D.

Georgiev,
Journal of the University of Chemical S. Vlaev
Technology and Metallurgy, 41, 1, 2006, 45-50

FLOW FIELD CHARACTERISTICS

OF MODIFIED INCLINED-BLADE MIXING IMPELLERS
D. Georgiev, S. Vlaev*

Institute of Chemical Engineering, Received 12 January 2006

Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Accepted 10 February 2006
Acad. G. Bonchev Str., Bl. 103,
1113 Sofia, Bulgaria; tel. 02/8703273;
E-mail: dobrin@bas.bg, * mixreac@bas.bg

ABSTRACT

The flow field generated by inclined-blade mixing impellers with modified blades is studied. The work is focused on
two-blade designs with specific alterations – trapezoidal shape of large and small solidity ratio and leading edge wings.
Three kinds of inclined-blade geometry are examined: a general type of a trapezium-shaped blade TB, a shielded version
of TB, termed STB, an extended version TB with large ‘wall-to-fluid’ contact area, abbreviated ETB. All blades were
inclined at 45 degrees to the horizontal plane. Another fourth version with vertical blades termed ETB 90 was studied for
comparison. The vessel is 0.4 m in diameter. Flow differences have been sought in order to determine the correspondence
between shape performance and impeller application requirements. The problem is solved by CFD using FLUENT 6.1
commercial software for fluid dynamic analysis. A RANS ‘k-å’ model was employed. The flow field parameters, such as
velocity, flow patterns, power and flow numbers and strain rate are determined. The parameters relevant to the different
shapes are compared. Version STB is found to enhance axial circulation and to double the circulation loops at relatively
low power number. Version ETB showed larger strain deformation rate compared to the other impellers. The possible
application area of the impellers is discussed.
Keywords: mixing, inclined blades; CFD, macro-parameters.

INTRODUCTION vealed by several representative studies [1-6]. Yet system-

Contemporary chemical and biochemical pro-
cess technology requires high mixing rates at low power
requirements to achieve high production at low cost.
This trend increases the significance of the systematic
chemical engineering analysis of mixing operation.
Impeller geometry is a basic precondition for ef-
fective mixing. The successful design of a stirrer has be-
come extremely important due to the insight of its energy-
saving potential. The interest on blade shape has been re-
atic description of the relationship between shape modifi-
cation and impeller mixing properties is lacking. More
comparative information is needed in order to be able to
discriminate between the properties assigned to different
geometry. In order to allow such classification to be deliv-
ered, the characteristic deviations of impeller performance
caused by typical modifications of classified blades, e.g.
flat, inclined, fluid-foil ones should be described.
The present study is focused on modified inclined
blades. We have attempted a systematic approach based

45
 Journal of the University of Chemical Technology and Metallurgy, 41, 1, 2006

on the macro-parameters characteriz-

ing the flow fields of the various de-
signs. In view of recent observations on
the lift and drag ratio in the fluid dy-
namics of foils [7], in this paper an ex-
tended version and a shielded version
of a general inclined-blade impeller
have been studied.

EXPERIMENTAL

The following procedure was

carried out: (1) a Reynolds-Averaged
Navier-Stokes (RANS) model was for-
mulated, (2) the individual impeller
cases were solved by an “inner-outer”
solution procedure, (3) the velocity and Fig. 1. Schematics of blade modifications.
pressure fields around the impellers
were computed, (4) the power and flow
numbers were determined, and finally, (5) the power equations [9]. Turbulence was modeled using the stan-
effectiveness of the design modifications was compared. dard “k-å” model [10].
The computational models contained 3D-grids
Simulated Cases with a total of up to 800 000 mixed, hexahedral, quad-
Three inclined-blade impeller designs were stud- rilateral and triangular cells. The meshes of the differ-
ied, as follows: a general type of a trapezium-shaped ent design cases were structured identically, as formu-
inclined blade, termed TB, a shielded TB comprising a lated by Gambit 2.1.6. Grid refinement around the im-
leading blade wing (abbrev. STB) and an extended ver- peller was used. The computational mesh was formu-
sion of TB with large ‘wall-to-fluid’ contact area (abbrev. lated in two parts: an inner rotating cylindrical volume
ETB). The latter design was compared with a version of enclosing the impeller, and an outer, stationary, annu-
similar vertical blades, i.e. ETB 90. Fig. 1 contains the lar volume containing the rest of the vessel. The “inner-
schematics of the separate designs, while excluding exact outer” multiple-reference frame” (MRF) solution ap-
reciprocity, impellers STB and ETB are believed to re- proach [11] was used. A detailed view of the computa-
semble two impellers - Interprop and Viscoprop - widely tional mesh is given in Fig. 2.
publicized by EKATO [8]. Tests with different grid configurations were car-
The physical model setup included a stirred ves- ried out in order to obtain grid-independent solution.
sel with diameter T = 0.4 m with a single impeller sized The number of iterations was ca. 4 000 with a second
D = T / 3 and located centrally. The
liquid height was H = T. All designs
were tested at Re > 104 in water at
N = 10 s-1.
Numerical simulation
Three-dimensional simula-
tion was performed using the com-
putational fluid dynamics (CFD)
code FLUENT version 6.1.22, a
finite-volume-based CFD analysis a b c
program solving Navier-Stokes Fig. 2. Vertical(a) and horizontal (b) views of the meshed tank Grid refinement near the impeller(c).

46
 D. Georgiev, S. Vlaev

order upwind. The convergence criterion

was assumed to be 10-4. Iterations were
started at zero velocity and 0.001 turbu-
lence kinetic energy and dissipation rate.
Under-relaxation factors were set to 0.5
for pressure and 0.2 for momentum. The
discretisation method for pressure was
“body force weighed”.
Impeller power number, Po, was STB TB ETB ETB90
determined, as P / ñN D based on torque
3 5 Fig. 3. Velocity magnitude contours changes.
M imposed by the impeller to the fluid, fluid flow is given a high momentum as a result of the
P = 2ðNM. The computational momentum centre coin- rapid passage of liquid through the space between the
cided with the intersection of the shaft z-axis with the slat and the blade. This also decreases the tendency of
horizontal impeller plane. The impeller flow number the flow to separate, so that higher coefficients of lift
(Fl = Ql / ND3) was determined by integrating the axial are possible.
The effect can be seen clearly in Fig. 4, bearing
∫π R V
2
impeller outflow, Q = z over a circular sur-
the vector diagrams relevant to the impellers. Impellers
face above impeller. EFTB and EFTB90 generate single loop circulations,
The model potential to deliver the impeller flow while TB shows initiation of a second loop and STB
patterns and flow field parameters was checked by ref- exhibits a further fully developed secondary circulation.
erence [12] and by comparison with the authors’ own The velocity data imply the need for further more
experimental data [13-14]. detailed analysis over the velocity components. In par-
ticular, the axial velocity was studied. The 3-D surfaces
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION of constant axial velocity at three levels, namely, 0.1 m/s,
0.2 m/s, and 0.3 m/s, were determined. The iso-surfaces
Initially, the impeller flow patterns were analyzed. at 0.3 m/s corresponding to the three inclined-blade
2-D velocity contours and 2-D vector plots relevant to designs are visualized in Fig. 5. In parallel, the area of
the vertical plane of Fig. 2 (b) are illustrated in Figs 3 these iso-surfaces was determined to serve as an estimate
and 4, respectively. Assuming TB to rep-
resent the basic design, the two inclined-
blade modifications STB (left) and ETB
(right), respectively, show some flow
field improvements. Referring to the 45
degree inclined blades, the flow pattern
caused by TB is purely axial, while STB
generates a stronger axial flow coupled
with radial flow second loop in the left;
ETB generates enhanced axial flow cir-
culation. As expected, impeller ETB90
generates a clear radial flow pattern (Fig.
3 far right). One could infer that the lead-
ing edge wing at STB imposes additional
flow circulation that shifts the flow to a
mixed axial and radial flow pattern. Pre-
sumably, this is due to the channel
formed between the wing slat and the
flat wing. Over the main flat blade, the Fig. 4. Flow patterns.

47
 Journal of the University of Chemical Technology and Metallurgy, 41, 1, 2006

for the spread of velocity within the

stirred vessel. The relevant data is
presented in Table 1. Both positive
and negative values were consid-
ered. The final result of this analy-
sis has shown that impeller STB
generates up to 60 % larger spread
axial velocity than the other two
versions. Consequently, a more uni-
form distribution of the local axial
velocity could be assigned to this
Fig. 5. ISO – zones of axial velocity. impeller design.
Similar trend has been reg-
istered for the other component
Table 1. velocities, and in particular, for
tangential velocity. STB showed
Area of axial velocity surface, m2 superior kinematical uniformity
Impeller
compared to the other two shapes.
0.3 m/s 0.2 m/s 0.1 m/s
Further, the macro-param-
TB 0.51 0.76 1.16
eters of impeller performance
ETB 0.66 0.89 1.36 were determined and compared.
STB 0.98 1.13 1.68 Table 2 presents a summary of the
mixing macro-parameters, i.e. the
impeller power number and flow
Table 2. number, Po and Fl, respectively.
Both ratios Po/Fl and Fl/Po are
determined, as estimates of the
Impeller Po Fl Po/Fl Fl/Po impeller type and axial flow ef-
fectiveness, respectively. It
Axial: should be noted that, in so far as
TB 0.49 0.16 3.06 0.33 it is based on a very comprehen-
ETB 0.59 0.23 2.56 0.39 sive torque computation, Po ob-
STB 0.69 0.42 1.82 0.55 tained by computational flow
Radial: simulation is an accurate param-
ETB90 1.07 0.31 3.45 0.29 eter in contrast to experimental
Po values that may show consid-
erable scatter. Thus, the model-
Table 3. obtained Po value was consid-
ered highly informative with re-
spect to the drag-velocity rela-
Impeller ev Si Si/ev Sb Sb/ev
tionship of the relevant design
W/m3 s-1 s-1 modification.
TB 415 53 0.13 11 0.027 Table 2 shows Po vari-
ETB 490 44 0.09 11 0.022 ability in the range 0.49 – 1.07,
STB 578 69 0.12 14 0.024 the minimum power number
corresponding to impeller TB
ETB90 892 74 0.083 19 0.023 and the maximum one – to the

48
 D. Georgiev, S. Vlaev
ETB90. For comparison, a general propeller has
Po=0.66 [1]. Referring to the ratio Po/Fl in Table 2,
ETB90 was identified as a shear-type impeller (Po/
Fl>2.5 acc. to [1]), while the other three were consid-
ered as flow type. With regard to its reciprocal value,
Fl/Po, in the last column of Table 2, namely, the axial
flow effectiveness, Fl/Po : 0.55 ensured by impeller
STB was 60 % higher than the one of TB. Combined
with the information on axial flow uniformity, one could
infer that the design with leading edge slat/wing pro-
vides an improved lift/resistance ratio and more in-
tense axial impulse compared to the other. Conse-
quently, the design STB can be used effectively for dis-
persion applications in addition to blending and sol-
ids suspension.
Finally, based on the velocity gradients in the
impeller zone (index i) and bulk zone (index b), the
strain deformation rate was determined. Table 3 con-
tains the data. Practically, all design versions showed
similar bulk strain rate values s&b : 11-14 s-1. This
trend does not hold for the impeller area, where s&i
varied by more than 80 %. Besides, apart from the well-
known high shear performance of the vertical blades
[1], the strain deformation generated by impeller STB
was found to be high.
The leading-edge slat increased the strain rate in
the impeller zone by 30 %. In view of the different power
requirement, the specific deformation effectiveness of
the designs was different; it was higher in cases TB and
STB.
CONCLUSIONS
To summarize, the flow field differences im-
posed by small changes of impeller blade design have
been revealed. The flow field axial up-flow, power draw,
pumping capacity, deformation rate of three modified
inclined-blade impellers have been identified and com-
pared. Evidence for enhanced performance of the
shielded wing blades was found.
As tested by two-blade versions at similar in-
put power, the shielded blade impellers showed up
to 60 % higher axial flow potential and high defor-
mation rate compared to the conventional compact
blade designs.
The improved performance of these units is ex-
plained by the high-energy channel flow in the space
between the blade and the wing slat.
NOMENCLATURE
T tank diameter, m
D impeller diameter, m
H liquid height, m
Po power number, P/ñN3D5
Fl flow number, Ql / ND3
N impeller speed, rpm
Re impeller Reynolds number, ñND2/µ
ev volumetric input power, W dm-3
s& strain rate, s-1
V velocity, m s-1
Vz axial velocity, m s-1
Ql liquid pumping flow rate, m3 s-1
µ dynamic viscosity, Pa s
ñ density, kg m-3
REFERENCES
1. E. Paul, V. Atiemo-Obeng, S. Kresta, (Eds.), Hand-
book of industrial mixing-science and practice.
Wiley-Intersciences, New Jersey, 2004. .
2. A. Nienow, Trans. IChemE, 74 (A), 1996, 417-423.
3. S.C.P. Orvalho, J.M.T. Vasconcelos, S.S. Alves, in:
H.E.A.Van den Akker, J.J.Derksen (Eds.), Proc.
10th Eur. Conf. on Mixing, Delft, 2000, pp. 461-
468.
4. D. Pinelli, A. Bakker, K.J. Meyers, M.F. Reeder, J. Fasano,
F. Magelli, Trans. IChemE, 81 (A), 2003, 448-454.
5. S.D. Vlaev, P. Mavros, P. Seichter, R. Mann, Can. J.
Chem. Eng., 80, 2002, 653-659.
6. E.S. Szalai, P. Arratia, K. Johnson, F.J. Muzzio, Chem.
Eng. Sci., 59, 2004, 3793-3805.
7. I. Shames, Mechanics of Fluids. 3rd Ed. McGraw-
Hill Inc., New York, 1992.
8. EKATO Handbook of Mixing Technology, EKATO
GmbH, Schopfheim, 2002.
9. FLUENT User’s Guide, New Hempshire, 1999.
10. J.H. Ferziger, M. Peric, Computational Methods for
Fluid Dynamics, Springer, Berlin, 1997.
11. A. Brucato, M. Ciofalo, F. Grisafi, R. Tocco, Chem.
49
 Journal of the University of Chemical Technology and Metallurgy, 41, 1, 2006

Eng. Sci. 55, 2000, 291-302. 13. P. Mavros, R. Mann, S.D. Vlaev, J. Bertrand, Trans.
12. H. Hartmann, J.J. Derksen, C. Montavon, J. Pearson, IChemE 79A, 2001, 857-866.
I.S. Hamill, H.E.A.Van den Akker, Chem. Eng. Sci., 14. S.D. Vlaev, P. Staykov, P. Popov, Trans. IChemE ,
59, 2004, 2419-2432. 82(C), 2004, 13-20.

50