 6.09 6.11 6.16 6.30 6.29
COV 1.60%
Table B-14: CD-6 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)

Type D D/T M 11 13.2 15.1 18.6 20.2
CD-6 5.70 0.33 N 394 430 456 510 532
Power Number 2.85 2.87 2.92 2.87 2.87
COV 0.90%
Table B-15: SC-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)

Type D D/T M 11 12.9 15.5 17.5 18
SC-3 6.03 0.33 N 819 886 956 1009 1032
Power Number 0.497 0.498 0.514 0.521 0.512
COV 2.06%
Table B-16: RL-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)

Type D D/T M 10.1 12.05 13.65 15.55 11.5
RL-3 6.02 0.33 N 947 1025 1075 1178 1009
Power Number 0.344 0.350 0.361 0.342 0.345
COV 2.15%
74
Table B-17: ChemShear impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)
Type D D/T M 12.25 10.5 14.4 17.1 18.8
CS 6 5.95 0.33 N 719 662 776 846 883
Power Number 0.768 0.776 0.775 0.774 0.781
COV 0.62%
Table B-18: ChemShear impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)

Type D D/T M 8.6
CS 5 5.00 0.42 N 1814
Power Number 0.202
Changing Liquid Level Systems

Type Diameter D/T M 11.75 14.4 14.8 16.8 18.2
S-4 6.00 0.50 N 331 371 382 401 414
Power Number 3.33 3.25 3.15 3.25 3.30
COV 2.10%

P-4 6.05 0.50 N 530 572 605 636 681
Power Number 1.07 1.09 1.11 1.09 1.08
COV 1.36%

Type Diameter D/T M 6 10.7
HE-3 6.01 0.50 N 872 1170
Power Number 0.243 0.241
COV 0.67%
75
Table B-22: S-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1.5, C / T = 3 / 4)
Type Diameter D/T M 12.05 14.85 16.3 17 19
S-4 6.00 0.75 N 327 364 382 392 413
Power Number 3.50 3.48 3.47 3.44 3.46
COV 0.69%
Table B-23: P-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1.5, C / T = 3 / 4)

P-4 6.05 0.75 N 542 604 651 685 693
Power Number 1.17 1.14 1.18 1.16 1.19
COV 1.70%
Table B-24: HE-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1.5, C / T = 3 / 4)

HE-3 6.01 0.75 N 1107 1140 1198 1263 1390
Power Number 0.269 0.270 0.277 0.276 0.281
COV 1.77%
Table B-25: S-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 2, C / T = 1)

Type Diameter D/T M 11.25 13.5 15.75 18 19.7
S-4 6.00 1.0 N 318 346 376 392 416
Power Number 3.46 3.50 3.46 3.64 3.54
COV 2.12%
Table B-26: P-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 2, C / T = 1)

P-4 6.05 1.0 N 556 580 634 680 705
Power Number 1.12 1.16 1.16 1.14 1.13
COV 1.42%
76
Table B-27: HE-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 2, C / T = 1)
Type Diameter D/T M 11.5 13 15 16 18
HE-3 6.01 1.0 N 1146 1213 1302 1342 1409
Power Number 0.270 0.272 0.273 0.274 0.279
COV 1.30%
77
APPENDIX C
Two Impeller Experimental Blend Time Data
Ci / T = (i / (n+1)) (Z / T) i = 1, 2
Table C-1: Two 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1)
Absolute
Rotation deviation
Average
1 85 22.72 32.19 1.70

2 85 24.56 34.79 0.90
3 85 23.63 33.48 0.41
4 85 23.59 33.42 0.47
5 85 23.72 33.60 0.29
33.89 0.91 2.67%
6 85 24.19 34.27 0.38
7 85 24.75 35.06 1.17
8 85 23.66 33.52 0.37
9 85 23.65 33.50 0.39
10 85 24.75 35.06 1.17
Average tb(s) 23.92
78
Table C-2: Two 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1.5)
Absolute
Rotation deviation
Average
1 154 23.85 61.22 3.20

2 154 23.31 59.83 1.81
3 154 22.69 58.24 0.22
4 154 21.56 55.34 2.68
5 154 21.72 55.75 2.27
58.02 2.68 4.62%
6 154 24.04 61.70 3.69
7 154 21.93 56.29 1.73
8 154 21.69 55.67 2.35
9 154 23.75 60.96 2.94
10 154 21.5 55.18 2.83
Average tb(s) 22.60
Table C-3: Two 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 2)
Absolute
deviation
Rotation
Blend time Ntb Mean between Standard
No. Speed COV
(s) (-) (-) each data Deviation
(rpm)
point and
Average
1 260 21.87 94.77 0.68

2 260 21.57 93.47 1.98
3 260 22.13 95.90 0.44
4 260 21.37 92.60 2.85
5 260 22.79 98.76 3.30
95.45 3.08 3.23%
6 260 23.53 101.96 6.51
7 260 21.25 92.08 3.37
8 260 21.43 92.86 2.59
9 260 22.28 96.55 1.09
10 260 22.06 95.59 0.14
Average tb(s) 22.02
79
Table C-4: Two 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1)
Absolute
deviation
Rotation
No. Speed COV
(rpm)
point and
Average
1 65 22.53 24.41 0.11

2 65 23.66 25.63 1.11
3 65 23.9 25.89 1.37
4 65 21.25 23.02 1.50
5 65 22.91 24.82 0.30
24.52 1.06 4.30%
6 65 23.29 25.23 0.71
7 65 23.28 25.22 0.70
8 65 21.47 23.26 1.26
9 65 22.69 24.58 0.06
10 65 21.34 23.12 1.40
Table C-5: Two 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1.5)
Absolute
deviation
Rotation
No. Speed COV
(rpm)
point and
Average
1 90 20.19 30.29 2.23

2 90 21.59 32.39 0.13
3 90 22.03 33.05 0.53
4 90 21.72 32.58 0.07
5 90 20.93 31.40 1.12
32.51 1.36 4.17%
6 90 21.31 31.97 0.55
7 90 21.12 31.68 0.83
8 90 23.56 35.34 2.83
9 90 22.04 33.06 0.55
10 90 22.25 33.38 0.86
Average tb(s) 21.67
80
Table C-6: Two 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 2)
Absolute
deviation
Rotation
No. Speed COV
(rpm)
point and
Average
1 133 22.75 50.43 0.48

2 133 22.94 50.85 0.90
3 133 22.69 50.30 0.35
4 133 23.16 51.34 1.39
5 133 22.37 49.59 0.36
49.95 1.03 2.07%
6 133 22.44 49.74 0.21
7 133 22.82 50.58 0.64
8 133 21.47 47.59 2.36
9 133 22.38 49.61 0.34
10 133 22.31 49.45 0.49
Average tb(s) 22.53
Table C-7: Two 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1)
Absolute
deviation
Rotation
No. Speed COV
(rpm)
point and
Average
1 40 23.69 15.79 0.39

2 40 22.28 14.85 0.55
3 40 24.62 16.41 1.01
4 40 21.97 14.65 0.75
5 40 23.07 15.38 0.02
15.40 0.88 5.72%
6 40 22.72 15.15 0.25
7 40 20.41 13.61 1.79
8 40 24.82 16.55 1.15
9 40 23.62 15.75 0.35
10 40 23.82 15.88 0.48
Average tb(s) 23.10
81
Table C-8: Two 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1.5)
Absolute
deviation
Rotation
No. Speed COV
(rpm)
point and
Average
1 63 24.18 25.39 0.90

2 63 23.69 24.87 0.39
3 63 22.37 23.49 1.00
4 63 23.43 24.60 0.12
5 63 22.60 23.73 0.75
24.48 0.93 3.81%
6 63 22.49 23.61 0.87
7 63 24.65 25.88 1.40
8 63 22.53 23.66 0.83
9 63 24.50 25.73 1.24
10 63 22.75 23.89 0.60
Average tb(s) 23.32
Table C-9: Two 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 2)
Absolute
deviation
Rotation
No. Speed COV
(rpm)
point and
Average
1 143 21.10 50.29 1.21

2 143 21.07 50.22 1.28
3 143 21.00 50.05 1.45
4 143 21.50 51.24 0.26
5 143 21.81 51.98 0.48
51.50 1.40 2.72%
6 143 22.25 53.03 1.53
7 143 20.88 49.76 1.74
8 143 22.22 52.96 1.46
9 143 21.75 51.84 0.34
10 143 22.50 53.63 2.13
Average tb(s) 21.61
82
APPENDIX D
Two Impeller Experimental Power Number Data

Ci / T = (i / (n+1)) (Z / T) i = 1, 2
Table D-1 Two 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1)
Type D M 10.3 12.65 13.95 15.4 17
HE-3 6.03 N 878 961 1019 1071 1120
Power Number 0.405 0.415 0.407 0.407 0.411
COV 0.98%
Table D-2 Two 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1.5)
Type D M 12.1 9.75 11.3 14.45 17.55
HE-3 6.03 N 905 825 876 985 1091
Power Number 0.448 0.434 0.446 0.451 0.447
COV 1.47%
Table D-3 Two 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 2.0)
Type D M 10.7 12.7 14.25 15.8 17.4
HE-3 6.03 N 842 910 965 1019 1063
Power Number 0.457 0.465 0.464 0.461 0.467
COV 0.78%
83
Table D-4 Two 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1)
Type D M 10 13.25 15.55 18 11.45
P-4 6.04 N 373 431 461 500 394
Power Number 2.17 2.15 2.21 2.17 2.23
COV 1.38%
Table D-5 Two 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1.5)
Type D M 11.2 13.65 16.05 17.85 20.05
P-4 6.04 N 399 439 473 499 527
Power Number 2.12 2.14 2.17 2.16 2.18
COV 1.05%
Table D-6 Two 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 2)
Type D M 10.2 13.25 13.75 17 19.1
P-4 6.04 N 377 433 439 480 516
Power Number 2.17 2.13 2.15 2.23 2.16
COV 1.62%
Table D-7 Two 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1)
Type D M 12 17.1 19.1 17.45 14.35
S-4 6.00 N 278 327 346 333 303
Power Number 4.84 4.99 4.98 4.91 4.88
COV 1.28%
Table D-8 Two 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1.5)
Type D M 10.6 11.25 12.9 15.35 19.25
S-4 6.00 N 268 275 294 314 358
Power Number 4.60 4.64 4.66 4.86 4.69
COV 2.10%
84
Table D-9 Two 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 2)
Type D M 11.5 17.55 14 13.4 15.25
S-4 6.00 N 238 295 265 258 275
Power Number 6.33 6.29 6.22 6.28 6.29
COV 0.65%
85
APPENDIX E
Three Impeller System Experimental Blend Time Data
Ci / T = (i / (n+1)) (Z / T) i = 1, 2, 3
Table E-1 Three 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1)
Absolute
deviation
Rotation Speed Blend time N tb Mean Standard
No. between each COV
(rpm) (s) (-) (-) Deviation
data point
and Average
1 80 22.31 29.75 0.90

2 80 20.41 27.21 1.63
3 80 21.69 28.92 0.08
4 80 20.09 26.79 2.06
5 80 22.03 29.37 0.53
28.84 1.12 3.89%
6 80 21.38 28.51 0.34
7 80 21.78 29.04 0.20
8 80 21.89 29.19 0.34
9 80 21.81 29.08 0.24
10 80 22.93 30.57 1.73
86
Table E-2 Three 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1.5)
Absolute
deviation
data point
and Average
1 130 23.18 50.22 21.38

2 130 23.48 50.87 22.03
3 130 23.32 50.53 21.68
4 130 23.37 50.64 21.79
5 130 23.28 50.44 21.60
50.52 0.32 0.64%
6 130 23.03 49.90 21.06
7 130 23.35 50.59 21.75
8 130 23.53 50.98 22.14
9 130 23.22 50.31 21.47
10 130 23.43 50.77 21.92
Table E-3 Three 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 2)
Absolute
deviation
data point and
Average
1 191 21.25 67.65 0.61

2 191 21.10 67.17 1.09
3 191 21.28 67.74 0.51
4 191 21.25 67.65 0.61
5 191 21.78 69.33 1.08
68.25 0.91 1.33%
6 191 21.25 67.65 0.61
7 191 21.68 69.01 0.76
8 191 21.23 67.58 0.67
9 191 21.72 69.14 0.89
10 191 21.87 69.62 1.37
87
Table E-4 Three 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1)
Absolute
deviation
data point and
Average
1 48 21.31 17.05 0.48

2 48 21.22 16.98 0.56
3 48 21.31 17.05 0.48
4 48 22.87 18.30 0.76
5 48 21.37 17.10 0.44
17.53 0.57 3.24%
6 48 21.45 17.16 0.37
7 48 22.57 18.06 0.52
8 48 22.19 17.75 0.22
9 48 21.78 17.42 0.11
10 48 23.09 18.47 0.94
Table E-5 Three 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1.5 )
Absolute
deviation
data point
and Average
1 81 22.07 29.79 0.13

2 81 21.78 29.40 0.52
3 81 21.9 29.57 0.36
4 81 22.4 30.24 0.32
5 81 22.29 30.09 0.17
29.92 0.34 1.12%
6 81 22.06 29.78 0.14
7 81 22.47 30.33 0.41
8 81 21.91 29.58 0.34
9 81 22.38 30.21 0.29
10 81 22.37 30.20 0.28
88
Table E-6 Three 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 2)
Absolute
deviation
data point
and Average
1 100 22.47 37.45 0.75

2 100 21.44 35.73 0.96
3 100 22.69 37.82 1.12
4 100 21.57 35.95 0.75
5 100 22.31 37.18 0.49
36.70 0.72 1.96%
6 100 22.22 37.03 0.34
7 100 22.13 36.88 0.19
8 100 21.60 36.00 0.70
9 100 22.12 36.87 0.17
10 100 21.62 36.03 0.66
Table E-7 Three 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1)
Absolute
deviation
data point and
Average
1 35 21.38 12.47 0.01

2 35 21.71 12.66 0.19
3 35 21.28 12.41 0.06
4 35 21.31 12.43 0.05
5 35 21.5 12.54 0.06
12.48 0.09 0.74%
6 35 21.16 12.34 0.13
7 35 21.25 12.40 0.08
8 35 21.34 12.45 0.03
9 35 21.47 12.52 0.05
10 35 21.49 12.54 0.06
89
Table E-8 Three 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 1.5)
Absolute
deviation
data point and
Average
1 50 22.68 18.90 0.55

2 50 21.65 18.04 0.30
3 50 21.34 17.78 0.56
4 50 21.28 17.73 0.61
5 50 21.72 18.10 0.25
18.35 0.43 2.32%
6 50 22.50 18.75 0.40
7 50 21.91 18.26 0.09
8 50 22.59 18.83 0.48
9 50 22.25 18.54 0.20
10 50 22.24 18.53 0.19
Table E-9 Three 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental blend time data (Z / T = 2)
Absolute
deviation
data point and
Average
1 100 22.97 38.28 0.23

2 100 23.04 38.40 0.35
3 100 23.25 38.75 0.70
4 100 22.58 37.63 0.42
5 100 22.61 37.68 0.37
38.05 0.46 1.22%
6 100 22.56 37.60 0.45
7 100 22.76 37.93 0.12
8 100 22.44 37.40 0.65
9 100 22.93 38.22 0.17
10 100 23.16 38.60 0.55
90
APPENDIX F
Three Impeller System Experimental Power Number Data

Ci / T = (i / (n+1)) (Z / T) i = 1, 2, 3
Table F-1 Three 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1)
Type D M 11.15 12.4 14.3 17 18.25
HE-3 6.03 N 774 833 885 964 1007
Power Number 0.564 0.542 0.553 0.554 0.545
COV 1.58%
Table F-2 Three 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1.5)
Type D M 10.45 11.6 12.3 13.3 15.2
HE-3 6.03 N 726 765 793 815 871
Power Number 0.601 0.601 0.593 0.607 0.607
COV 0.98%
Table F-3 Three 6 inch HE-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 2)
Type D M 10.95 12.7 13.5 14.7 15.7
HE-3 6.03 N 720 771 793 818 860
Power Number 0.640 0.647 0.651 0.666 0.643
COV 1.53%
91
Table F-4 Three 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1)
Type D M 11.45 14.35 15.4 17 19.8
P-4 6.04 N 350 390 400 424 454
Power Number 2.81 2.84 2.89 2.84 2.89
COV 1.25%
Table F-5 Three 6 inch P-4impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1.5)
Type D M 10.25 12.05 13.9 15.9 20
P-4 6.04 N 335 358 385 418 453
Power Number 2.75 2.83 2.82 2.73 2.93
COV 2.78%
Table F-6 Three 6 inch P-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 2)
Type D M 12.7 15.05 16.8 18 19.15
P-4 6.04 N 348 380 404 418 428
Power Number 3.15 3.13 3.09 3.10 3.14
COV 0.86%
Table F-7 Three 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1)
Type D M 11.45 13.6 15.4 17.4 18.6
S-4 6.00 N 230 248 262 280 288
Power Number 6.76 6.91 7.01 6.94 7.01
COV 1.45%
Table F-8 Three 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1.5)
Type D M 12.65 14.5 16.3 11.55 13.3
S-4 6.00 N 242 260 273 233 247
Power Number 6.75 6.70 6.83 6.65 6.81
COV 1.14%
92
Table F-9 Three 6 inch S-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 2)
Type D M 11.7 13.8 15.1 17.5 18.2
S-4 6.00 N 231 251 260 281 286
Power Number 6.85 6.85 6.98 6.93 6.95
COV 0.88%
93

!etd - Send File

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

!etd - Send File

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EFFECT OF IMPELLER TYPE AND NUMBER

AND LIQUID LEVEL ON TURBULENT BLEND TIME

The School of Engineering of the

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

Master of Science in Chemical Engineering

AND LIQUID LEVEL ON TURBULENT BLEND TIME

Name: Li, Jing

All rights reserved

EFFECT OF IMPELLER TYPE AND NUMBER

AND LIQUID LEVEL ON TURBULENT BLEND TIME

Name: Li, Jing

Advisors: Kevin J. Myers

impeller blend times.

encouraged me to go further not only on my thesis but with my academic courses. He

the laboratory are my treasure.

reviewing this thesis and helping with my writing.

give me the chance to open my eyes and to be a chemical engineer.

Figure 2-1 Radial-flow impellers………....………………………………………………………........10

Figure 2-2 Axial-flow impellers ………...……………………………………………………….…… 11

Figure 2-3 Turbulent blend time measurement………………….……..................................................14

Figure 2-4 Multiple impeller system……………………………………………………….….…....….16

S-4 and down-pumping HE-3 and P-4 impellers…………………………… ...……......….22 ..

Figure 3-20 HE-3 blend time correlation to number of impellers…….…………….……………..........42

Figure 3-21 HE-3 parity plot………………………………………………………………….................42

Figure 3-23 P-4 blend time correlation to number of impellers…………………………………........…44

Figure 3-24 P-4 parity plot………………………………………………………………………........…44

Figure 3-26 S-4 parity plot…………………………………………………………………….…...........46

Table 1-1 Fasano and Penney’s a and b values…………………………………………………....4

(D/T = 0.34, Ci /T = (i/ (n+1)) (Z/T)) ……...…………………………………...……….....31 .

and power and torque requirement data………………..………….………….…................32

different liquid levels..............................….......................................................................... 39

Table B-1 HE-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)...........................72

Table B-2 HE-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)...........................72

Table B-3 HE-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)...........................72

Table B-4 P-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)..............................72

Table B-6 P-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)..............................73

Table B-7 S-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)..............................73

Table B-8 S-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)..............................73

Table B-9 S-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)..............................73

Table B-10 Maxflo W impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)...................73

Table B-11 Sawtooth impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)....................74

Table B-12 D-6 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3).............................74

Table B-13 D-8 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3).............................74

Table B-14 CD-6 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)...........................74

Table B-15 SC-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)...........................74

Table B-16 RL-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3)...........................74

Table B-17 ChemShear impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3).................75

Table B-18 ChemShear impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 3).................75

Table B-19 S-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 2)..............................75

Table B-20 P-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 2)..............................75

Table B-21 HE-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 1, C / T = 1 / 2)...........................75

Table B-25 S-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 2, C / T = 1)...................................76

Table B-26 P-4 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 2, C / T = 1)...................................76

Table B-27 HE-3 impeller experimental power number data (Z / T = 2, C / T = 1)................................77

a,b Impeller-dependent constants reported by Fasano and Penny (Equation 1-7)

C1 FMP Parameter constant (Equation 3-4)

i Impeller number in multiple impeller system

k Turbulent mixing rate constant reported by Fasano and Penny

Ntb Dimensionless blend time

Np Impeller power number (dimensionless)

Np1 Single impeller power number (dimensionless)

Nps Impeller power number for the system (dimensionless)

NQ1 Single impeller pumping number (dimensionless)