CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 228Fluid Dynamics and MixingFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 280 of the 280 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

CFD simulation of stirred tanks: Comparison of turbulence models. Part I: Radial flow impellers

Joshi, Jyeshtharaj B., Nere, Nandkishor K., Rane, Chinmay V., Murthy, B. N., Mathpati, Channamallikarjun S., Patwardhan, Ashwin W., Ranade, Vivek V.·2011·The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering
DOI 10.1002/cjce.20446
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract A critical review of the published literature regarding the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modelling of single‐phase turbulent flow in stirred tank reactors is presented. In this part of review, CFD simulations of radial flow impellers (mainly disc turbine (DT)) in a fully baffled vessel operating in a turbulent regime have been presented. Simulated results obtained with different impeller modelling approaches (impeller boundary condition, multiple reference frame, computational snap shot and the sliding mesh approaches) and different turbulence models (standard k − ε model, RNG k − ε model, the Reynolds stress model (RSM) and large eddy simulation) have been compared with the in‐house laser Doppler anemometry (LDA) experimental data. In addition, recently proposed modifications to the standard k − ε models were also evaluated. The model predictions (of all the mean velocities, turbulent kinetic energy and its dissipation rate) have been compared with the experimental measurements at various locations in the tank. A discussion is presented to highlight strengths and weaknesses of currently used CFD models. A preliminary analysis of sensitivity of modelling assumptions in the k − ε models and RSM has been carried out using LES database. The quantitative comparison of exact and modelled turbulence production, transport and dissipation terms has highlighted the reasons behind the partial success of various modifications of standard k − ε model as well as RSM. The volume integral of predicted energy dissipation rate is compared with the energy input rate. Based on these results, suggestions have been made for the future work in this area.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cjce.20446

Cites

280 of 280 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The predictive power of a CFD model depends decisively on the selection of the considered phenomena as well as on the selected modeling approach and the concrete submodels.

    “However, the predictive power of a CFD model depends decisively on the selection of the considered phenomena as well as on the selected modeling approach and the concrete submodels [46-48].”

    From Modeling and Simulation of Photobioreactors with Computational Fluid Dynamics—A Comprehensive Review (2022) · cites this paper as [47]

  • The sliding mesh technique is routinely used for the simulation of stirred tanks or other geometries with rotating parts.

    “The technique is also routinely used for the simulation of stirred tanks or other geometries with rotating parts [47,48,134].”

    From Modeling and Simulation of Photobioreactors with Computational Fluid Dynamics—A Comprehensive Review (2022) · cites this paper as [47]

  • For stirred tank reactors, the numerical technique used to capture the motion of rotating agitators and the choice of a turbulence model significantly affect the computed flow fields.

    “This lack of knowledge should be closed since it was demonstrated for stirred tank reactors that the numerical technique being used to capture the motion of rotating agitators and the choice of a turbulence model significantly affect the computed flow fields [47,48].”

    From Modeling and Simulation of Photobioreactors with Computational Fluid Dynamics—A Comprehensive Review (2022) · cites this paper as [47]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. Bakker A., 1994, Single‐phase flow in stirred reactors,, Chem. Eng. Sci., 72, 583
  2. Beckner J. L., 1966, Anchor‐Agitated Systems: Power Input with Newtonian and Pseudo‐Plastic Fluids,, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., 44, T224
  3. Bourne J. R., 1969, Power Consumption of Helical Ribbon Impellers in Viscous Liquids,, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., 47, T263
  4. Bourne J. R., 1969, An Analysis of the Flow Produced by Helical Ribbon Impellers,, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., 47, 159
  5. Bowen R. L., 1985, Agitation Intensity: Key to Scaling Up Flow‐Sensitive Liquid Systems,, Chem. Eng., 92, 159
  6. Brennan D. J., 1976, Impeller Mixing in Vessels Experimental Studies on the Influence of Some Parameters and Formulation of a General Mixing Time Equation,, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., 54, 139
  7. Brooks B. W., 1979, Drop Size Distributions in an Agitated Liquid/Liquid Dispersion,, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., 57, 210
  8. Daskopoulos P., 1996, Three Dimensional CFD Simulations of Turbulent Flow in Baffled Stirred Tanks: An Assessment of the Current Position,, Inst. Chem. Eng. Symp. Ser., 140, 1
  9. Derksen J. J. J. H.StockmannandH. E. A.Akker “Three‐Dimensional Laser Doppler Anemometry in a Stirred Tank ” Proc. 9th Euro. Conf. Mix. 11 81–87 (1997).
  10. Edney H. G. S., 1976, Heat Transfer to Non‐Newtonian and Aerated Fluids in Stirred Tanks,, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., 54, 160
  11. Gillissen J. J. J.andH. E. A.van den Akker “Direct Numerical Simulation of a Turbulently Stirred Tank ” 13th European Conference on Mixing London 14–17 (2009).
  12. Hall K. R., 1970, Power Consumption by Helical Ribbon Impellers,, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., 48, T201
  13. Harnby N., 1991, Mixing in Process Chemical Industries,
  14. Harvey P. S., 1982, Turbulent Flow in an Agitated Vessel Part‐I: A Predictive Model,, Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 60, 195
  15. Harvey P. S., 1982, Turbulent Flow in an Agitated Vessel Part‐II: Numerical Solution and Model Predictions,, Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 60, 201
  16. Jaworski Z. K. N.Dyster I. P. T.Moore A. W.NienowandM. S.Wyszynski “The Use of Angle Resolved LDA Data to Compare Two Differential Turbulence Models Applied to Sliding Mesh CFD Flow Simulations in a Stirred Tank ” Proc. 9th Euro. Conf. Mix. 11 187–194 (1997).
  17. Jenne M.andM.Reuss “Fluid Dynamic Modelling and Simulation of Gas–Liquid flow in Baffled Stirred Tank Reactors ” Proc. 9th Euro. Conf. Mix. 11 (52) 201–208 (1997).
  18. Joshi J. B., 2002, Measurement of Gas Hold‐Up Profiles in Stirred Tank Reactors by Gamma Ray Attenuation Technique,, Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs., 80, 411
  19. Kemoun A., 1994, Experimental Determination of the Complete Reynolds Stress Tensor in Fluid Agitated by a Rushton Turbine,, Inst. Chem. Eng. Symp. Ser., 136, 399
  20. Kumar P. “Design of Bioreactors. Ph.D. Thesis ” University of Mumbai Mumbai (1997).
  21. Kuncewicz C. A.HeimandM.Pietrzykowski “A Model of Laminar Liquid Flow for Flat Bladed Paddles ” Proc. 10th Euro. Conf. Mix. 113–120 (1997).
  22. Laufhutte H. D.andA. B.Mersmaan “Dissipation of Power in Stirred Vessel ” Proc. 5th Euro. Conf. Mix. 331–340 (1985).
  23. Lee K. C.andM.Yianneskis “Measurement of Temperature and Mixing Time in Stirred Vessels with Liquid Crystal Thermography ” Proc. 9th Euro. Conf. Mix. 121–128 (1997).
  24. Lee K. C., 1996, Sliding Mesh Predictions of the Flows around Rushton Impellers,, IChemE. Symp. Ser., 140, 1
  25. Levins D. M., 1972, Particle‐Liquid Hydrodynamics and Mass Transfer in a Stirred Vessel Part. II—Mass Transfer,, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., 50, 132
  26. Mahoust M. R.DavidandG.Cognet “Periodic Phenomena Generated in the Discharge Flow by a Rushton Turbine in a CSTR and Investigation of the Reynolds Stresses ” Proc. 6th Euro. Conf. Mix. 23–28 (1988).
  27. McGuirk J.andW.Rodi “A Mathematical Model for a Vertical Jet Discharging Into a Shallow Lake ” Proc. 17th Congress of the International Association For Hydraulic Research 579–586 (1977).
  28. Middleton J. C., 1986, Computation of Flow Fields and Complex Reaction Yield in Turbulent Stirred Reactors and Comparison with Experimental Data,, Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 64, 18
  29. Mishra V. P., 1993, Flow Generated by a Disc Turbine—III: Effect of Impeller Diameter, Impeller Location and Comparison with Other Radial Flow Impellers,, Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs. (U.K.).‐A: Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 71, 563
  30. Murthy J. Y. S. R.MathurandD.Choudhary “CFD Simulation of Flows in Stirred Tank Rectors using a Sliding Mesh Technique ” Proc. 8th Euro. Conf. Mix. 155–162 (1994).
  31. Nienow A. W., 1996, Gas–Liquid Mixing Studies: A Comparison of Rushton Turbines with Some Modern Impellers,, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., 74, 417
  32. Nishikawa M., 1979, Agitation Power and Mixing Time in Off‐Centering Mixing,, Int. Chem. Eng., 19, 153
  33. Novák V., 1969, Homogenisation with Helical Screw Agitators,, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., 47, T335
  34. Obot N. T., 1993, Design Mixing Processes Using the Frictional Law of Corresponding States,, Chem Eng. Progress, 47
  35. Ogawa K.andC.Kuroda “A New Scale‐Up Rule and Evaluation of Traditional Rules from a Viewpoint of Energy Spectrum Function ” in: G.B. Tatterson (Ed.) AIChE Symposium Series Industrial Mixing Fundamentals with Application no. 305 1995 95–101.
  36. Okamoto Y., 1981, Energy Dissipation Rate Distribution in Mixing Vessels and Its Effect on Liquid–Liquid Dispersion and Solid–Liquid Mass Transfer,, Int. Chem. Eng., 21, 88
  37. Perng C. Y.andJ. Y.Murthy “A moving‐deforming‐mesh technique for simulation of flow in mixing tanks ” In: Process Mixing: Chemical and Biochemical Applications pp. 37–41. (1993).
  38. Perng C. Y.andJ. Y.Murthy “A Moving Deforming Mesh Technique for Simulation of Flow in Mixing Tanks ” Proc. 8th Euro. Conf. Mix. 37–39 (1994).
  39. Peters D. C., 1967, Fluid Flow in the Region of Anchor Agitator Blades,, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., 45, T360
  40. Ranade V. V., 1990, Flow Generated by a Disc Turbine: Part II Mathematical Modelling and Comparison with Experimental Data,, Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 68, 34
  41. Rewatkar V. B., 1989, Some Aspects of Solid Suspension in Mechanically Agitated Reactors,, AIChE J., 35, 1575
  42. Rushton J. H., 1950, Power Characteristics of Mixing Impellers Part 2,, Chem. Eng. Progress, 46, 467
  43. Tabor G., 1996, Numerical simulation of the flow in a mixing vessel stirred by a Rushton Turbine,, IChemE Symposium Series, 140, 25
  44. Tabor A., 1998, Numerical Simulation of the Flow in a Mixing Vessel Stirred by a Rushton Turbine,, IChemE Symp. Ser, 140, 25
  45. Tanaka M., 1987, Gas Entrainment in Stirred‐Tank Reactors,, Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 65, 195
  46. Venneker B. C. H.andH. E. A.van den Akker “CFD Calculations of the Turbulent Flow of Shear‐Thinning Fluids in Agitated Tanks ” Proc. 9th Euro. Conf. Mix. 11 179–186 (1997).
  47. Wilcox D. C., 1993, Turbulence Modelling for CFD,
  48. Xu Y., 1996, CFD Predictions in Stirred Tank Flows,, Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 74, 471

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Joshi, J. B., Nere, N. K., Rane, C. V., Murthy, B. N., Mathpati, C. S., Patwardhan, A. W., & Ranade, V. V.
Affiliations
  • Institute of Chemical Technology (IN)
  • National Chemical Laboratory (IN)
Corresponding author
Joshi, Jyeshtharaj B.
ORCID
Venue
The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-01-21
Volume
89
Issue
1
Pages
23-82
ISSN
  • 0008-4034 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-019X
DOI
10.1002/cjce.20446
OpenAlex
W2124213858
Cited by
228
References
280
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 5
FWCI
7.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Chemical Engineering › Fluid Flow and Transfer Processes › Fluid Dynamics and Mixing
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Fluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Computational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Keywords
stirred tank reactor, radial flow impellers, disc turbine, turbulence model comparison, k-epsilon turbulence model, RNG k-epsilon turbulence model, Reynolds stress model, large eddy simulation, multiple reference frames, sliding mesh, turbulence dissipation rate, energy dissipation rate, laser Doppler anemometry

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review