DESIGN AND ASSESSMENT OF A NOVEL STATIC MIXER

Mushtak Al-Atabi*
School of Engineering, Taylor’s University College, No 1, Jalan Taylor’s, 47500 Subang Jaya, Selangor DE, Malaysia

This paper examines the performance of a novel static mixer comprising a circular tube fitted with eight alternating equi-spaced semicircular rigid
insert (baffles) as the mixer elements. Experiments were carried out to obtain the coefficient of variance (CoV) for the mixing of two streams of
water and brine for Reynolds number between 60 and 700. Decreasing the baffles clearance ratio significantly reduces the CoV but at a cost of
an increase in the pressure drop across the static mixer. The presence of the mixing elements (baffles) promotes a non-laminar, turbulent-like
flow which considerably enhances the mixing. The static mixer described here represents a cost effective, easy to manufacture, low maintenance,
and flexible alternative to the more sophisticated static mixers currently in use.

Ce document examine le rendement d’un nouveau mélangeur statique composé d’un tube circulaire comportant huit garnitures rigides demi-
circulaires équidistantes alternantes (déflecteurs) comme éléments du mélangeur. Des expériences ont été réalisées pour obtenir le cœfficient
de variation (CV) pour le mélange de deux jets d’eau et de saumure pour un nombre de Reynolds entre 60 et 700. Diminuer le rapport de
dégagement des déflecteurs réduit considérablement le CV, mais il en coûte une augmentation de la perte de charge dans tout le mélangeur
statique. La présence des éléments de mélange (déflecteurs) favorise un écoulement non laminaire semblable à de la turbulence qui accroı̂t
considérablement le mélange. Le mélangeur statique décrit ici représente une solution de rechange souple, économique, facile à fabriquer et
présentant peu d’entretien aux mélangeurs statiques plus élaborés utilisés à l’heure actuelle.

Keywords: static mixer, homogenisation, segmental baffles, coefficient of variance, laminar flow, fluid mechanics

INTRODUCTION and reduced maintenance requirements compared with mechan-

ically stirred mixers. They offer a more controlled and scaleable

M
ixing is an important process in many industries. It is
usually achieved by using either mechanically stirred
vessels or static mixers. Static mixers consist of a series
of stationary and rigid inserts as the mixing element installed in
pipes, ducts, or transfer tubes. The purpose of these inserts is to
redistribute fluid in a direction transverse to the direction of the
main flow, both tangentially and radially. Static mixers find appli-
cations in wide variety of processes such as blending of miscible
fluids both in laminar and turbulent flows, mixing and disper-
sion of immiscible fluids by helping to generate an interface, solid
blending, heat and mass transfer and homogenisation (Etchells
and Meyer, 2004). These processes, in turn, serve many industries
such as chemical and agricultural chemicals production, grain
processing, food processing, minerals processing, petrochemical
and refining, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, polymers, plastics,
textiles, paints, resins and adhesives, pulp and paper, water and
waste water treatment.
The use of static mixers in continuous processes is an attractive
alternative to conventional agitation since similar and sometimes
better performance can be achieved at lower cost. As they have
no moving parts, stationary mixers typically have lower energy
consumptions, smaller space requirements, low equipment cost
rate of dilution in fed batch systems and can provide homogeni-
sation of feed streams with a minimum residence time. They also
provide good mixing at low shear rates where locally high shear
rates in a mechanical agitator may damage sensitive materials.
Static mixers also come with self-cleaning features. Interchange-
able and disposable static mixers are also available (Etchells and
Meyer, 2004).
Numerous static mixer designs have been proposed. Thakur
et al. (2003) reported the existence of approximately 2000 US
patents and more than 8000 literature articles that describe static
mixers and their applications. More than 30 models have made
their way into different industries and they are commercially
available. Kenics mixers, KMS and KMX, (by Chemineer, Inc.,
Dayton, OH) are used in both laminar and turbulent flow regimes
∗ Author to whom correspondence may be addressed.
E-mail address: mushtak.t@taylors.edu.my
Can. J. Chem. Eng. 89:550–554, 2011
© 2010 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering
DOI 10.1002/cjce.20412
Published online 9 November 2010 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com).

| 550 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | | VOLUME 89, JUNE 2011 |
Figure 1. Geometries of some commercially available mixers.
to achieve thermal homogenisation of polymer melt (Chen, 1975),
gas–liquid dispersion and dilution of feed to reactor (Smith, 1978)
and dispersion of viscous liquids (Berkman and Calabrese, 1988).
Another mixer manufactured by Chemineer, Inc., is the HEV (high
efficiency vortex) static mixer which is used for turbulent low vis-
cosity liquid–liquid blending and gas–gas mixing (Thakur et al.,
2003).
Koch-Glitsch (Wichita, KS), produces a range of static mixers
that comprise the SMX, SMV, SMXL, SMF, and SMR (Thakur et
al., 2003). SMX mixers are used for laminar mixing of high vis-
cosity liquids and liquids with extremely diverse viscosity and
homogenisation of melts in polymer processing. SMV mixers find
applications in turbulent low viscosity mixing and mass trans-
fer in gas–liquid systems. SMXL static mixers are used in the
laminar flow regime for liquid–liquid extraction, homogeneous
dispersion, and laminar heat transfer enhancement for viscous
fluids. SMF mixers are utilised for sludge conditioning, pulp stock
blending, bleaching, dilution, bleaching of suspension and slur-
ries. SMR mixers are used for laminar polystyrene polymerisation
and devolatilisation. Other mixers produced by different manufac-
turers are also available. Some of the available static mixers are
shown in Figure 1.
The assessment of the performance of a static mixer is based
usually on two criteria: the quality of mixing and the pressure
drop through the mixer. Mixing quality is often ascertained by
visual observations which may be carried out by simple dye
addition or blending and curing two colour epoxies. Quantita-
tive data may be obtained from determining the coefficient of
variation based on various statistical analysis of mixing quality
(Myers et al., 1997). Despite the numerous applications of static
mixers, the fundamental understanding of the process is so far
insufficiently understood (Godfrey, 1992). Some researchers have
reported pressure drop data (Shah and Kale, 1992; Li et al., 1997;
Thakur et al., 2003), residence time distributions (Nauman, 1991;
Shah and Kale, 1992), friction factor (Legrand et al., 2001), or
mixing pattern “frieze” by solidification of coloured components
(Etchells and Meyer, 2004). Over the years computational sim-
ulations of mixing analysis have been carried out for different
Figure 2. Cross-sectional (A–A) view of the development length and the static mixer.
| VOLUME 89, JUNE 2011 | |
mixers (Bertrand et al., 1994; Lang et al., 1995; Hobbs et al., 1998;
Rauline et al., 1998; Visser et al., 1999).
This paper reports an experimental investigation of the mixing
of two streams of water and brine (25% NaCl, w/w) in a static
mixer that employs staggered baffles as the mixing elements in
a circular tube. The quality of the mixing is inferred from the
degree of mixedness between the two streams as exhibited by the
distribution of the concentration of NaCl at a cross sectional plane
downstream of the static mixer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Static Mixer Design
The static mixer presented in this paper comprises a circular tube
with semicircular staggered rigid inserts (baffles). Similar geome-
tries are often encountered in shell and tube heat exchangers
(Kakac and Liu, 2002) and have recently been employed as an
idealised biological flow device (Al-Atabi et al., 2004). The use
of this configuration as a static mixers potentially offers a set of
benefits; it is easy to manufacture and install, can be adapted
to non-circular ducts, offers more flexibility in changing design
parameters (baffle spacing and clearance ratio) and it can offer a
bi-directional operation.
Figure 2 shows a schematic diagram of the static mixers
designed and analysed in this study. The mixers are made of Plex-
iglas pipe with an internal diameter, D, of 21 mm fitted with eight
equi-spaced baffles, b/D = 1.5, where b is the baffle spacing. Three
models were constructed with clearance ratios, c/D, of 0.3, 0.5,
and 0.7, where c is the clearance at the baffle section. The flow
in a tube with no baffle (c/D = 1.0) was studied as well for rig
validation and for comparison.
Flow visualisation studies (Al-Atabi et al., 2005) have suggested
that the segmental baffles fitted in tubes encourage mixing. Figure
3a adapted from Al-Atabi et al. (2005) shows typical qualitative
results of these visualisation studies. The mixing achieved using
this rather simple configuration is similar to the mixing achieved
using more established (and sophisticated) static mixers such as
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 551 |
Figure 3. Flow structure at Reynolds number = 150. Flow from left to right. (a) The staggered baffles static mixer c/D = 0.3 (Al-Atabi et al., 2005). (b)
SMX static mixer (four mixing elements) (Al-Atabi and Abakr, 2007).

Figure 4. The multi-point sampling probe. (a) Front view. (b) Cross-sectional slide view.

SMX as shown in Figure 3b (Al-Atabi et al., 2005), while main-

taining a lower pressure drop penalty. The present paper aims to
provide a quantitative understanding of the degree of mixing and
the accompanying pressure drop in tubes with segmental baffles.

Test Facility and Procedure

The mixers performance is assessed by the degree of mixedness
between two streams of water and brine (25% NaCl, w/w). Both
the brine and water are supplied from their respective reservoirs
into constant head elevated tanks using two separate pumps. The
liquid levels in both tanks are kept the same. Water is continu-
ously supplied to the static mixer and its flow rate is controlled by
a downstream valve. Brine is injected via a 3 mm diameter tube in
the geometric centre of the tube 3D upstream of the static mixer.
A multi-point sampling probe has been constructed to extract
nine mixture samples simultaneously from nine points evenly
distributed across the pipe cross-section 3D downstream of the
mixer. The cross sectional area of each probe is less than 0.5%
of the cross-sectional area of the mixer, hence it will have mini-
mum disturbance to the flow. Figure 4a shows the front view of Figure 5. Experimental set-up.
the probe and Figure 4b its cross-sectional view. A schematic of
the test rig is given in Figure 5.
Refraction index (RI) of the sample was measured using a
refractometer in order to infer the average NaCl concentration in RESULTS
the sample. Pressure tappings were located 1.5D upstream of the
first baffle and 1.5D downstream of the last baffle. An inclined Mixing Quality
water manometer recorded pressure difference across the static The refractometer was calibrated with known concentrations, of
mixer. The Reynolds number, based on the tube diameter and NaCl and a linear relationship was established.
total flow rate, was varied from 50 to 6000 for each of the three The degree of mixing is defined by the coefficient of vari-
mixers and the tube with no baffle. ance (CoV), Equation (1), downstream of the mixer (Etchells and

| 552 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | | VOLUME 89, JUNE 2011 |
Figure 6. Variation of coefficient of variance (CoV) with Reynolds
number (Re). Figure 7. Effect of clearance ratio on the friction factor.

Meyer, 2004):


CoV = (1)
x̄
where
is the standard deviation and x̄ the mean concentration
of brine samples taken from all ports in an experiment run under
a given set of conditions. A CoV value of zero indicates perfect
mixing, conversely a value of unity means no mixing. In a typical
industrial mixing process, an additive is considered well mixed at
5% CoV (Etchells and Meyer, 2004).
Figure 6 shows the effect of baffle configuration on CoV for
50 < Re < 700. For the tube with no baffle (c/D = 1.0) CoV is inde-
pendent of Re as the flow at these conditions was clearly laminar;
there is little mixing between streamlines in such flow and molec-
ular diffusion is an inefficient mixing process. For tubes with Figure 8. Variation of (CoV/f) ratio with the Reynolds number.
baffles, increasing the Reynolds number decreases the CoV; the
larger the c/D, the greater the decrease in CoV. However, at a
given Re, the CoV is less for a smaller c/D. Hence, at Re = 50, the increases. Similar behaviour is noted for the c/D = 0.7. However,
tube with c/D = 0.3 shows the least CoV and the greatest degree this trend reverses for c/D = 0.5 and 0.3.
of mixing. The experimental error varied from ±5 to ±10% for
CoV at a given Reynolds number.
DISCUSSION
Friction Factors The laminar flow condition is well known to provide the worst
Figure 7 shows the effects of the baffles on the friction factor case for mixing. This is clearly seen in Figure 6 where the CoV
for 50 < Re < 5000 and compares those with some available static for the tube without baffles remains constant for 50 < Re < 700.
mixers data and circular tubes data. The friction factors of the The use of a series of equi-spaced semicircular inserts in the tube
proposed static mixers are higher than those of circular tubes can significantly improve mixing even in nominally laminar flow
but generally are lower than those of KMX (Reeder et al., 2001) conditions. This is the basis of the proposed novel static mixer
and Kenics mixers (Joshi et al., 1995). The general definition of design. Figure 6 also shows, that for the same number of baffles,
friction factor is given by Equation (2). Theoretical friction fac- at a given Reynolds number, decreasing the clearance of the baf-
tors in circular tubes are given by f = 64/Re for laminar flow and fles decreases the CoV and hence improves the mixing. Hence at
f = 0.079/Re0.25 for turbulent flow: Re = 100, decreasing the clearance from 70% of the tube diameter
to 30% improves the mixing by a factor of 4. At Re = 700, the CoV
P D decreases by a factor of 10 and mixing improves by an order of
f = (2)
1
2
L
V 2 magnitude over the same decrease in the clearance ratio. For a
given baffle configuration, CoV decreases with increasing Re. For
where P is the pressure drop over the length of the test section, c/D = 0.7, CoV drops from 0.4 to 0.2 when Re increases from 100
L, D the tube diameter, V the mean velocity defined by the volume to 700; but for c/D = 0.3, the CoV decreases by a factor of 10.
flow rate Q, and  the density of water as an approximation of the Flow visualisation studies, such as those shown in Figure 3,
density of the brine water mixture. show that non-laminar, turbulent-like flow conditions are cre-
Figure 8 attempts to combine the effect of Reynolds number on ated by the baffles even when the flow upstream of the baffles
both the CoV and friction factor for design optimisation purposes. is clearly laminar. It would require hot-wire or LDA to detect any
For any Re, the value of CoV/f increases with the increase of the fluctuations in flow to determine if the flow had undergone tran-
baffle clearance. For c/D = 1.0, the CoV tends to increase as the Re sition to turbulence. It is well known that transition can occur at

| VOLUME 89, JUNE 2011 | | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | 553 |
a Reynolds number as low as 10 in porous media (Bear, 1988).
The introduction of obstacles to flow is expected to increase the
pressure difference required to drive the flow at a given flow rate.
Figure 7 compares the friction factor, that is, pressure drop, in
circular tubes and commercial static mixers with those in tubes
with various baffle configurations. At a given Re, the friction fac-
tor increases with decreasing clearance. However, it is interesting
to note that unlike Poiseuille flow, the friction factor for each baf-
fle configuration at first decreases with increasing Re but soon
becomes independent of Reynolds number. For c/D = 0.7, that
occurs at Re ≈ 1000, at c/D = 0.3, it occurs at Re ≈ 400. It is a
characteristic of fully developed turbulent flow that the friction
factor depends only on surface roughness and not on Reynolds
number. Perhaps the baffles induce much earlier onset of tran-
sition/turbulence in tube with baffles. When Cov/f is plotted
against Re, it can be seen that the best mixing with the mini-
mum pressure loss occurs with a c/D of 0.3. This is particularly
evident for Reynolds numbers about 450. As well as the superior
mixing for a given pressure drop, it is clear that this design of
baffle mixer will also produce a more compact device.
CONCLUSIONS
Semicircular rigid inserts were introduced into circular tubes as
the mixer elements in a novel static mixer. The effectiveness of
this design has been found from measurement of CoV of brine
in the mixing of two laminar streams of brine and water in three
configurations of baffles in a straight tube. In all cases, CoV values
show that the baffles have promoted mixing. Flow visualisation
studies suggest that the baffles induce non-laminar turbulent like
flow which aids mixing. The increase in mixing is accompanied
by an increase in pressure drop as shown by the increase in fric-
tion factor in all cases when compared with similar Poiseuille
flow. A parametric study needs to be carried out to optimise the
configurations of the baffles, for example, number of baffles and
baffle spacing, for maximum mixing. It is envisaged that such a
mixer may find applications in mixing solids, very viscous liquids
or biofluids which might be damaged by the high strain rates in
turbulent or mechanical mixing conditions.
REFERENCES
Al-Atabi, M. T., S. B. Chin and X. Y. Luo, “An experimental
study of the flow in an idealized human cystic duct,” in Proc.
of the First Asian Pacific Biomechanics Conference, Osaka,
Japan, March 25–28 (2004).
Al-Atabi, M. T., S. B. Chin and X. Y. Luo, “Flow Structure in
Circular Tubes With Segmental Baffles,” J. Flow Vis. Image
Process. 8(2), 89 (2005).
Al-Atabi, M. T. and Y. A. Abakr, “Laminar Mixing in SMX Static
Mixers,” J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2(1), 95–101 (2007).
Bear, J., “Dynamics of Fluid Flow in Porous Media,” Dover
Publications, Inc., New York (1988).
Berkman, P. D. and R. V. Calabrese, “Dispersion of Viscous
Liquids by Turbulent Flow in a Static Mixer,” AIChE J. 34,
602–609 (1988).
Bertrand, F., P. A. Tanguy and F. Thibault, “A Numerical Study
of the Residence Time Distribution in Static Mixing,” IChemE
Symp. Ser. 136, 163 (1994).
Chen, S. J., “Static Mixing of Polymers,” Chem. Eng. Prog. 71,
80–883 (1975).
Etchells, A. W. III and C. F. Meyer, “Mixing in Pipelines,” in:
“Handbook of Industrial Mixing Science and Practice,” E. L.
| 554 | THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING | |
Paul, V. A. Atiemo-Obeng and S. M. Kresta, Eds.,
Wiley-Interscience, New Jersey (2004).
Godfrey, J. C., “Static Mixers,” in “Mixing in the Process
Industries,” 2nd edition, Chap. 12, N. Harnby, M. F. Edward
and A. W. Nienow, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford (1992).
Hobbs, D. M., P. D. Swanson and F. J. Muzzio, “Numerical
Characterization of Low Reynolds Number Flow in the Kenics
Static Mixer,” Chem. Eng. Sci. 53, 1565–1584 (1998).
Joshi, P., K. D. P. Nigam and E. B. Nauman, “The Kenics Static
Mixer: New Data and Proposed Correlations,” Chem. Eng. J.
59, 265–271 (1995).
Kakac, S. and H. Liu, “Heat Exchangers Selection, Rating, and
Thermal Design,” 2nd edition, CRC Press LLC, Florida (2002).
Lang, E., P. Drtina, F. Streiff and M. Fleischli, “Numerical
Simulation of the Fluid Flow and Mixing Process in a Static
Mixer,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 38, 2239–2250 (1995).
Legrand, J., P. Morançais and G. Carnelle, “Liquid–Liquid
Dispersion in an SMX-Sulzer Static Mixer,” 4th International
Symposium on Mixing in Industrial Processes 79, 949–956
(2001).
Li, H. Z., C. Fasol and L. Choplin, “Pressure Drop of Newtonian
and Non-Newtonian Fluids Across a Sulzer SMX Static
Mixer,” Trans. IChemE 75A, 792–796 (1997).
Myers, K., A. Bakker and D. Ryan, “Avoid Agitation by Selecting
Static Mixers,” Chem. Eng. Prog. 28–37 (1997).
Nauman, E. B., “On Residence Time and Trajectory Calculations
in Motionless Mixers,” Chem. Eng. J. 47, 141–148 (1991).
Rauline, D., P. A. Tanguy, J. M. Le Blevec and J. Bousquet,
“Numerical Investigation of the Performance of Several Static
Mixers,” 76(3), 527–535 (1998).
Reeder, M. F., J. Fasano and K. Myers, “Characterization of
blending in static mixers,” Proc. of Mixing XVIII,
Pennsylvania, USA, June 24–29 (2001).
Shah, N. F. and D. D. Kale, “Two-Phase, Gas–Liquid Flows in
Static Mixers,” AIChE J. 38, 308–310 (1992).
Smith, J. M., “Gas Dispersion in Viscous Liquids With a Static
Mixer,” Chem. Eng. 827–830 (1978).
Thakur, R. K., C. Vial, K. D. P. Nigam, E. B. Nauman and G.
Djelveh, “Static Mixers in the Process Industries—A Review,”
Trans. IChemE 81, 787–826 (2003).
Visser, E. J., P. F. Rozendal, H. W. Hoogstraten and A. C. M.
Beenackers, “Three Dimensional Numerical Simulation of
Flow and Heat Transfer in the Sulzer SMX Static Mixer,”
Chem. Eng. Sci. 54, 2491–2500 (1999).
Manuscript received February 19, 2010; revised manuscript
received April 21, 2010; accepted for publication April 30, 2010.
VOLUME 89, JUNE 2011 |