University of San Carlos

Department of Chemical Engineering

CHE 3214L Chemical Engineering Laboratory Investigations 1

Data Processing & Analysis Report

(Form CHE 3214L-3)

Prepared and submitted by:

JOHN FRITZ V. FESTEJO RIKA B. GUNJI JUN PAUL R. MAYORMITA

Experiment : Agitation of Water in a Cylindrical Tank

Objectives of the Experiment
1. Compare visually the fluid motion in a baffled and an unbaffled tank agitated by a mechanical
impeller.
2. Investigate the effect of the impeller speed on the power requirement for agitation.
3. Calculate theoretical power requirements for agitation and compare with experimentally determined
values.
4. Determine the time required to achieve complete mixing in a baffled or unbaffled tank using an
electrolyte tracer.
5. Design a large-scale mixer using data obtained from the small-scale agitation experiments.
Results & Discussion
Objective 1: Comparison of Fluid Motion in an Unbaffled and a Baffled Tank
The type of fluid motion in an agitated vessel is influenced by various factors, such as the size of
the impeller being used, the properties of the fluid, and the specifications of the tank and baffles. The
presence of vortex, turbulent, and eddy currents signifies the motion of the fluid and becomes more evident
when the impeller is operated at a higher speed.

The pattern of fluid movement is caused by the differences in speed or velocity components
between different points. The three velocity components are radial, axial (longitudinal), and tangential
(rotational), with each component acting in a specific direction. The radial component moves perpendicular
to the shaft’s axis. The axial component moves parallel to the shaft’s axis. While the tangential component
moves along a circular path around the shaft.

1
Table 1. Visual Observation of Fluid Motion in an Unbaffled Tank at a Speed Range of 50 to 160 RPM
Using Size 2 Flat Blade Impeller
Impeller Speed, Fluid Motion Visual Observation
RPM

50

smooth surface and

minimal radial
movement

60

smooth surface and

minimal radial
movement

70

formations of small
ripples and increased
radial motion

2
80 formations of small
ripples and increased
radial motion

90

increased motion and

gradual formation of
small vortex

100

increased motion and

gradual formation of
small vortex

110

formation of wider but

shallow vortex

3
120 formation of wider
vortex

130 formation of a wider

vortex and circular
motion is very evident

140 formation of a wider and

deeper vortex

150 formation of a wider

vortex and the vortex
reached the impeller

4
 160

formation of a wider
vortex however the tip
of the vortex is not
narrow and sharp

390

The final RPM setting is

reached as the torque
arm has reached its
most backward position.
The vortex has
increased in size and
depth. An increased
water level with loud
splashing.

In an unbaffled tank, the motion of the fluid is commonly identified by the creation of a vortex that
centers around the rotating shaft. The liquid's tangential motion follows a circular swirling pattern around
the shaft, generating a vortex in the fluid. When the rotational speed is increased, the region of the vortex
expands both in depth and width. Tangential flow patterns offer very little mixing because of the small
velocity gradients.

In the case of an unbaffled tank, a swirling flow pattern typically emerges, regardless of the impeller
type and size. This is due to the tangential force acting on the rotating liquid, leading to vortex formation.
However, there is a maximum rotational speed that can be used because once the vortex reaches the
impeller, there's a high probability of significant air entrainment. Moreover, the swirling liquid can create an
oscillating surge in the tank, which, coupled with the deep vortex, can produce a significant fluctuating force
on the agitator shaft.

5
Table 2. Visual Observation of Fluid Motion in a Baffled Tank at a Speed Range of 50 to 160 RPM Using
Size 2 Flat Blade Impeller
Impeller Speed, Fluid Motion Visual Observation
RPM

50

minimal swirling and

small ripple formation

60

minimal swirling and

small ripple formation

70

more visible swirling of

water

6
80

slight formations of
minor eddies

90

formations of minor
eddies

100

formations of medium
eddies and radial flow is
more evident near the
shaft

110

formations of ripples
and large eddies

7
120

formations of ripples
with bubbles and large
eddies

130

increased bubble
formation with the
presence of larger
eddies

140

increased water level

fluctuation with the
presence of larger
eddies

8
 150

presence of larger
eddies become more
prominent

160
The final RPM setting is
reached as the torque
arm has reached its
most backward position.
The large eddies are
observable with a
higher level of
fluctuation in the water

In the baffled tank, the tangential flow is disrupted however the radial and axial flow of the fluid
continue to occur without any obstruction. As a result, the swirling motion and vortex formation were not
observed. The baffles hinder the formation of a vortex by developing eddy currents (eddies) in the fluid as
evidenced by the visual observations, which enhance the mixing process.

Observations indicate that at the corners of the tank near the baffle, the fluid flows parallel to the
impeller and then toward the tank wall. The flow has separated into two streams, which then proceed to
flow along the tank wall and back to the impeller. This results in a radial flow pattern.

Turbulent fluid motion, characterized by random waves, was also evident, especially at higher
impeller speeds. At higher impeller speeds, the fluid velocity increases, causing the fluid to hit the walls of
the baffles, resulting in greater disruption and increased turbulence within the tank.

Objective 2: Investigation of the Effect of Impeller Speed on the Power Requirement

The force exerted by the fluid, in this case, the water, changes as the impeller speed of the agitator
is varied. To determine the amount of force, a dynamometer is connected to the moment arm of the agitator
and measures the force. This force is necessary to calculate the experimental power requirement using the
following equation,

9
 𝑃𝑒𝑥𝑝 = τω (1)

where:

τ = 𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑒 (𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑥 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑟𝑚)

ω = 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦

The amount of power produced by the agitator depends on several factors, such as the impeller’s
diameter and speed, the dimensions of the tank, including its diameter and height, and the properties of the
fluid, such as viscosity and density. Other factors, such as shape factors may also influence the power
output. However, in this experiment, all variables remain constant except for the impeller speed.

Figure 1. Experimental Power Requirement (P) versus Impeller Speed (RPM) for Unbaffled and Baffled
Tank with Impeller Size 2 Flat Blade

Equation 1 indicates that the amount of power needed to agitate the fluid in the tank is linked to the
speed of the impeller, with the power increasing as the impeller speed increases. Figure 1 presented above
illustrates this correlation. The power required for agitation will always increase as the impeller speed
increases, regardless of whether the tank is baffled or unbaffled.

When the flow is laminar (NRe<10), the impeller consumes the same amount of power whether or
not baffles are used. Therefore, baffles are not usually necessary in this region. Baffles may alter the flow
pattern, but this is not always beneficial. In cases where baffles are necessary, they have typically

10
positioned one or two widths away from the impeller, allowing the fluid to circulate behind them while also
producing some axial flow deflection (De Nevers, 2005)..

In the case of the presence of baffles, the power requirement is comparatively higher than that of a
tank without baffles. The reason for using baffles during an agitation process is to prevent the formation of a
vortex, which can hinder effective mixing. Without baffles, the agitation process can create a deep vortex,
which limits the amount of power that can be transferred to the fluid.

Objective 3: Determination of the Experimental and Theoretical Power Requirements for Agitation

The power needed for baffled tanks is dependent solely on the Reynolds number (𝑁𝑅𝑒). While in
the case of unbaffled tanks, where higher impeller speeds can lead to vortex formation, the gravitational
force affects the fluid force, making the power requirement (𝑁𝑃𝑂) dependent on both the Reynolds number
(𝑁𝑅𝑒) and force (𝐹), with the force accounting for the impact of gravitational force on the fluid.

Applying these correlations determines the theoretical power needed for each impeller speed for
both unbaffled and baffled. The resulting theoretical power requirements are compared with the actual
power requirements obtained from the experiment. Figure 2 illustrates the comparison between the
theoretical and experimental power requirements and the impact of baffles in the tank with the impeller
speed.

11
Figure 2. Theoretical and Experimental Power Requirements Against the Impeller Speed for an Unbaffled
Tank with Impeller Size 2 Flat Blades

Figure 3. Theoretical and Experimental Power Requirements Against the Impeller Speed for a Baffled Tank
with Impeller Size 2 Flat Blades

The power necessary for agitation is proportionate to the impeller speed. As speed increases, the
power also increases. When baffles are present inside the tank, additional resistance to fluid flow is

12
created, which raises the amount of power needed to agitate the liquid in order to overcome all the
resistances. As shown in Figure 3, the power requirement for a baffled tank is greater than that for an
unbaffled tank, especially at higher impeller speeds starting from 80 rpm. For instance, at 136 rpm, the
power consumption is approximately 3.43 W for the baffled tank, while 3.26 W is consumed for an unbaffled
tank. However, for impeller speeds ranging from 20 to less than 80 rpm, the power requirements for both
unbaffled and baffled tanks are roughly the same. Prior experiments reported in the literature indicate that
for low Reynolds number (NRe), the power requirements for both unbaffled and baffled tanks are similar
(McCabe et al., 2005).

Table 3. Percentage Differences of the Experimental and Theoretical Power Requirement of an Unbaffled
and Baffled Tanks at Impeller Speeds of 50 - 160 rpm.
Percentage Difference, %
Impeller Speed
Unbaffled Baffled

50 198.54 188.10

60 197.08 172.25

70 194.81 151.73

80 192.01 128.37

90 188.91 104.04

100 185.43 81.14

110 182.22 59.36

120 178.64 39.43

130 174.17 21.88

140 169.45 4.23

150 164.50 7.09

160 159.39 15.48

The experimental power requirement is expected to be higher than the theoretical power
requirement due to various factors such as energy loss and transmission losses that occur during the
process. This is commonly observed in unbaffled tanks where the percentage difference between the
experimental and theoretical power requirement goes beyond 100% ranging from 159.4 to 198.5%. On the
other hand, similar observations are found for impeller speeds between 50 to 90 rpm. When energy is
supplied to the motor, it is dissipated as heat loss into the environment, and the various parts of the
agitator, such as the gearbox, motor, and bearings, also experience transmission losses. The friction in the

13
gearbox, for instance, may cause a reduction in energy as it flows through the shaft and into the impeller
(Sinnot, 2005). Based on the plots, it can be seen that when the impeller is operating at a speed of 85 rpm,
the calculated experimental power required for an unbaffled tank is 1.98 W, which is higher than the
theoretically calculated power of 0.075 W.

Objective 4: Determination of the Complete Mixing Time in an Unbaffled and Baffled Using an Electrolyte
Tracer

When studying the behavior of single-phase mixing in a stirred tank, one of the primary objectives
is to determine the required mixing time of the system being investigated. The mixing time represents the
duration necessary for a specific volume of fluid added to a mixing vessel to blend uniformly throughout the
entire vessel to a predetermined level of homogeneity. Prior to measuring the mixing time for a particular
process, it is necessary to conduct a series of flow visualization experiments. These experiments are
designed to determine the most appropriate method for measuring the mixing time while also identifying
regions of poor fluid motion and flow compartmentalization within the mixing system. Mixing time
techniques are all based on the principle of introducing material with different properties from the bulk into
the vessel. Measurements are then taken, typically within a controlled volume within the vessel, to
determine the presence of the added material. The decay of fluctuations in material properties is used to
calculate the mixing time required for the system.

The experiment aimed to determine the complete mixing time in both unbaffled and baffled
agitation tanks using electrical conductivity as the main indicator. To achieve this, a technique called
conductivity probe mixing time was used, which involves adding an electrolyte (salt solution) to the liquid
tank to serve as a tracer. This tracer was used to observe the changes in conductivity over time. By plotting
the electrical conductivity readings against time, the mixing time was determined as the point where the
conductivity reached a stable value with no difference from previous readings.

A plot for the fluid conductivity over time was created and the percentage difference for each time
point was calculated. The mixing time is the duration at which the conductivity measurement stabilizes
within 1%. The mixing time is determined using the following equation,

𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔−𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑡=∞

𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔
≤ 1% (2)

The mixing time can be determined if equation 2 is met and if the percent difference between the
current conductivity and the conductivity reading at t=∞ is 1% or less. Figure 3 below displays the
conductivity reading over time for both an unbaffled and baffled tank, both of which use a size 2 flat-blade
impeller.

14
 Figure 4. Conductivity Reading versus Time at 50 RPM and 29°C for the Determination of the Complete
Mixing Time in an Unbaffled Tank using Size 2 Flat Blade Impeller

The conductivity reading overtime of an unbaffled tank using size 2 flat blade impellers at a speed
of 50 RPM and at a temperature of 29oC is plotted in Figure 4. There was a sudden increase in the
conductivity reading in the first 39 seconds of mixing where it started to plateau after the initial 39 seconds
with some sudden deviations from the equilibrium line like at seconds 99 or 190. The first instance where
the conductivity reading is within one percent deviation from the equilibrium line is approximately 39
seconds which is the experimental mixing time of the unbaffled tank at 50 RPM. The recorded mixing time
was less than half of the theoretical mixing time which was expected to be approximately 41 seconds.

15
 Figure 5. Conductivity Reading versus Time at 50 RPM and 29°C for the Determination of the Complete
Mixing Time in a Baffled Tank using Size 2 Flat Blade Impeller

The conductivity reading over time of the baffled tank using size 2 flat blade impellers at a speed of
50 RPM and at a temperature of 29oC is plotted in Figure 5. Fluctuations in the conductivity reading were
recorded in the first 40 seconds of the mixing and the graph started to flatline afterward past the 40-second
mark. The first instance where the conductivity reading is within one percent deviation from the equilibrium
line is approximately 12 seconds which is the experimental mixing time of the baffled tank at 50 RPM. The
theoretical mixing time has an expected time of approximately 20 seconds.

From both graphs and its corresponding mixing time, baffled agitation has a shorter mixing time
compared to that of an agitated tank without baffles, hence, it would take a shorter amount of time for the
baffled tank to achieve complete mixing. The absence of baffles creates tangential velocities from any type
of impeller that causes the entire fluid mass to spin. This is considered an undesirable type of mixing as
there is very little shear and particles move around, acting as a centrifuge rather than a mixer. With baffles,
this avoids that situation from happening and increases mixing efficiency.

16
Table 4. Theoretical and Experimental Complete Mixing Time for Baffled and Unbaffled Tanks at 50 RPM
and 29oC using Size 2 Flat Blade Impeller.
Mixing time to achieve Equilibrium Concentration, s
Agitator Tank Type Percentage Error, %
Experimental Theoretical

Unbaffled 39.0 41.0 4.88

Baffled 12.0 20.5 41.46

Table 4 shows that between the experimental and theoretical value of the mixing time to achieve an
equilibrium concentration of the salt solution in the water in the agitation tank. The baffled tank showed a
close value with the experimental mixing time of 12.0 seconds and a theoretical mixing time of 20.5 with a
percent error of 41.46%. While the unbaffled tank showed about 4.88% having an experimental and
theoretical mixing time value of 39.0 seconds and 41.0 seconds respectively. Furthermore, the significant
error in the mixing time can be attributed to the fact that the original conductivity meter that was intended
for the experiment broke and was replaced with an older model.

Objective 5: Design of a Large-Scale Mixer Using Data Obtained from the Small-Scale Agitation
Experiment

The power requirement for the tank is determined by the shear stress, inertial stress, and the drag
force in the system, which in turn are influenced by the tank dimensions and fluid properties such as
viscosity (µ) and density (ρ). Understanding how these characteristics affect the system is essential for
scaling up the process, as the scale-up criteria depend on these specifications.

Before estimating the dimensions of a large-scale fluid mixing vessel using experimental data, it's
crucial to determine the scale-up ratio. This ratio ensures geometric similarity between the small-scale and
large-scale systems by maintaining a constant ratio between all corresponding length dimensions.
Achieving both kinematic and dynamic similarities is also important for effective scale-up, as it takes into
account factors such as fluid motion, velocities, and significant forces. The estimated equipment
dimensions for the large-scale fluid mixing vessel are provided below.

Table 5. Dimensions of the Large-Scale Fluid Mixing Tank from the Obtained Lab-Scale Data
Lab-Scale Large-Scale

Volume, V1 (m3) 0.0160 Volume, V2 (m3) 15.0

Measurements Dimensions (m) Measurements Dimensions (m)

Tank Height, HT1 0.422 Tank Height, HT2 4.13

Tank Diameter, DT1 0.299 Tank Diameter, DT2 2.93

Impeller Diameter, D’1 0.175 Impeller Diameter, D’2 1.71

17
 Blade Width, W’1 0.428 Blade Width, W’2 4.19

Blade Length, L’1 0.619 Blade Length, L’2 6.06

Impeller Elevation, Zi1 0.138 Impeller Elevation, Zi2 1.35

Scale Up Ratio 9.79

In general, the dimensions of the small tank and the large tank are based on their geometric
similarity, meaning that the dimensions have a constant ratio. This ratio applies to both the tank and
impeller dimensions. To determine this ratio, a Scale-up Ratio (R) was calculated using the experimental
volume of the small tank and the given volume of the large-scale mixer.

In order to design a large-scale mixer with a capacity of 15 m3 of water, three different assumptions
have been identified: (a) the power-to-volume ratios of the lab scale and the large-scale tank are equal, (b)
the maximum liquid velocities are equal and (c) the Froude numbers are equal. To determine the
appropriate agitator speed for the large-scale tank, experimental impeller speeds are utilized. Once the new
agitator speed is determined, it is used to calculate the power requirement and mixing time for the
large-scale tank.

Table 6. Power Requirement and Mixing Time for Large-Scale Tank

Large-Scale

Rotation Speed, RPM 2.263

Unbaffled Baffled

Power, W 1.70 13.9

NPo 2.15 17.6

Mixing Time, s 204.22 102.06

The presented data indicate that both baffled and unbaffled mixing systems exhibit a similar
pattern. Specifically, as the impeller speed decreases, the power requirement increases while the mixing
time also increases. Additionally, as the value of NPO increases, the theoretical power requirement also
increases while the mixing time increases as well.

18
 Conclusion

Conclusions

The experiment agitation demonstrates the comparison of the fluid motion in a baffled and an
unbaffled tank agitated by an impeller and has revealed significant differences between the two systems.
The presence of baffles in the tank has a profound effect on the fluid motion, resulting in increased
turbulence and mixing, and a reduction in the size of stagnant regions. On the other hand, the absence of
baffles in the tank allows the fluid to move more freely, resulting in larger stagnant regions and less efficient
mixing.

The effect of impeller speed on power requirement for agitation depends on several factors,
including the size and shape of the vessel, the viscosity and density of the fluid being agitated, and the type
of impeller used. In general, increasing impeller speed leads to an increase in power requirement due to
increased shear forces and turbulence in the fluid. With the presence of baffles, the power requirement is
comparatively higher than that of a tank without baffles. Higher power requirement will be needed to
overcome an increased resistance.

The experimental power requirement is expected to be higher than the theoretical power
requirement due to various factors such as energy loss and transmission losses that occur during the
process. This is commonly observed in unbaffled tanks where the percentage difference between the
experimental and theoretical power requirement goes beyond one hundred percent.

A tank with baffles achieves complete mixing faster than a tank without baffles. In particular, it took
about 20 seconds for the baffled tank to fully mix while it took 41 seconds for the unbaffled tank. This is due
to the formation of dead-zones in an unbaffled tank, which are areas where there is no mixing occurring.
Baffles disrupt the flow pattern by creating eddy currents in the turbulent flow regime, which eliminates
dead-zones and ensures complete mixing.

The dimensions of the large-scale fluid mixing tank can be determined by considering the small
scale experiments which can serve as a foundation for the creation of large-scale reactors, like mixing
tanks. However, it is essential to ensure that the small-scale and large-scale tanks are similar in terms of
their geometry, kinematics, and dynamics. Additionally, the ratio of volume to power scale should remain
constant between the lab-scale and large-scale experiments. If these conditions are met, the effectiveness
of the large-scale tank should match that of the lab-scale experiment, provided that the scaling-up ratio is
consistently followed.

19
 References

Brown, G. G. (1993). Unit Operations. New Delhi, India: CBS Publishers & Distributors.

De Nevers, N. (2005) Fluid Mechanics for Chemical Engineers, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill Higher Education,
Boston.

Foust, A. S., Wenzel, L. A., Clump, C. W., Maus, L., & Andersen, L. (1960). Principles of Unit Operations
(2nd ed.). Toronto, Canada: John Wiley & Sons.

Geankoplis, C.J. (2018). Transport Processes and Separation Process Principle, 5th edition. New York:
Prentice Hall.

Green, D. and Perry, R., 2007. Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook (8th Edition), 18-6 – 18-13.

McCabe, W. L., Smith, J. C., & Harriott, P. (2005). Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering (7th ed.,
international
edition). New York: McGraw Hill.

Sinnott, R.K. (2005). Coulson & Richardson's Chemical Engineering. Vol.6: Chemical Engineering Design

20
 ANNEX 1: Raw Data

A. PRELIMINARY STEPS
Table 1. Obtained Fluid data
Fluid used information 1st reading 2nd reading Average

Temperature, T(°C) 29 29 29

Height of liquid, z1 (cm) 22.75 22.75 22.75

B. POWER REQUIREMENTS AND FLOW PATTERN VISUAL OBSERVATION

Table 2. Fluid motion observations at different rotation speeds

Force Balance Reading
Tank Rotation Speed Fluid motion observation
Mass (g) Force (N)

0 (initial) - 125 1.20

50 125 1.21
smooth surface and minimal
60 radial movement 126 1.21

70 127 1.22
formation of small ripples and
80 increased radial motion 127 1.23

90 128 1.26
increased motion and gradual
100 formation of small vortex 128 1.28

Unbaffled Tank 110 Formation of wider but shallow 128 1.29

vortex

120 Formation of wider vortex 130 1.31

130 Formation of wider vortex and 132 1.31

circular motion is very evident

140 Formation of wider and deeper 132 1.33

vortex

150 Formation of wider vortex and the 132 1.33

vortex reached the impeller

21
 160 Formation of wider vortex 133 1.34
however the tip of the vortex is
not narrow and sharp

390 The vortex has increased in size 154 1.51

and depth. Increased water level
with loud splashing.

0 (initial) - 120 1.18

50 121 1.20
Minimal swirling and small ripple
60 formation 122 1.21

70 More visible swirling of water 124 1.22

80 Slight formation of minor eddies 125 1.23

90 Formation of minor eddies 127 1.25

100 Formation of medium 132 1.30

eddies and radial flow is more
evident near the shaft

110 Formation of ripples and large 135 1.32

eddies
Baffled Tank
120 Formation of ripples with bubbles 140 1.38
and large eddies

130 Increase bubble formation with 145 1.42

the presence of larger eddies

140 Increase water level fluctuation 155 1.43

with the presence of larger eddies

150 Presence of larger eddies 164 1.61

becomes more prominent

160 The large eddies are observable 170 1.68

with higher level of fluctuation in
the water

22
 Table 3. Dimensions for the tank and the impeller

Measurements Dimensions (cm)

Tank height, HT 42.20

Tank diameter, DT 29.90

Baffle length, LB 44.30

Baffle width, WB 26.30

Baffle diameter, DB 26.50

Impeller Diameter, D’ 17.50

Blade width, W’ 42.75

Blade length, L’ 61.85

Impeller elevation, Zi 13.80

C. MIXING TIME
Table 4. Initial conductivity at RPM setting for Baffled Agitation

Temperature of KCL solution (°C) 29

Initial Conductivity Reading

RPM settings/ impeller speed 50

Time, (s) Conductivity Reading

0 0.00

5 1.45

10 1.50

15 1.43

20 1.48

25 1.49

23
 30 1.49

35 1.49

40 1.45

45 1.36

50 1.47

Average Conductivity at RPM setting 1.461

Table 5. Mixing time for Baffled Agitation

Volume of Salt solution, (mL) 80

3 second interval for 2 mins

Time (s) Conductivity (ms)

0 0.00

3 3.69

6 2.04

9 2.25

12 2.44

15 2.56

18 2.79

21 3.10

24 3.37

27 3.53

30 3.65

33 3.70

36 3.81

24
39 3.91

42 3.84

45 3.89

48 3.89

51 3.87

54 3.90

57 3.88

60 3.88

63 3.89

66 3.92

69 3.91

72 3.95

75 3.93

78 3.85

81 3.91

84 3.89

87 3.86

90 3.89

93 3.89

96 3.90

99 3.90

102 3.87

105 3.83

25
108 3.95

111 3.90

114 3.89

117 3.94

120 3.91

10 seconds interval for 3 minutes

130 3.89

140 3.85

150 3.87

160 3.82

170 3.92

180 3.91

190 3.88

200 3.89

210 3.82

220 3.90

230 3.93

240 3.93

250 3.95

260 3.87

270 3.90

280 3.92

290 3.89

26
 300 3.89

Table 6. Initial conductivity at RPM setting for Unbaffled Agitation

Temperature of KCL solution (°C) 29

Initial Conductivity Reading

RPM settings/ impeller speed 50

Time, (s) Conductivity Reading

0 1.49

5 1.48

10 1.50

15 1.51

20 1.50

25 1.51

30 1.50

35 1.51

40 1.51

45 1.52

50 1.52

Average Conductivity at RPM setting 1.506

Table 7. Mixing time for Unbaffled Agitation

Volume of Salt solution, (mL) 80

3-second interval (2 mins)

Time (s) Conductivity (ms)

0 -

27
3 2.19

6 3.14

9 3.50

12 4.02

15 3.99

18 3.99

21 3.99

24 4.00

27 4.01

30 4.02

33 4.02

36 4.00

39 4.01

42 4.02

45 4.02

48 4.02

51 4.01

54 4.03

57 4.04

60 4.03

63 4.04

66 4.02

69 4.01

28
72 4.03

75 4.01

78 4.03

81 4.00

84 4.03

87 4.01

90 4.03

93 4.00

96 4.02

99 3.97

102 4.05

105 4.05

108 4.06

111 4.06

114 4.01

117 4.04

120 4.02

10-second interval (3 minutes)

130 4.06

140 4.04

150 3.99

160 4.02

170 4.02

29
180 3.98

190 4.08

200 3.97

210 4.03

220 4.04

230 4.07

240 4.05

250 3.96

260 4.03

270 4.01

280 3.98

290 4.04

300 3.99

30
 ANNEX 2: Processing of Data

For Objective 2:
Table A2-1. Raw and Processed Data for Baffled and Unbaffled Tank’s Power Requirement
Dynamometer Power
Torque
Reading Requirement
RPM Corrected
ω Avg Re
Reading Force N Mass kg RPM from from from from
force mass force mass
reading reading reading reading

Unbaffled Tank

50 1.21 0.125 22.16 2.32 0.212 0.215 0.49 0.50 0.49 13830.5

60 1.21 0.126 34.76 3.64 0.212 0.216 0.77 0.79 0.78 21694.4

70 1.22 0.127 47.36 4.96 0.214 0.218 1.06 1.08 1.07 29558.4

80 1.23 0.127 59.96 6.28 0.215 0.218 1.35 1.37 1.36 37422.3

90 1.26 0.128 72.56 7.60 0.221 0.220 1.68 1.67 1.67 45286.2

100 1.28 0.128 85.16 8.92 0.224 0.220 2.00 1.96 1.98 53150.1

110 1.29 0.128 97.76 10.24 0.226 0.220 2.31 2.25 2.28 61014.1

120 1.31 0.130 110.36 11.56 0.229 0.223 2.65 2.58 2.61 68878.0

130 1.31 0.132 122.96 12.88 0.229 0.227 2.95 2.92 2.93 76741.9

140 1.33 0.132 135.56 14.20 0.233 0.227 3.30 3.22 3.26 84605.8

150 1.33 0.132 148.16 15.52 0.233 0.227 3.61 3.52 3.56 92469.7

160 1.34 0.133 160.76 16.83 0.235 0.228 3.95 3.84 3.90 100333.7

Baffled Tank

50 0.121 1.18 22.16 2.32 0.207 0.210 0.48 0.49 0.48 13830.5

60 0.122 1.2 34.76 3.64 0.210 0.212 0.76 0.77 0.76 21694.4

70 0.124 1.21 47.36 4.96 0.212 0.214 1.05 1.06 1.05 29558.4

80 0.125 1.22 59.96 6.28 0.214 0.215 1.34 1.35 1.34 37422.3

90 0.127 1.23 72.56 7.60 0.215 0.219 1.64 1.66 1.64 45286.2

100 0.132 1.25 85.16 8.92 0.219 0.228 1.95 2.03 1.95 53150.1

110 0.135 1.3 97.76 10.24 0.228 0.231 2.33 2.36 2.33 61014.1

120 0.14 1.32 110.36 11.56 0.231 0.242 2.67 2.79 2.67 68878.0

31
 130 0.145 1.38 122.96 12.88 0.242 0.249 3.11 3.20 3.11 76741.9

140 0.155 1.42 135.56 14.20 0.249 0.250 3.53 3.55 3.53 84605.8

150 0.164 1.43 148.16 15.52 0.250 0.282 3.88 4.37 3.88 92469.7

160 0.170 1.61 160.76 16.83 0.282 0.294 4.74 4.95 4.74 100333.7
*sample calculations were performed on the data retrieved from the unbaffled tank at 50 RPM

To obtain the experimental power requirement for both the agitation tank systems (baffled and unbaffled)
the RPM reading was first corrected with the equation,
(
𝑁 = 𝑅𝑃𝑀𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 = 1. 26 𝑅𝑃𝑀𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 − 40. 84 ) (A2-1)
𝑅𝑃𝑀𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 = 1. 26(50) − 40. 84
𝑅𝑃𝑀𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 = 22. 16 𝑅𝑃𝑀
the angular momentum was then obtained,
2π𝑁
ω = 60
(A2-2)
2π(22,16)
ω = 60
ω = 2. 32
The torque was also determined using both the mass and force readings with the moment arm length, L
a. force reading
𝜏 = 𝐹𝐿 (A2-3)
𝜏 = 1. 21 * 0. 175
𝜏 = 0. 212 𝑁 − 𝑚
b. mass reading
𝜏 = 𝐹𝐿 = 𝑚𝑔𝐿
𝜏 = 0. 125 * 9. 81 * 0. 175
𝜏 = 0. 215 𝑁 − 𝑚
thus with the calculated torque and angular momentum, the power requirement is obtained
a. force reading
𝑃𝑒𝑥𝑝 = 𝜏ω (A2-4)
𝑃𝑒𝑥𝑝 = 0. 212 * 2. 32
𝑃𝑒𝑥𝑝 = 0. 491 𝑊
b. mass reading
𝑃𝑒𝑥𝑝 = 𝜏ω
𝑃𝑒𝑥𝑝 = 0. 215 * 2. 32
𝑃𝑒𝑥𝑝 = 0. 498 𝑊
taking the average of both gives,

32
 𝑃 = (0. 49 + 0. 50)/2
𝑃𝑒𝑥𝑝 = 0. 495 𝑊
Using MS Excel, the power requirements of both the unbaffled and baffled tanks were plotted against the
impeller speed (corrected RPM) with a scatterplot graph.

Figure A2-1. MS Excel tabulation and graph for Objective 2

For Objective 3:

Table A2-2. Raw and Processed Data for Baffled and Unbaffled Tank’s Theoretical Power Requirement
and Percent Error

D’ 995.94 0.8145
0.175 m ρ water at 29C 𝜇
kg/m3 mPa.s

Unbaffled Baffled
Re
NPo (curve 29) Ptheo %Difference NPo (curve 10) Ptheo %Difference

13830.5 0.220 0.002 198.54 1.80 0.015 188.10

21694.4 0.180 0.006 197.08 1.80 0.057 172.25

29558.4 0.175 0.014 194.81 1.80 0.145 151.73

37422.3 0.170 0.028 192.01 1.80 0.294 128.37

33
 45286.2 0.165 0.048 188.91 1.80 0.520 104.04

53150.1 0.160 0.075 185.43 1.80 0.841 81.14

61014.1 0.150 0.106 182.22 1.80 1.273 59.36

68878.0 0.145 0.147 178.64 1.80 1.831 39.43

76741.9 0.144 0.203 174.17 1.80 2.532 21.88

84605.8 0.143 0.270 169.45 1.80 3.393 4.23

92469.7 0.141 0.347 164.50 1.80 4.430 7.09

100333.7 0.140 0.440 159.39 1.80 5.659 15.48

*sample calculations were performed on the data retrieved from the unbaffled tank at 50 RPM

The Reynolds number was first calculated,

2
𝐷' 𝑁ρ
𝑁𝑅𝑒 = µ
(A2-5)
2
(0.175) (22.61/60)(995.94)
𝑁𝑅𝑒 = (0.0008145)
𝑁𝑅𝑒 = 13830. 5
In determining the power number, correlations are made with the literature values in the figure below. The
agitation tank set up was determined to be a “Paddle with 2 blades” where in the curve used for an
unbaffled tank was curve 29 and 10 for the baffled tank.

34
Figure A2-1. Power consumption of various agitators expressed in terms of NPo as a function of NRe. For
curves marked with ° surface effects become important and the NFr is included as indicated for NRe>300.
(Brown, 1973)
Such as for an unbaffled tank at 50 RPM with a Reynolds number of 13830.5 the power number obtained
was 0.22 using curve 29

where getting the theoretical power requirement is done by using the equation,
3 5
𝑃𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜 = ρ𝑁𝑃𝑜𝑁 𝐷' (A2-6)
3 5
𝑃𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜 = (995. 94)(0. 22)(22. 61/60) (0. 175)
𝑃𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜 = 0. 002
thus, the percentage difference,
|𝑃𝑒𝑥𝑝−𝑃𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜|
%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑃𝑎𝑣𝑔
𝑥100% (A2-7)

35
 |0.495−0.002|
%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = (0.495+0.002)/2
𝑥100%
%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 198. 54%

For Objective 4:

Table A2-3. Measured Preliminary Data to Obtain Theoretical Mixing Time

Measure Data Theoretical Mixing Time

DT, cm 29.9 Unbaffled, s Baffled, s

D’, cm 17.5

HT, cm 42.2 40.96 20.47

Unbaffled 0.22
NPo
Baffled 1.80 Percentage Error, %

L’, cm 61.85

N, RPM 22.61
4.88 41.46
3 (experimentally determined
c
coefficient)
*calculations were performed on the data retrieved from the unbaffled tank at 50 RPM

the theoretical mixing time was calculated as such,

𝐷𝑇 3

𝑡𝑚.𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜 =
𝑐
·
( ) ·( )
𝐷'
𝐻𝑇
𝐷𝑇
(A2-8)
𝑁 2 0.33
( ) ⎤⎥⎦
⎡𝑁 ·
⎢ 𝑝
⎣
𝐿'
𝐷'

29.9 3

𝑡𝑚.𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜 =
3
·
( ) ·( ) 17.5
42.2
29.9
22.61/60 0.33
61.85 2
⎡0.22·
⎢
⎣
( ) ⎤⎥⎦ 17.5

𝑡𝑚.𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜 = 40. 96 𝑠
to determine the actual mixing time that was experimentally conducted with an electrolyte tracer, a graph
was plotted of the conductivity reading against the mixing time using MS Excel as seen in the figure below,

36
 Figure A2-2. Determination of the Actual Mixing Time via MS Excel
An equilibrium line was imposed on the graph at the point where the graph appears to remain
constant and added margin of errors at around one percent of the equilibrium line. The actual mixing time
was chosen to be the first instance of the point in the graph that enters the one percent margin of error of
the equilibrium line. The percent error was then calculated,

|𝑡 −𝑡𝑚(𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜) |
%𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = | 𝑚(𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑡) |𝑥100% (A2-9)
| 𝑡𝑚(𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑡) |

12−40.96
%𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = || 40.96 ||𝑥100%

%𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 70. 70%

For Objective 5:

Table A2-4. Determination of Scaled up Specifications of a 15-m3 tank from Lab-scale dimensions.
Tank Specifications and Conditions

Temperature, T (oC) 29.0

Liquid Density, ⍴ (kg/m3) 995.94

Liquid Viscosity, 𝛍 (Pa/s) 0.0008145

Scale-Up Ratio, R 9.79

Lab-Scale Large-Scale

Tank height, HT1 (m) 0.422 Tank height, HT2 (m) 4.13

37
 Tank diameter, DT1 (m) 0.299 Tank diameter, DT2 (m) 2.93

Impeller Diameter, D’1 (m) 0.175 Impeller Diameter, D’2 (m) 1.71

Blade width, W’1 (m) 0.428 Blade width, W’2 (m) 4.19

Blade length, L’1 (m) 0.619 Blade length, L’2 (m) 6.06

Impeller elevation, Zi-1 (m) 0.138 Impeller elevation, Zi-2 (m) 1.35

Impeller Speed, N1 (RPM) 22.16 Impeller Speed, N2 (RPM) 2.27

Height of Liquid, Z1 (m) 0.2275 - -

Volume, V1 (m3) 0.016 Volume, V2 (m3) 15.0

Power, P (W)

Unbaffled 0.002 Unbaffled 1.70

Baffled 0.015 Baffled 13.92

NPo

Unbaffled 0.22 Unbaffled 2.15

Baffled 1.80 Baffled 17.62

Mixing Time, s

Unbaffled 40.96 Unbaffled 204.22

Baffled 20.47 Baffled 102.06

To be able to determine the scale up ratio, the volume of the lab-scale agitation tank must be determined
first,

π 2
𝑉1 = 4
𝐷𝑇1 𝑍1 (A2-10)

π 2
𝑉1 = 4
(0. 299) (0. 2275)

3
𝑉1 = 0. 016 𝑚

Scale-Up Ratio,

𝑉 0.33
𝑅 = ( 𝑉2 ) (A2-11)
1

38
 15 0.33
𝑅 = ( 0.016 )

𝑅 = 9. 792

The scale-up ratio allows us to calculate the tank height, tank diameter, impeller diameter, blade width,
blade length, impeller elevation, impeller speed, power requirement, power number, and mixing time for the
large-scale tank.

Tank Height,
𝐻𝑇2 = 𝑅𝐻𝑇1 (A2-12)

𝐻𝑇2 = (9. 79)(0. 422)

𝐻𝑇2 = 4. 13 𝑚

Tank Diameter,
𝐷𝑇2 = 𝑅𝐷𝑇1 (A2-13)

𝐷𝑇2 = (9. 79)(0. 299)

𝐷𝑇2 = 2. 93 𝑚

Impeller Diameter,
𝐷'2 = 𝑅𝐷1' (A2-14)

𝐷'2 = (9. 79)(0. 175)

𝐷'2 = 1. 71 𝑚

Blade Width,
𝑊'2 = 𝑅𝑊1' (A2-15)

𝑊'2 = (9. 79)(0. 4275)

𝑊'2 = 4. 19 𝑚

Blade Length,
𝐿'2 = 𝑅𝐿1' (A2-16)

39
 𝐿'2 = (9. 79)(0. 619)

𝐿'2 = 6. 06 𝑚

Impeller Elevation,
𝑍𝑖−2 = 𝑅𝑍𝑖−1 (A2-17)

𝑍𝑖−2 = (9. 79)(0. 138)

𝑍𝑖−2 = 1. 35 𝑚

Power Requirement (Unbaffled),

𝑃1 𝑃2
𝑉1
= 𝑉2
(A2-18)

𝑃1
𝑃2 = 𝑉1
* 𝑉2

0.0018
𝑃2 = 0.016
* 15

𝑃2 = 1. 70 𝑊

Impeller Speed,
1 𝑛
𝑁2 = 𝑁1( 𝑅 ) (A2-19)

1 1
𝑁2 = 22. 16 * ( 9.79 )

𝑁2 = 2. 27 𝑅𝑃𝑀

Power Number (Unbaffled),

𝑃2
𝑁𝑃𝑜 = 3 5 (A2-20)
ρ() (𝐷'2)

1.70
𝑁𝑃𝑜 = 2.27 3 5
(995.94)( 60
) (1.71)

𝑁𝑃𝑜 = 2. 15

40
Mixing Time (Unbaffled),
3

𝑡𝑚 =
𝑐
·
( )( )
𝐷𝑇2
𝐷'2
·
𝐻𝑇2
𝐷𝑇2
(A2-21)
𝑁2 2 0.33
⎡
( )
⎢𝑁 ·
⎢ 𝑃𝑜
⎣
𝐿'2
𝐷'2
⎤
⎥
⎥
⎦

2.93 3

𝑡𝑚 =
3
·
( ) ·( )
1.71
4.13
2.93
2.27/60 0.33
6.06 2
⎡2.15*
⎢
⎣
( ) ⎤⎥⎦ 1.71

𝑡𝑚 = 204. 22 𝑠

41