Performance Analysis for Mixing Pumps

8/2/2019 Performance Analysis for Mixing Pumps

1/44

WSRC-TR-2001-00391

KEYWORDS:Sludge Suspension

Computational ApproachCFD ApproachJet Flow Model

Mixing Pump ModelRETENTION - Permanent

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS FOR MIXING PUMPSIN TANK 18

SAVANNAH RIVER TECHNOLOGY CENTER

Si Young Lee and Richard A. Dimenna

October 2001

Westinghouse Savannah River CompanySavannah River SiteAiken, SC 29808

Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC09-96SR18500


2/44

This document was prepared in conjunction with work accomplished under Contract No. DE-

AC09-96SR18500 with the U.S. Department of Energy.

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States

Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their

employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability orresponsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus,

product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process or service by trade name,trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,

recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views

and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the UnitedStates Government or any agency thereof.

This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy.

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161

phone: (800) 553-6847fax: (703) 605-6900

email: [email protected]

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/support/index.html

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and Technical Information,

P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: (865)576-8401fax: (865)576-5728

email: [email protected]


3/44

-iii-

DOCUMENT: WSRC-TR-2001-00391TITLE: Performance Analysis for Mixing Pumps in Tank 18

APPROVALS

_________________________________________________ Date:_____________Si Y. Lee, Author (EM&S Group/ SRTC)

_________________________________________________ Date:_____________Richard A. Dimenna, Co-Author (EM&S Group/ SRTC)

_________________________________________________ Date:_____________Robert A. Leishear, Technical Reviewer (WRC Engineering)

_________________________________________________ Date:_____________Cynthia P. Holding-Smith, Manager (EM&S Group/SRTC)

_________________________________________________ Date:_____________Steve T. Wach, Manager (EDS/SRTC)


4/44

-iv-

(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)


5/44

-v-

Table of Contents

List of Figures vii

List of Tables x

Nomenclature xi

Abstract 1

1 Introduction 2

2. Modeling Approach and Analysis 3

2. 1 TNX Tank Model..................................................................................................... 92.2 Tank 18 Simulation Models with ADMP and MADMP Mixers................................. 12

3. Results and Discussions 15

4. Summary and Conclusions 54

5. References 57

Appendix A: Mapping of Velocity Measurement Sensor and BenchmarkingResults 59

Appendix B: Quantitative Estimation of the Remaining Sludge and ZeoliteVolume 63


6/44

-vi-



7/44

-vii-

List of Figures

Figure 1. Flow developments and evolutions of a jet flow along the discharge direction .... 7Figure 2. Three-dimensional modeling boundary for the benchmarking analysis of thefull tank test facility with ADMP mixer pump at TNX .......................................... 11

Figure 3. Three-dimensional modeling boundary for the transient flow pattern analysisof the full tank test facility with ADMP mixer pump considering pumprotational effect.................................................................................................. 12

Figure 4. Schematic illustrations and modeling boundary of Tank18 with ADMP mixerpump................................................................................................................. 15

Figure 5. Non-uniform mesh nodes for the TNX tank model on x-y computationaldomain near the pump nozzle (Total number of computational mesh nodesfor the model is 731,087.).................................................................................. 23

Figure 6. Non-uniform mesh nodes for the Tank 18 simulation model (Case-I) on x-ycomputational domain (Total number of mesh nodes is 256,360.) .................... 23

Figure 7. Quantitative comparison of flow patterns generated by the ADMP mixer ofthe TNX tank between the 2-D and 3-D CFD model results at the pumpdischarge plane................................................................................................. 24

Figure 7a. Quantitative comparison of flow evolutions generated by the ADMP mixer ofthe TNX tank between the 2-D and 3-D CFD model results along thedischarge direction of a nozzle.......................................................................... 25

Figure 7b. Quantitative comparison of vorticity and turbulence dissipation rate generatedby the ADMP mixer of the TNX tank between the 2-D and 3-D CFD modelresults along the discharge direction of a nozzle. .............................................. 25

Figure 7c. Qualitative comparison of flow patterns generated by the ADMP mixer of theTNX tank between the 2-D and 3-D CFD model results at the pumpdischarge plane (The shaded area has the velocity lower than the one

required for resuspension or mixing of sludge.)................................................. 26Figure 8. Flow patterns at two different transient times on the discharge plane of the

TNX full tank facilityfor the initially quiescent tank ............................................ 26Figure 9. Comparison of the model predictions with the TNX test data for 3-inch

elevation and 27-inch plane for near the discharge direction............................. 27Figure 10a. Comparison of the model predictions with the TNX test data along the

distance from the nozzle inlet on the centerline of pump discharge (the modelpredictions are represented by the test data within 25%.) .............................. 27

Figure 10b. Comparison of the model predictions with the peak and arithmetic averagesof the TNX data along the distance from the nozzle inlet near the centerlineof pump discharge............................................................................................. 28

Figure 11. Comparison of the TNX model predictions of the discharge velocities with

the test data near the centerline of the pump discharge direction at the plane3in above the tank bottom................................................................................. 28Figure 12. Comparison of the TNX model predictions with all the TNX test data............... 29Figure 13. Benchmarking results of the full TNX tank model against the SRS test data

and literature data ............................................................................................. 29Figure 14. Comparison of the flow evolutions from the nozzle exit to the tank wall

between the two cases (tank mixing with and without pump rotation) atvarious elevations above the tank bottom.......................................................... 30


8/44

-viii-

Figure 15. Transient evolution results of the TNX full tank model with 0.25 rpm pumprotation at the discharge plane 27in above the tank bottom...............................31

Figure 16. Transient flow evolutions along the discharge direction of Tank 18 at theelevation of pump nozzle center (27in above the tank bottom) ..........................34

Figure 17. Transient flow evolutions along the downstream direction of Tank 18 at the3in elevation of pump nozzle center...................................................................34

Figure 18. Steady-state horizontal velocity profiles for various distances from the pumpat the nozzle discharge plane (27 inches above tank bottom): 3D ModelResults for the Full Tank 18 Facility with 70 liquid level ....................................35

Figure 19. Steady-state vertical velocity profiles for various distances from the pump(pump nozzle is located 2.25ft from tank bottom): 3D Model Results for theFull Tank 18 Facility with 70 liquid level ............................................................35

Figure 20. Downstream evolutions of Tank 18 with and without pump rotations for 70intank level at the discharge plane 27 inches above the tank bottom. ..................36

Figure 21. Downstream evolutions of Tank 18 with and without pump rotations for 70intank level at the plane 3 inches above the tank bottom......................................36

Figure 22. Comparison of steady-state velocity profiles near the wall regions about 12ftand 2ft away from the side wall of Tank 18 at the plane 3in above tank

bottom................................................................................................................37Figure 23. Comparison of steady-state flow patterns of the 3in plane for Tank 18 withoutpump rotation and with pump rotation (The red zone is higher than 1.6 ft/secof flow velocty.)..................................................................................................38

Figure 24. Comparison of steady-state velocity contour plots for Tank 18 without pumprotation and with pump rotation at the plane 3in above the tank bottom (Thezone inside the red curve is higher than 1.6 ft/sec of flow velocity.) ...................38

Figure 25. Velocity profiles for various distances from the pump at the nozzle dischargeplane (27 inches above tank bottom) .................................................................39

Figure 26. Velocity profiles for various distances from the pump at the nozzle dischargeplane (3 inches above tank bottom) ...................................................................39

Figure 27. Vertical velocity profiles of two different tank levels for various distances fromthe pump (pump nozzle is located 2.25ft from tank bottom)...............................40

Figure 28. Downstream evolutions of Tank 18 with and without pump rotations for 40intank level at the discharge plane 27 inches above the tank bottom. ..................41

Figure 29. Downstream evolutions of Tank 18 with and without pump rotations for 40intank level at the discharge plane 3 inches above the tank bottom. ....................41

Figure 30. Steady-state downstream evolutions of Tank 18 with and without pumprotations for 40in tank level at the discharge plane 27 inches above the tankbottom................................................................................................................42

Figure 31. Steady-state downstream evolutions of Tank 18 with and without pumprotations for 40in tank level at the discharge plane 3 inches above the tankbottom................................................................................................................42

Figure 32. Downstream velocity profiles along the discharge directions of the nozzleplanes of Tank 19 ADMP and MADMP mixers (The mapping name Tank 18

in the figure means Tank 18 operation with the existing ADMP.) .......................43Figure 33. Horizontal velocity profiles along the downstream directions of the pump

nozzles of Tank 18 with ADMP and MADMP mixers at the plane 3in abovethe tank bottom..................................................................................................43

Figure 34. Comparison of turbulence intensity profiles for the Tank 18 operations withADMP and MADMP mixers at the plane 3in above the tank bottom...................44

Figure 35. Comparisons of turbulence intensity profiles for the Tank 18 operations withADMP and MADMP mixers at the plane 3in above the tank bottom (The


9/44

-ix-

mapping name Tank 18 in the figure means Tank 18 operation with theexisting ADMP.)................................................................................................. 45

Figure 36. Nondimensional velocity distributions along the discharge direction of pumpnozzle at the nozzle plane 27in above the tank bottom (The mapping nameTank 18 in the figure means Tank 18 operation with the existing ADMP.)......... 46

Figure 37. Nondimensional velocity distributions along the discharge direction of pump

nozzle at the plane 3in above the tank bottom (The mapping name Tank 18in the figure means Tank 18 operation with the existing ADMP.)....................... 46

Figure 38. Comparison of flow evolutions induced by the Tank 18 ADMP and MADMPmixers with 70in tank levels on the discharge plane 27in above the tankbottom............................................................................................................... 47

Figure 39. Comparison of flow evolutions induced by the Tank 18 ADMP and MADMPmixers with 70in tank levels on the horizontal plane 3in above the tankbottom............................................................................................................... 47

Figure 40. Comparison of flow evolutions induced by the Tank 18 ADMP and MADMPmixers at the top surfaces of 70in tank levels.................................................... 48

Figure 41. Comparison of velocity contour plots induced by the Tank 18 ADMP andMADMP mixers at the center planes of 70in tank levels .................................... 48

Figure 42. Comparison of suspended zones of zeolites induced by the Tank 18 ADMPand MADMP mixers at the center planes of 70in tank levels ............................. 49Figure 43. Comparison of flow patterns induced by the Tank 18 ADMP and MADMP

mixers at the center planes of 70in tank levels .................................................. 49Figure 44. Comparison of flow evolutions with two different mixing fluids induced by the

Tank 18 ADMP mixer at the 27in (nozzle exit level) and 3in elevations fromthe tank bottom ................................................................................................. 50

Figure 45. Comparison of flow evolutions with water and slurry fluids induced by theTank 18 ADMP mixer at the 3in elevations from the tank bottom ...................... 51

Figure 46. Comparisons of steady-state non-dimensional velocity profiles of Tank 18 atthe discharge plane of ADMP mixer 27in above tank bottom with literaturedata................................................................................................................... 52

Figure 47. Typical velocity profiles in the direction perpendicular to the free surface from

the modeling results of Tank 18 mixing simulations. ......................................... 53Figure 48. Typical velocity profiles in the direction parallel to the free surface from the

modeling results of Tank 18 mixing simulations. ............................................... 54Figure A.1. Mapping of velocity measurement sensor and notations of test number I.D.

used in Table A.1. ............................................................................................. 59Figure B.1. Configuration of a turbulent free jet .................................................................. 63Figure B.2. Sludge mound remaining near the wall of Tank 18........................................... 65Figure B.3. Zeolite mound remaining near the wall of Tank 18........................................... 66


10/44

-x-

List of Tables

Table 1. Specifications of slurry pumps used for the present analysis..................................3Table 2. Minimum velocities of particle pickup and removal for the various particle sizes

(fluid density=1.5SG, particle density=2.0SG, sludge thickness=3in, solidconcentration=0.1)..................................................................................................5

Table 3. CFD modeling approaches taken for the present analysis......................................8Table 4. Reference design and operating conditions used for the present analysis. ..........10Table 5. Detailed analysis cases and conditions for the three-dimensional Tank 18

model....................................................................................................................14Table 6. Comparison of operational times to reach steady-state mixing flow patterns for

two different situations with and without pump rotations .......................................20Table 7. Sensitivity results for different fluid properties in the Tank 18 model in terms of

maximum clearing distance (MCD).......................................................................22Table 8. Summary for the TNX model and Tank 18 model results of maximum clearing

distance (MCD) for the cases considered in the analysis (Each case is definedin Table 2.)............................................................................................................22

Table A.1. Benchmarking results for TNX test with 3 and 27 elevations from the tankbottom ..................................................................................................................60


11/44

-xi-

Nomenclature

A = area (ft2

or m2)

d = nozzle diameter (ft or m)

D = tank diameter (ft or m)

C = constant or interpolation factor (--)

F = Force (N)

g = gravity (m/sec2)

h = liquid height above the nozzle (inch)

H = total tank level (inch)

I = turbulence intensity (--)

k = turbulent kinetic energy (= ( )avgwvu222

21 ++ )

P = pressure (Pa)

Pr = Prandtl number, Cp/k, (--)

r = radial distance from the center of tank center (ft or m)

R = tank radius (ft or m)

Re = Reynolds number, du/

t = time (second)

U = nozzle exit velocity (ft/sec or m/sec)

u = component velocity in x-direction (ft/sec or m/sec)

u = local turbulent velocity fluctuation in x-direction (ft/sec or m/sec)

v = local flow velocity or component velocity in y-direction (ft/sec or m/sec)

v = local turbulent velocity fluctuation in y-direction (ft/sec or m/sec)

V = average velocity magnitude (ft/sec or m/sec)

w = component velocity in z-direction (ft/sec or m/sec)

w = local turbulent velocity fluctuation in z-direction (ft/sec or m/sec)

x = local position along the x-direction under Cartesian coordinate system (ft or m)

y = local position along the y-direction under Cartesian coordinate system (ft or m)

z = local position along the y-direction under Cartesian coordinate system (ft or m)

Greek

= density (kg/m3)

= rate of dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy


12/44

-xii-

= gradient operator

= vorticity

= solid weight per weight of liquid

= dynamic viscosity (N sec/m2)

= kinematic viscosity (m2/sec)

= non-dimensional distance (--)

= ratio of local velocity to velocity at nozzle exit (--)

Subscript

avg = average

f = fluid

fo = clear fluid

fs = suspended fluid

L = lifting

m = maximum

o = jet nozzle exit

p = particle or pump

s = static

t = turbulent flow

v = flow velocity or vertical

= viscosity


13/44

WESTINGHOUSE SAVANNAH RIVER COMPANY Report:WSRC-TR-2001-00391Date: 04/05/02

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS FOR MIXING PUMPS OF TANK 18

Page: 35 of 66

Radial distance from centerline to tank wall (ft)

Velocity(ft/sec)

-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 250

5

10

15

20

25

2 ft5 ft

Tank wall side Tank wall side

Distance from pump

10 ft33 ft

40 ft

Figure 18. Steady-state horizontal velocity profiles for various distances from the pumpat the nozzle discharge plane (27 inches above tank bottom): 3D Model

Results for the Full Tank 18 Facility with 70 liquid level

Distance from tank bottom (ft)

Velocity(ft/sec)

0 1 2 3 4 5 60

10

20

30

40

2 ft5 ft

Tank floor

Top of liquid surface(70 inches from tank bottom)

Distance from pump

10 ft

33 ft

40 ft

Figure 19. Steady-state vertical velocity profiles for various distances from the pump(pump nozzle is located 2.25ft from tank bottom): 3D Model Results for

the Full Tank 18 Facility with 70 liquid level


14/44

Report: WSRC-TR-2001-00391 WESTINGHOUSE SAVANNAH RIVER COMPANYDate: 04/05/02


Page: 36 of 66

Distance from pump to tank wall (ft)

Velocity(ft/sec)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

10

20

30

40

50

60Tank 18 with no pump rotationTank 18 with pump rotation

pump nozzle Tank wall

Figure 20. Downstream evolutions of Tank 18 with and without pump rotations for 70 intank level at the discharge plane 27 inches above the tank bottom.


Velocity(ft/sec)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Tank 18 with no pump rotation

Tank 18 with pump rotation


Figure 21. Downstream evolutions of Tank 18 with and without pump rotations for 70 intank level at the plane 3 inches above the tank bottom.


15/44



Page: 37 of 66

Pump nozzle

30ft

40ft

85ft diameter tank boundary

rad

iald

istan c

e

0 0

Radial distance from centerline to tank wall (ft)

V

elocity(ft/sec)

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 300

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

No pump rotation (40ft away from nozzle)

Pump rotation (40ft away from nozzle)

Tank wall side Tank wall side

Pump rotation (30ft away from nozzle)No pump rotation (30ft away from nozzle)

pump discharge centerline

Figure 22. Comparison of steady-state velocity profiles near the wall regions about 12ftand 2ft away from the side wall of Tank 18 at the plane 3 in above tankbottom


16/44



Page: 38 of 66

ZY

X

Contourso

fVelocityMagnitude(m/s)(Time=3.0200e+02)FLUENT5.5(3d,segregated,ke,unsteady)

Jun25,2001

4.8

8e-0

1

4.3

9e-0

1

3.9

0e-0

1

3.4

1e-0

1

2.9

3e-0

1

2.4

4e-0

1

1.9

5e-0

1

1.4

6e-0

1

9.7

5e-0

2

4.8

8e-0

2

0.0

0e+00

ZY

X

Contourso

fVelocityMagnitude(m/s)(Time=3.8000e+02)FLUENT5.5(3d,segregated,ke,unsteady)

Jun25,2001

4.8

8e-0

1

4.3

9e-0

1

3.9

0e-0

1

3.4

1e-0

1

2.9

3e-0

1

2.4

4e-0

1

1.9

5e-0

1

1.4

6e-0

1

9.7

5e-0

2

4.8

8e-0

2

0.0

0e+00

(Flow patterns for no pump rotation) (Flow patterns for pump rotation)

Figure 23. Comparison of steady-state flow patterns of the 3 in plane for Tank 18without pump rotation and with pump rotation (The red zone is higher

than 1.6 ft/sec of flow velocty.)

ZY

X

ContoursofVeloc

ityMagnitude(m/s)(Time=3.0200e+02)FLUENT5.5(3d,segrega

ted,ke,unsteady)

Jun25,2001

4.88e-01

4.39e-01

3.90e-01

3.41e-01

2.93e-01

2.44e-01

1.95e-01

1.46e-01

9.75e-02

4.88e-02

0.00e+00

ContoursofVelocityMagnitude(m/s)(Time=3.8000e+02)FLUENT5.5(3d,segregated,ke,unsteady)

Jun25,2001

4.88e-01

4.39e-01

3.90e-01

3.41e-01

2.93e-01

2.44e-01

1.95e-01

1.46e-01

9.75e-02

4.88e-02

0.00e+00

ZY

X

(Near-wall flow pattern for no pump rotation) (Near-wall flow pattern for pump rotation)

Figure 24. Comparison of steady-state velocity contour plots for Tank 18 without pumprotation and with pump rotation at the plane 3 in above the tank bottom(The zone inside the red curve is higher than 1.6 ft/sec of flow velocity.)


17/44



Page: 39 of 66


Velocity(ft/sec)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

10

20

30

40

50

6070in liquid level

40in liquid level


Figure 25. Velocity profiles for various distances from the pump at the nozzle dischargeplane (27 inches above tank bottom)


Velocity(ft/sec)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

5

10

70in liquid level40in liquid level

Tank center(pump location)

Tank wall

Figure 26. Velocity profiles for various distances from the pump at the nozzle dischargeplane (3 inches above tank bottom)


18/44



Page: 40 of 66


Velocity(ft/sec)

0 1 2 3 4 5 60

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 inches

40 inches

Tank floor


Tank level

40in from tank bottom


Velocity(ft/sec)

0 1 2 3 4 5 60

10

20

30

40

70 inches

40 inches

Tank floor


Tank level


(2 ft from the pump) (5 ft from the pump)


Velocity(ft/sec)

0 1 2 3 4 5 60

4

8

12

16

20

70 inches

40 inches

Tank floor


Tank level



Velocity(ft/sec)

0 1 2 3 4 5 60

2

4

6

8

10

70 inches

40 inches

Tank floor


Tank level




Velocity(ft/sec)

0 1 2 3 4 5 60

2

4

6

8

70 inches

40 inches

Tank floor


Tank level



Velocity(ft/sec)

0 1 2 3 4 5 60

1

2

3

4

5

6

70 inches

40 inches

Tank floor


Tank level



Figure 27. Vertical velocity profiles of two different tank levels for various distances fromthe pump (pump nozzle is located 2.25ft from tank bottom)


19/44



Page: 41 of 66


Velocity(ft/sec)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

10

20

30

40

50

60Tank 18 with no pump rotationTank 18 with pump rotation


40in tank level



Velocity(ft/sec)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Tank 18 with no pump rotationTank 18 with pump rotation


40in tank level



20/44



Page: 42 of 66

ZY

X

ContoursofVelocityMagnitude(m/s)

FLUENT5.5(3d,segregated,ke)

Jul12,2001

4.8

8e-01

4.3

9e-01

3.9

0e-01

3.4

1e-01

2.9

3e-01

2.4

4e-01

1.9

5e-01

1.4

6e-01

9.7

5e-02

4.8

8e-02

0.0

0e+00

ZY

X

ContoursofVelocityMagnitude(m/s)(Time=3.8000e+02)FLUENT5.5(3d,segregated,ke,unsteady)

Jul11,2001

4.8

8e-01

4.3

9e-01

3.9

0e-01

3.4

1e-01

2.9

3e-01

2.4

4e-01

1.9

5e-01

1.4

6e-01

9.7

5e-02

4.8

8e-02

0.0

0e+00

(no pump rotation for 40 in liquid level) (pump rotation for 40 in liquid level)

Figure 30. Steady-state downstream evolutions of Tank 18 with and without pumprotations for 40 in tank level at the discharge plane 27 inches above the

tank bottom.

ZY

X


FLUENT5.5

(3d,segregated,ke)

Jul12,2001

4.88e-01

4.39e-01

3.90e-01

3.41e-01

2.93e-01

2.44e-01

1.95e-01

1.46e-01

9.75e-02

4.88e-02

0.00e+00

ZY

X

ContoursofVelocityMagnitude(m/s)(Time=3.8000e+02)FLUENT5.5(3d,segre

gated,ke,unsteady)

Jul11,2001

4.88e-01

4.39e-01

3.90e-01

3.41e-01

2.93e-01

2.44e-01

1.95e-01

1.46e-01

9.75e-02

4.88e-02

0.00e+00

(no pump rotation for 40 in liquid level) (pump rotation for 40 in liquid level)

Figure 31. Steady-state downstream evolutions of Tank 18 with and without pumprotations for 40 in tank level at the discharge plane 3 inches above the

tank bottom.


21/44



Page: 43 of 66


Velocity(ft/sec)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

20

40

60

80

100

120

Tank 18

Madmp


Figure 32. Downstream velocity profiles along the discharge directions of the nozzleplanes of Tank 18 ADMP and MADMP mixers (The mapping name Tank

18 in the figure means Tank 18 operation with the existing ADMP.)


Velocity(ft/sec)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Tank 18Madmp


Figure 33. Horizontal velocity profiles along the downstream directions of the pumpnozzles of Tank 18 with ADMP and MADMP mixers at the plane 3 in

above the tank bottom (The mapping name Tank 18 in the figure meansTank 18 operation with the existing ADMP.)


22/44



Page: 44 of 66

ZY

X

ContoursofTurbulenceIntensity

FLUENT5.5

(3d,segregated,ke)

Jul26,2001

4.38e-01

4.04e-01

3.70e-01

3.37e-01

3.03e-01

2.70e-01

2.36e-01

2.02e-01

1.69e-01

1.35e-01

1.02e-01

6.80e-02

3.44e-02

8.45e-04

(Turbulence intensity contour plot for Tank 18 operation with ADMP mixer)

ZY

X

ContoursofTurbule

nceIntensity

FLUENT

5.5(3d,segregated,ke)

Jul26,2001

5.12e-01

4.73e-01

4.34e-01

3.94e-01

3.55e-01

3.15e-01

2.76e-01

2.36e-01

1.97e-01

1.58e-01

1.18e-01

7.88e-02

3.94e-02

0.00e+00

(Turbulence intensity contour plot for Tank 18 operation with MADMP mixer)

Figure 34. Comparison of turbulence intensity profiles for the Tank 18 operations withADMP and MADMP mixers at the plane 3 in above the tank bottom


23/44



Page: 45 of 66


Turbulenceintensity

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

1

2

3

4

5

6

Tank 18

Madmp

Nozzle exit

Elevation = 27 in from the tank bottom

(Turbulence intensity profiles at 27 in elevation from the tank bottom)


Turbulenceintensity

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Tank 18

Madmp

Elevation = 3 in from the tank bottom

(Turbulence intensity profiles at 3 in elevation from the tank bottom)

Figure 35. Comparisons of turbulence intensity profiles for the Tank 18 operations withADMP and MADMP mixers at the plane 3 in above the tank bottom (Themapping name Tank 18 in the figure means Tank 18 operation with the

existing ADMP.)


24/44



Page: 46 of 66

Ratio of local position to tank radius

Ratio

oflocalvelocityto

nozzledischargevelocity

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Tank 18 with 70in tank levelTank 18 with 40in tank level


Madmp with 70in tank level

Figure 36. Nondimensional velocity distributions along the discharge direction of pumpnozzle at the nozzle plane 27 in above the tank bottom (The mappingname Tank 18 in the figure means Tank 18 operation with the existing

ADMP.)

Ratio of local position to tank radius

Ratioof

localvelocitytomin.

suspensionvelocity

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10

0.5

1

1.5

2

Tank 18 with 70in tank levelTank 18 with 40in tank level


Madmp with 70in tank level

Min. suspension velocity is assumed to be 1.6 ft/sec.

Figure 37. Nondimensional velocity distributions along the discharge direction of pumpnozzle at the plane 3 in above the tank bottom (The mapping name Tank

18 in the figure means Tank 18 operation with the existing ADMP.)


25/44



Page: 47 of 66

ZY

X

Contoursof

VelocityMagnitude(m/s)

FLUENT


Jun26,2001

4.88e-01

4.39e-01

3.90e-01

3.41e-01

2.93e-01

2.44e-01

1.95e-01

1.46e-01

9.75e-02

4.88e-02

0.00e+00

ZY

X

Contoursof

VelocityMagnitude(m/s)

FLUENT


Jun26,2001

4.88e-01

4.39e-01

3.90e-01

3.41e-01

2.93e-01

2.44e-01

1.95e-01

1.46e-01

9.75e-02

4.88e-02

0.00e+00

(Tank 18 with ADMP) (Tank 18 with MADMP)

Figure 38. Comparison of flow evolutions induced by the Tank 18 ADMP and MADMPmixers with 70 in tank levels on the discharge plane 27 in above the tank

bottom

ZY

X



Jun26,2001

4.88e-01

4.39e-01

3.90e-01

3.41e-01

2.93e-01

2.44e-01

1.95e-01

1.46e-01

9.75e-02

4.88e-02

0.00e+0

0

ZY

X



Jun26,2001

4.88e-01

4.39e-01

3.90e-01

3.41e-01

2.93e-01

2.44e-01

1.95e-01

1.46e-01

9.75e-02

4.88e-02

0.00e+0

0


Figure 39. Comparison of flow evolutions induced by the Tank 18 ADMP and MADMPmixers with 70 in tank levels on the horizontal plane 3 in above the tank

bottom


26/44


27/44



Page: 49 of 66

ZY

X


FLUENT


Jun26,2001

4.88e-01

4.39e-01

3.90e-01

3.41e-01

2.93e-01

2.44e-01

1.95e-01

1.46e-01

9.75e-02

4.88e-02

0.00e+00

ZY

X


FLUENT


Jun26,2001

4.88e-01

4.39e-01

3.90e-01

3.41e-01

2.93e-01

2.44e-01

1.95e-01

1.46e-01

9.75e-02

4.88e-02

0.00e+00


Figure 42. Comparison of suspended zones of zeolites induced by the Tank 18 ADMPand MADMP mixers at the center planes of 70 in tank levels

ZY

X

RelVelocityVectorsColoredByVelocityMagnitude(m/s)

FLUENT5.4

(3d,segregated,ke)

Jun26,2001

1.77e+01

1.59e+01

1.41e+01

1.24e+01

1.06e+01

8.83e+00

7.06e+00

5.30e+00

3.53e+00

1.77e+00

1.38e-04

ZY

X

RelVelocityVectorsColoredByVelocityMagnitude(m/s)

FLUENT5.4

(3d,segregated,ke)

Jun26,2001

3.48e+01

3.13e+01

2.79e+01

2.44e+01

2.09e+01

1.74e+01

1.39e+01

1.04e+01

6.96e+00

3.48e+00

7.72e-05


Figure 43. Comparison of flow patterns induced by the Tank 18 ADMP and MADMPmixers at the center planes of 70 in tank levels


28/44



Page: 50 of 66


Velocity(ft/sec)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

10

20

30

40

50

60Tank 18 with water

Tank 18 with slurry


Slurry fluid:1 .2 SG density, 2 cp viscosityLiquid level: 70 in

(velocity distributions at the level of nozzle exit)


Velocity(ft/sec)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Tank 18 with waterTank 18 with slurry


Slurry fluid: 1.2 S G density, 2 cp viscosityLiquid level: 70 in

(velocity distributions at the 3 in elevation from the tank bottom)

Figure 44. Comparison of flow evolutions with two different mixing fluids induced by theTank 18 ADMP mixer at the 27 in (nozzle exit level) and 3 in elevations

from the tank bottom


29/44



Page: 51 of 66

ZY

X

ContoursofRadialVelo

city(m/s)


Aug15,2001

1.85e+00

1.60e+00

1.36e+00

1.11e+00

8.60e-01

6.13e-01

3.65e-01

1.17e-01

-1.31e-01

-3.79e-01

-6.27e-01

(Water flow evolutions at 3 in elevation from the tank bottom)

ContoursofRadialVelocity(m/s)

FLUENT5.

5(3d,segregated,ke)

Aug15,2001

1.82e+00

1.57e+00

1.32e+00

1.07e+00

8.21e-01

5.71e-01

3.20e-01

6.97e-02

-1.81e-01

-4.31e-01

-6.82e-01

ZY

X

(Slurry flow evolutions at 3 in elevation from the tank bottom)

Figure 45. Comparison of flow evolutions with water and slurry fluids induced by theTank 18 ADMP mixer at the 3 in elevations from the tank bottom


30/44



Page: 52 of 66

Ratio of local distance from nozzle to nozzle diameter

Ratioofloca

lmax.velocitytonozzleexitvelocit

y

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 800

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Tank 18 with ADMP (70in tank level)

Tank 18 with ADMP (40in tank level)

pump nozzle

Free jet (Abramovich (1963))

Tank 18 with MADMP (70in tank level)

flow downstream side

Wall jet data (1 975)SRS TNX data with ADMP

Free jet (Tennekes and Lumley (1972))

Figure 46. Comparisons of steady-state non-dimensional velocity profiles of Tank 18 atthe discharge plane of ADMP mixer 27 in above tank bottom with

literature data


31/44



Page: 53 of 66

tank wall(z/d = 0)

dischargeplane

freesurface level

Flow downstream side

Nozzle exit

Vertical elevation

Near-wall

Wall boundary layer developed

tank wall(z/d = 0)

dischargeplane

freesurface level

Flow downstream side

Nozzle exit

Vertical elevation

Near-wall

Free jet boundary developed

fully developed velocity profilefor wall jet flow

Figure 47. Typical velocity profiles in the direction perpendicular to the free surface fromthe modeling results of Tank 18 mixing simulations.


32/44



Page: 54 of 66

Nozzleexit Downstream

side

Near nozzle exit

Side walldirection

Near tank wall

Side walldirection

Figure 48. Typical velocity profiles in the direction parallel to the free surface from themodeling results of Tank 18 mixing simulations.

4. Summary and Conclusions

TNX full tank and Tank 18 simulation models with ADMP or MADMP mixers have beendeveloped. Calculations have been performed to benchmark the models with TNX test

data and to assess the efficiency of sludge suspension and removal operations in Tank18 during steady-state and transient pump operations. Reference design and operatingconditions were used as shown in Tables 3 and 4. Solid obstructions other than thepump housing and the 16 riser, and free surface motion of the tank liquid wereneglected.

A three-dimensional analysis with a two-equation turbulence model was performed withFLUENT

TM, a commercial computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code. A two-dimensional

approach was also used as a scoping analysis to examine multi-dimensional effects offluid motion on the flow circulation pattern in the tank. The computed results werevalidated with TNX test and literature data. Rotational effects of the pump wereconsidered to estimate the impact on the sludge suspension and removal assuming thatlocal fluid velocity can be used as a measure of slurrying and mixing efficiency. For aminimum suspension velocity of 2.27 ft/sec, the results indicated that the existing ADMPmixer would provide adequate sludge removal from the tank with a 70 in liquid levelexcept for a wall boundary of about 2 ft.

The CFD simulation results for the ADMP mixer showed that steady-state flow patternswere reached in about 60 seconds after starting the pump. As expected, the resultsalso showed that when the pump was rotated in a continuous and one-way direction, theoperational time to reach steady-state conditions was much longer. In addition, when


33/44



Page: 55 of 66

the pump is off-center, times to reach steady-state flow patterns are much longer thanthe case with the pump located at the tank center.

The main conclusions are as follows:

Model predictions agree with test data within about 25%. In the velocity rangeswhere sludge removal is required, the model provides a conservative estimate whencompared to actual test data. The predictions are in good agreement with wall jetdata available in the literature.

The difference between a fixed pump and a rotating pump is small, and is well withinthe uncertainty of the present calculations. The pump with rotation appears to besomewhat better than the one with no rotation in terms of waste removal andsuspension capabilities, largely because of secondary flows. The effect of pumprotation is more pronounced when the pump is located off-center and the tank liquidlevel is lower.

Higher tank level results in better performance for suspending and removing thesludge for the given design and operating conditions of Tank 18.

A smaller nozzle size with an identical Uodo has better performance for suspendingand removing the sludge for the given design and operating conditions of Tank 18.The MADMP mixer has the best performance among the cases considered in termsof sludge removal capacity.

The computational results for two different fluids, water and a typical slurry (1.2specific gravity, 2 cp), show that the maximum clearing distance is not sensitive tothe slurry fluid properties. Therefore, all the flow pattern results based on water arevalid for slurry flow in Tank 18.

The results indicate that local velocities adjacent to the tank wall are potentially lowerthan those needed to remove sludge. The velocities are high enough to indicate that

suspended zeolite will probably be swept aside.

An approximate comparison (Appendix B) of results and observations from Tank 8 tothe Tank 18 calculations documented here indicates that about 2000 gallons ofsludge and zeolite mixture might lie in the bottom corner of Tank 18 beyond thereach of the ADMP.


34/44



Page: 56 of 66



35/44



Page: 57 of 66

5. References

1. R. A. Leishear, e-mail on design information of ADMP (LPI#91370), April 23, 2001.

2. HLW Technical Request Form, HLE-TTR-2001-049, Rev. 1, May 29, 2001.

3. N. V. Chadrasekhara Swamy and P. Bandyopadhyay, Mean and TurbulenceCharacteristics of Three-Dimensional Wall Jets, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol.71, Part 3, pp. 541-562 (1975).

4. FLUENT, Fluent, Inc. (1998).

5. F. A. Zenz and D. F. Othmer, Fluidization and Fluid-Particle Systems, Chapter 6,Reinhold Publishing Corppration, New York (1960).

6. S. Y. Lee and R. A. Dimenna, Validation Analysis for the Calculation of aTurbulent Free Jet in water Using CFDS-FLOW3D and FLUENT (U), WSRC-TR-95-0170 (May 1995).

7. C. K. Madina and L. P. Bernal of F, Interaction of a Turbulent Round Jet with the

Free surface, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 261, pp. 305-332 (1994)8. Personal Communications with R. A. Leishear, April 21, 2001

9. Abramovich, G. N., The Theory of Turbulent Jets, The MIT Press, Cambridge,MA, 1963.

10. H. Schlichting, Boundary Layer Theory, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York(1967).

11. Personal communications with Marsh-McBirney, Inc.,

Company Address: 4539 Metropolitan Ct., Frederick, Maryland 21704, PhoneNumber: (800) 368-2723, Fax Number: (301) 874-2172

e-mail: www.Marsh-McBirney.com

12. W. M. Rohsenow and H. Y. Choi, Heat, Mass, and Momentum Transfer, Prentice-

Hall, Inc., New Jersey (1961).13. H. Tennekes and J. L. Lumley, A First Course in Turbulence, The MIT Press,

Cambridge, MA, 1972.

14. B. V. Churnetski, Effective Cleaning Radius Studies, Memorandum, DPST-81-282, February 19, 1981.

15. J. H. Perry, Chemical Engineers Handbook, Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co,New York.

16. E. J. Freed and O. S. Mukherjee, Tank 8 Waste Removal Operating Plan, U-ESR-F-00009, Rev. 5, April 3, 2001.


36/44



Page: 58 of 66



37/44



Page: 59 of 66

Appendix A: Mapping of Velocity Measurement Sensorand Benchmarking Results

r

Measurementsensor

Test No. : 00r00t+00

Elevation heightDistance

from center (r)

+ number: azimuthal angle ()counterclockwise

- number: azimuthal angle ()clockwise

Pump nozzle

16ft 42.5ft

Figure A.1. Mapping of velocity measurement sensor for the TNX full tank test andnotations of test number I.D. used in Table A.1.


38/44



Page: 60 of 66

Table A.1. Benchmarking results for TNX test with 3 and 27 elevations from the tankbottom

Test No. Predictions Experiments % error

03r06t-23.7 4.800 4.715 1.8

03r06t-31.8 4.167 4.859 -14.2

03r12t-18.24 3.806 4.157 -8.4

03r12t-26.34 2.725 3.950 -31.0

03r18t-18.24 2.756 3.341 -17.5

03r18t-24.58 2.620 3.507 -25.3

03r24t-15.59 2.328 3.098 -24.8

03r24t-23.69 1.444 1.853 -22.1

03r30t-15.05 1.895 1.734 9.3

03r30t-23.15 1.142 1.260 -9.4

03r36t-14.66 1.499 1.483 1.1

03r36t-22.76 0.975 1.337 -27.1

03r42t-14.66 0.787 1.032 -23.7

27r12t+5.34 3.629 4.260 -14.8

27r06t+10.8 4.380 4.302 1.8

27r06t+15.9 4.100 2.840 44.4

27r06t+16.8 4.000 3.108 28.7

27r06t-10.8 4.380 5.402 -18.9

27r06t-5.34 4.590 4.623 -0.7

27r06t-23.7 3.644 3.811 -4.4

27r06t-31.8 3.280 4.085 -19.7

27r06t+97.7 0.720 1.858 -61.2

27r12t+11.34 3.270 2.530 29.3

27r12t+19.44 2.526 2.126 18.8

27r12t-18.24 3.100 4.033 -23.1

27r12t-26.34 2.210 3.445 -35.8

27r12t-5.34 3.629 4.036 -10.127r12t+92.24 0.100 1.444 -93.1

27r18t-3.58 3.031 3.137 -3.4

27r18t-24.58 1.478 2.642 -44.1

27r18t-16.48 2.223 3.180 -30.1

27r18t+11.34 2.450 1.745 40.4

27r18t+17.68 1.911 1.010 89.2


39/44



Page: 61 of 66

Table A.1. Benchmarking results for TNX test with 3 and 27 elevations from the tankbottom (continued)

Test No. Predictions Experiments % error

27r18t+3.58 3.031 3.659 -17.227r24t-2.69 2.559 2.031 26.0

27r24t+2.69 2.559 2.378 7.6

27r24t+16.79 1.558 1.154 35.0

27r24t+8.69 2.198 2.009 9.4

27r24t-15.59 1.773 2.375 -25.3

27r24t+89.59 1.043 1.536 -32.1

27r30t-2.15 2.004 1.647 21.6

27r30t+2.15 2.004 1.587 26.2

27r30t+8.69 1.750 1.683 4.027r30t+16.25 1.173 1.045 12.3

27r30t+89.05 0.719 0.895 -19.6

27r30t-23.15 0.853 2.172 -60.7

27r30t-15.05 1.478 1.894 -22.0

27r36t-1.79 1.781 2.292 -22.3

27r36t+1.76 1.781 1.487 19.7

27r36t+15.86 1.299 1.875 -30.7

27r36t+7.76 1.519 1.489 2.0

27r36t-14.66 1.181 1.172 0.8

27r36t+88.66 0.981 1.256 -21.9

27r36t+22.76 0.822 1.349 -39.1

27r42t-1.53 0.924 1.145 -19.3

27r42t+1.53 0.924 1.110 -16.7

27r42t+7.76 0.904 2.204 -59.0

27r42t-14.43 0.989 1.592 -37.8

27r42t-22.56 0.591 0.660 -10.5

27r42t+42.63 0.554 0.585 -5.4

27r42t+69.53 0.984 0.917 7.3

27r42t+88.43 1.754 2.128 -17.6

27r42t+7.53 0.911 0.936 -2.7

27r42t+107.53 2.113 2.429 -13.0


40/44



Page: 62 of 66



41/44



Page: 63 of 66

Appendix B: Quantitative Estimation of the RemainingSludge and Zeolite Volume

The flow patterns calculated in the Tank 18 analysis can be used to estimate theamount of sludge and zeolite that would be left behind because it is beyond the effectivecleaning radius (ECR) of the pump. Observations and measurements from Tank 8 [Ref.16] are used to quantify the ECR and calibrate the Tank 18 calculations.

Figure B.1. Configuration of a turbulent free jet

A turbulent jet flow through a nozzle is dissipated as shown in Fig. B.1. The axialvelocity distribution along the jet discharge line is described as follows:

( ) ( )

===

x

dUKxvr,xv ooc0 (B1)

Since the pump discharge flow is affected by the bottom of the tank, the constant K isevaluated from the Tank 18 calculations rather than classical free jet theory. It is foundto be 4.874. The maximum axial velocity at any axial position x can be estimated usingeq. (B1). The radial flow distribution vr at a given axial position, x = xr, is given in termsof radial position r perpendicular to the jet axis by the literature [Ref. 15].

2

=

r

r

r

cr

x

rK

v

vlog (B2)

v(xr)

Potential flow region

Mixing layer

Mixing layer

Mixing layerNozzle discharge

Uo

0

xd

o

y

x = xr

vcr = v(xr, r=0)r=rc

vcone = v(xr,rc)

Boundary for jet flow

Boundary for jet flow


42/44



Page: 64 of 66

Results from Tank 8 showed Kr to be 9.5 [Re. 16]. Then eq. (B2) becomes

2

59

=

r

c

cone

cr

x

r.

v

vlog (B3)

The ECR is defined as the distance from the nozzle exit to the point along the jet axis atwhich the local velocity is just equal to the minimum velocity needed to suspend sludge.This velocity is identified as vECR. This same magnitude of velocity can be found at anoff-axis location and identified with vcone as shown in Fig. B.1. Equating these twovelocities and using eq. (B1) gives the suspension velocity,

==

ECR

dUKvv ooconeECR . (B4)

From eqs. (B1) and (B4), the ratio of the axial velocity vcr at x = xr to the ECR velocityvECR can be found.

=

=

rcone

cr

ECR

cr

x

ECR

v

v

v

v

. (B5)

From eqs. (B3) and (B5), the velocity terms can be eliminated. That is,

2

59

=

r

c

r x

r.

x

ECRlog (B6)

Eq. (B6) can be used to relate two measured values from the Tank 8 report [Ref. 16],the disturbance depth rc and the ECR. The disturbance depth is the depth to which thesludge layer was eroded by the horizontal jet. When these values are inserted in eq.(B6), the axial location xr where the sludge is suspended and removed from the sludgehill can be calculated. The Tank 8 report lists the ECR and the disturbance depth rc as

26 ft and 28 in, respectively, which gives a value xr= 18 ft.

The sludge suspension velocity can be found from eq. (B5) if the axial velocity at xr isknown. The axial velocity at the 18 ft distance is given by eq. (B1). The dischargevelocity at the Tank 8 jet nozzle was found to be 96.77 ft/sec for a 533 gpm flowrate(1600 rpm) and a 1.5 in nozzle diameter. Thus, the suspension velocity of the sludgewas found to be 2.27 ft/sec. This value is consistent with the experimental observationsin Tank 8 [Ref. 16]. Using this suspension velocity of the sludge and the present resultsof the Tank 18 model, the volume of the remaining sludge near the wall of the Tank 18can be estimated. This suspension velocity for the sludge in Tank 18 corresponds to anECR of 41.3 ft, which is about 1.2 ft away from the tank wall.

Figures B.2 and B.3 can be used to estimate the amount of sludge and zeolite in Tank

18 that is beyond the reach of the slurry pump. An engineering estimate is that sludgematerial would accumulate at a slope of about 60

oin the bottom corner of the tank.

Therefore, an ECR of 41.3 ft would result in an accumulation as shown in Fig. B.2. Ifzeolite were to accumulate independently, its slope would be smaller, about 45

o.

However, it is unlikely that this independent accumulation would occur in Tank 18, and itis beyond the scope of the present analysis. The tank material is expected to be amixture of both sludge and zeolite, so Fig. B.2 encompasses both materials. Thevolume of this region has been evaluated numerically and is approximately 2044 gal.


43/44



Page: 65 of 66

It is possible that if the pump were to remain in a fixed position for a long enough periodof time, it would ultimately erode the sludge layer and remove more sludge than isindicated in Fig. B.2. There is SRS engineering experience to indicate that this erosioncould occur, but it was neither addressed nor supported by the analysis in this report.

A further question was raised about the tendency of suspended zeolite to drop out of theliquid region as the jet dispersed into the low velocity regions of the tank. While it isanticipated that such would be the case, deposition of the fast settling zeolite on thetank floor is a time dependent process that was not modeled in the present work.Qualitatively, one would expect the zeolite to drop out rather quickly once the liquidvelocity dropped below that required to maintain the suspension. This would probablybe in the green regions fairly close to the tank wall shown in Figure 23. That is, thedeposition would be expected to follow behind the rotational motion of the jet, leaving anannular ring in approximately the outer third of the tank. The particulate would remainthere until the opposing jet passed over that same region.

Figure B.2. Sludge mound remaining near the wall of Tank 18

Wall for Tank 18

1 ft

1 ft

Sludge accumulated near the tank wall1.07846 ft

0.2 ft

60o


44/44



Page: 66 of 66

Figure B.3. Zeolite mound remaining near the wall of Tank 18

Wall for Tank 18

1 ft

1 ft

45o

Zeolite mound near the tank wall0.2 ft

0.2 ft

Performance Analysis for Mixing Pumps

Documents

Transcript of Performance Analysis for Mixing Pumps