Saheb_Kapoor_Thesis

2
DISCLAIMER
This thesis is submitted as partial and final fulfillment of the cooperative work
experience requirements of Kettering University needed to obtain a Bachelor of Science
in Mechanical Engineering Degree.
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this thesis are those of the writer and
do not necessarily represent the position of Kettering University or PPG Industries, Inc.,
or any of its directors, officers, agents, or employees with respect to the matters
discussed.

3
PREFACE
This thesis represents the capstone of my five years combined academic work at
Kettering University and job experience at PPG Industries, Inc. Academic experiences in
Mechanical Engineering proved to be valuable assets while I developed this thesis and
addressed the problem it concerns.
Although this thesis represents the compilation of my own efforts, I would like to
acknowledge and extend my sincere gratitude to the following persons for their valuable
time and assistance, without whom the completion of this thesis would not have been
possible:
1. Thomas Cook – Manager, Global Process Management, PPG Industries
2. Andrew Tatarko – Global Process Management, PPG Industries
3. Conor Hawkins – Global Process Management, PPG Industries
4. Dr. David Asay – OEM Coatings Research and Development, PPG Industries
5. Dr. Homayun Navaz – Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Faculty Thesis
Advisor, Kettering University

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ........................................................................................................................2
PREFACE ...............................................................................................................................3
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS .................................................................................................5
I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................7
Problem Topic ...............................................................................................7
Background .....................................................................................................7
Criteria and Parameter Restrictions ................................................................7
Methodology ...................................................................................................8
Primary Purpose ...........................................................................................10
II. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................11
Conclusions ....................................................................................................11
Recommendations ..........................................................................................13
III. SIMULANT SOLUTION DESIGN...........................................................................14
General Procedure ..........................................................................................16
Results ............................................................................................................17
IV. IMPELLER POWER NUMBER STUDY .................................................................21
Data Analysis..................................................................................................27
Results ............................................................................................................29
Sources of Error and Recommendations ........................................................38
V. BLEND TIME STUDY..............................................................................................39
Results ............................................................................................................43
REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................48
GLOSSARY .........................................................................................................................49
APPENDIX: ABET PROGRAM OUTCOMES..................................................................50

5
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figures Page
1. Front view of the current 8TNK830.................................................................................12
2. Front view of the current 8TNK830 with proposed changes ...........................................12
3. Solid color coating viscosity as a function of Shear Rate ................................................15
4. Metallic color coating viscosity as a function of Shear Rate ...........................................15
5. Tabulated results from Simulant Solution Design Study .................................................18
6. Simulant Solution Design study data comparison............................................................19
7. Viscosity Comparison of Simulation solution and target behavior..................................20
8. Examples of Impeller Power number vs. Reynolds numbers curves ...............................23
9. A standard Cylindrical Mixing Vessel. ............................................................................23
10. Effect of Clearance on Power Number for Rushton, Free Blade Turbine and Pitched
Blade Turbine Impellers...................................................................................................24
11. Effect of dual Impeller spacing on Power Number for Free Blade Turbine and Pitched
Blade Turbine Impellers...................................................................................................24
12. Impeller types used...........................................................................................................25
13. Comparative behavior of all Impellers that were studied in the Newtonian solutions.....30
14. Comparative effects of top Impeller clearance in Newtonian solutions for Dual and
Single Lightnin A310 Impeller configurations.................................................................31
Single Chemineer HE-3 Impeller configurations.............................................................32
Single Pitched Blade Turbine configurations...................................................................33
17. Comparative behavior of all Impellers that were studied in the Non Newtonian
Simulant solution..............................................................................................................34
18. Comparative effects of top Impeller clearance in the Simulant solution for Dual and
Single Lightnin A310 Impeller configurations.................................................................35

6
19. Comparative effects of top Impeller clearance in the Simulant solution for Mixed
A310 and PBT Impeller configurations ...........................................................................36
20. Comparative effects of top Impeller clearance in the Simulant solution for Dual and
Single Pitch Blade Turbine configurations Impeller types used ......................................37
21. Thermocouple locations within vessel ............................................................................40
22. Temperature change in Thermocouple 4 based on Impeller clearance ...........................45
23. Temperature change in Thermocouple 1 based on Impeller clearance ............................46
24. Temperature change in Thermocouple 4 based on Impeller clearance ...........................47
25. Temperature change in Thermocouple 1 based on Impeller clearance ............................47

7
I. INTRODUCTION
The Automotive OEM business unit of PPG Industries, Inc. in Cleveland, Ohio,
hereafter referred to as PPG, operates Cylindrical and Rectangular mixing vessels in
several different configurations.
Problem Topic
Understanding, evaluation and comparison of equipment mixing capabilities at all
global facilities have been an issue for PPG. Intra-facility and inter-facility product
transfers often require such critical mixing information. Mixing is often blamed for poor
batches produced and a thorough understanding of mixing characteristics of blending
vessels is also essential for Root Cause Analysis.
Background
Every year there is a multitude of defective coating batches at the global facilities
of the company. These defective batches cost the company exorbitantly in terms of
resources, and a potential cause is the lack of research in mixing. The manager of Global
Process Management, a group that works primarily on inter-facility product transfers,
decided take initiative in this direction and assigned the project to the Kettering
University co-op in the group. All mixing vessel related information at the Cleveland
facility was organized as a prelude to this project.
Criteria and Parameter Restrictions
The following is the criteria for this project:
v All involved must absolutely abide by the safety policies of PPG
Industries.
v The project must be completed by April 2014, and two sequential 3 month
co-op terms are available for this.
v The results must:

8
o Describe the mixing capabilities of Cleveland production vessel
8TNK830:
§ The vessel mixing capability can be defined as the mixing
vessel’s ability to attain homogenous physical properties
such as temperature, concentration and viscosity across the
solution for a given product.
o Provide an optimal Impeller configuration for the Cleveland
production vessel 8TNK830 to mix coatings:
§ The Impeller configuration must be optimized for both top
and bottom Raw material additions.
v Three mixing equipment parameters can be used to scale-down mixing
from production to the laboratory. The available parameters are:
o Impeller Tip Speed: The speed at the tip of the rotating Impeller.
o Torque/Volume: Torque dissipated by Impeller(s) into the fluid
divided by volume of fluid in vessel.
o Power/Volume: Power dissipated by Impeller(s) into the fluid
divided by volume of fluid in vessel.
Methodology
The writer will:
ü In the first available co-op term:
v Prepare for project commencement:
o Create a folder on the “Global Process Management” Sharepoint
website and the group folder on the company H: drive.
o Update these folders with all required project information.
v Set up Torque Sensing Mixer and other required equipment for Mixing
studies:
o Visit the equipment origin facility to learn operation, assembly,
calibration and experimental use of equipment.
o Assemble mixer in the Cleveland facility after it arrives from the
origin facility.
o Download the required Interface software from the provided CD
on to the computer in order for the equipment to transfer data:

9
§ Ensure the COM Port driver is updated.
§ Plug the RS232 cable in to the computer docking station
and ascertain data transfer.
o Scale-down Production Mixing Vessels:
§ Choose and then scale-down Cleveland Rectangular
Mixing vessel(s) based on Impeller size.
§ Locate local manufacturers for acrylic boxes and have
vessels manufactured.
§ Locate and order required Impellers for the study.
§ Locate and order a multi input thermometer.
v Prepare ten Gallons of 5% Polyethylene Glycol solution and ten Gallons
of 20% Polyethylene Glycol solution with DI water:
o Measure and record solution densities and viscosities.
v Design a Simulant Solution that replicates the general Non-Newtonian
behavior of Water borne coatings:
o Ensure that the solution is not abrasive to the acrylic walls of the
lab vessel.
o Ascertain that change in the solution viscosity behavior over time
is insignificant or can be reversed by mixing.
v Design and perform mixing study to measure change in Impeller Power
Number by varying Impeller clearance levels:
o Prepare required spreadsheets and other documentation to record
Torque vs. RPM data.
o Record data for at least three different solutions.
o For each solution record data for six different Impeller
configurations.
o For each Impeller configuration record data runs for varying
Impeller clearance levels.
ü In the second available co-op term:
v Begin Data refinement for all data collected from the first co-op term:

10
o Delete data with RPM below 20 or Torque below 0 Nm.
o Delete all data recorded while the equipment RPM were being
ramped up or down by operator.
o Calculate and graph Power Number with respect to Reynolds
Number for each Impeller clearance level.
o Graph Power Number during turbulent mixing conditions with
respect to Impeller clearance level for each Impeller type and
number.
v Design and perform a Blend Time Study that quantifies mixing quality in
terms of mix time required:
o Prepare required spreadsheets and other documentation to record
all Temperature and Viscosity data.
o Prepare and assemble all equipment based on the experiment
requirements.
o Scaled-down all necessary experimental parameters from
Cleveland production to the lab scale.
o Collect and analyze all data as necessary to obtain optimal Impeller
clearance levels.
Primary Purpose
The primary purpose of this project is gain a deeper understanding of mixing in a
Rectangular shaped vessel and present an ideal Impeller configuration for the chosen
Rectangular vessel to mix coatings.

11
II. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
The project is in progress and data is still being collected and analyzed to reach
reliable conclusions. The project has provided further understanding of mixing in
Rectangular shaped mixing vessels.
All criteria (See Introduction, p. 7,8) are being met in the following manner:
v The safety policies of PPG Industries were abided by.
v The trend of change in Power number with varying clearance levels has
been observed. However, it was determined that the equipment was not
sensitive enough to accurately measure this trend.
v The ideal configuration of Impeller(s) for chosen Rectangular vessel has
been attained.
o The top Impeller clearance must be at 43 in. for a Dual A310 set-
up.
§ Figures 1 and 2 show the proposed differences. The
number in blue the top Impeller clearance in Inches, while
the number in orange is the minimum volume of solution
required to touch top Impeller.
o The top Impeller clearance must be at 36 in. for a Dual PBT set-up.
v Of all three listed mixing parameters, Power/Volume seems to provide the
most accurate scale down of mixing from Production to the Lab scale.

12
Figure 1. Front view of the current 8TNK830.
Figure 2. Front view of the current 8TNK830 with proposed changes.

13
Recommendations
In order to investigate further into this area of research the mixing studies listed
below have been suggested.
v Expand the Blend Time study to understand the mixing of triple and/or
mixed (PBTs + A310) Impeller type set-ups.
v Perform the same studies for Bldg. 8, Tank#822, portable vessels and A4
totes.
v Perform the study for a cylindrical vessel in order to compare mixing
differences due to change in vessel shape.
v Perform a study to accurately scale Blend time between lab and
production.
v Research and study Nanoparticle mixing using magnetic forces.

14
III. SIMULANT SOLUTION DESIGN
The Simulant Solution was chosen to model the general Non-Newtonian viscosity
behavior of two coatings, one metallic and one solid color. In order to comprehend the
Non-Newtonian behavior of these coating, they were tested for viscosity at varying shear
rates from 5 sec-1
till 1000 till sec-1
. All recorded data was graphed as shown in Figures 3
and 4.
The formulas from the graph seem to be of the form:
! = !!!
where,
y is solution Viscosity,
x is applied Shear Rate, and
m and K are constants.
According to the Handbook of Industrial Mixing (2008), K is the consistency
index and m is a representation of the flow behavior index. For shear thinning fluids,
-1 < m < 0, and the closer m is to -1, the more Non-Newtonian a fluid is. The increasing
shear and decreasing shear m values from the chosen samples were used as the prime
parameters to model the Simulant solution. In order to monitor the gap between the
increasing shear and decreasing shear m values across all samples another parameter
called Recovery Gap, R, was generated.

15
Figure 3. Solid color coating viscosity as a function of Shear Rate.
Figure 4. Metallic color coating viscosity as a function of Shear Rate.
y = 2.9694x-0.444
R² = 0.99476
y = 5.1999x-0.529
R² = 0.99733
0.1
1
10
1 10 100 1000
Viscosity (log)
Shear Rate (log)
BIPCU300 (Solid) Viscosity Run
Increasing Shear
Decreasing Shear
Power (Increasing Shear)
Power (Decreasing Shear)
y = 5.3248x-0.618
R² = 0.99822
y = 5.199x-0.628
R² = 0.99862
0.01
0.1
1
10
1 10 100 1000
Viscosity (log)
Shear Rate (log)
BIP2WA14 (Metallic) Viscosity Run
Increasing Shear
Decreasing Shear

16
! = !!/!!
where,
m1 is the m at increasing shear, and
m2 is the m at decreasing shear.
General Procedure
v It was determined that the Simulant solution be prepared using the
following raw materials:
o DI Water
o Clay (Laponite)
o Polyethylene Glycol (PEG), Molecular Weight = 35,000 g/mol
v The Solution preparation procedure was outlined as:
o Weigh the required amount of DI water and begin mixing it using a
Cowles blade.
o Add the required amount of Clay to the DI Water:
§ With circumspection at a slow pace so as to not cause
clumps of clay in solution.
§ Close to but not on the Impeller tip.
o Let solution mix until all visible clumps of clay have disappeared.
o Mix solution for an additional 10 minutes.
o Add PEG to the solution for 5 more minutes.
o After ensuring solution is homogenous, seal container.
o Cure solution for a minimum of 12 hours at 120°F to minimize
Thixotropic behavior.
v Various percentages and combinations of Clay and PEG were tested.
v All samples were tested using the TA Instruments AR 550 Rheometer
available at the PPG Cleveland facility.

17
Results
v After several trials it was noted that to attain the target Non-Newtonian
behavior the required clay concentrations were at least:
o 2% in plain DI water.
o 2.2% in a 0.25% solution of PEG in DI water.
v It was also observed from the collected data that for the concentrations
tested PEG seemed to:
o Decrease the Non-Newtonian behavior (increase the ‘m’ value) of
solution.
o Increase the Recovery Gap of solution.
v While the cure time was held constant for majority of the study as shown
in Figure 5, it was tweaked for the final Simulant solution in order to:
o Fine tune the Non-Newtonian behavior being observed.
o Further minimize Thixotropic behavior.
v On analyzing data as shown in Figure 6, there were some samples within
the target range of Recovery Gap, R, and within or slightly less than the
increasing shear m value, m1:
o Sample 21: Within the R range but at the upper end of the m1
range.
o Sample 22a: Within the R range but at the below the m1 range.
o Sample 30: Within the m1 range but at the upper end of the R
range.
v Sample 22a was chosen for further experimentation:
o Sample was prepared again, labelled Sample 22b and cured for 64
hours.
o On testing, the m1 value of the sample had substantially increased
with insignificant change in the R value as shown in Figure 5.

18
Sample # % Clay % PEG
Cure
Time
(hrs.)
m1 at
increasing
shear
m2 at
decreasing
shear Recovery Gap, R
Target Parameters (Solid) -0.529 -0.444 1.191
Target Parameters (Metallic) -0.618 -0.628 0.984
Test Sample 1 2.91 0.24 12 -0.919 -0.479 1.919
Test Sample 2 2.90 0.48 12 -0.912 -0.799 1.141
Test Sample 3 2.88 0.96 12 -0.833 -0.728 1.144
Test Sample 4 0.99 0.25 12 -0.047 0 Inconclusive
Test Sample 5 0.99 0.49 12 0 0 Inconclusive
Test Sample 7 2.88 0.96 12 -0.828 -0.724 1.144
Test Sample 8 2.83 2.83 12 -0.677 -0.48 1.410
Test Sample 9 2.78 4.63 12 -0.61 -0.367 1.662
Test Sample 10 3.35 0.96 12 -0.906 -0.824 1.100
Test Sample 11 3.29 2.82 12 -0.795 -0.641 1.240
Test Sample 12 3.23 4.61 12 -0.717 -0.563 1.274
Test Sample 13 1.48 0 12 0.1642 0 Inconclusive
Test Sample 15 1.96 0.00 12 -0.331 -0.3 1.103
Test Sample 16 1.96 0.24 12 0.0086 0 Inconclusive
Test Sample 17 2.44 0 12 -0.786 -0.688 1.142
Test Sample 18 2.43 0.24 12 -0.663 -0.573 1.157
Test Sample 19 2.34 0.20 12 -0.637 -0.605 1.053
Test Sample 20 2.06 0 12 -0.169 -0.191 0.885
Test Sample 21 2.15 0.24 12 -0.618 -0.542 1.140
Test Sample 22a 2.15 0 12 -0.445 -0.395 1.127
Test Sample 22b 2.15 0 64 -0.728 -0.643 1.132
Test Sample 23 2.24 0.24 12 -0.744 -0.647 1.150
Test Sample 24 2.25 0.00 12 -0.637 -0.561 1.135
Test Sample 25 2.34 0.24 12 -0.77 -0.722 1.066
Test Sample 26 2.34 0 12 -0.755 -0.645 1.171
Test Sample 27 2.14 0.49 12 -0.053 0 Inconclusive
Test Sample 28 2.14 0.73 12 -0.287 -0.231 1.242
Test Sample 29 2.24 0.49 12 -0.576 -0.479 1.203
Test Sample 30 2.23 0.73 12 -0.558 -0.473 1.180
Final Simulant
Sample 1 (5 Gal.) 2.15 0 68 -0.516 -0.481 1.073
Final Simulant
Sample 2 (5 Gal.) 2.15 0 72 -0.538 -0.482 1.116
Figure 5. Tabulated results from Simulant Solution Design study.

19
Figure 6. Simulant Solution Design study data comparison.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Solid
Metallic
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22a
22b
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Final 1
Final 2
m1
Recovery
Gap

20
v The final Simulation Solution batch was:
o Prepared with 2.15% clay in plain DI water inline with the Sample
22 formulation.
o Periodically tested for viscosity while it was being cured in order
to obtain optimal cure time.
o Cured for 72 hours at 120°F to attain the target Non-Newtonian
behavior.
v While the Simulation solution is within the target ranges in terms of the
expected Non-Newtonian behavior, the curves are shifted downwards
leading to a marginal but consistent offset between target and attained
viscosities as shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Viscosity Comparison of Simulation solution and target behavior.
y = 1.0335x-0.538
R² = 0.9995
0.01
0.1
1
10
1 10 100 1000
Viscosity (log)
Shear Rate (log)
Viscosity Comparison Analysis
Target Non-Newtonian
Behavior

21
IV. IMPELLER POWER NUMBER STUDY
Impeller Power number is a critical characteristic of any mixing Impeller in order
to calculate the amount of mechanical power being dissipated into the solution being
mixed. Mathematically,
! = N!ρN!
D!
(1)
where,
P is the Power consumed by mixer,
Np is the Impeller power number,
ρ is the solution density,
N is the mixing revolutions/sec, and
D is the Impeller Diameter.
Another important parameter of any mixing Impeller is its Reynolds number. The
Impeller Reynolds number can be mathematically defined as,

22
!" =
!!!!
!
(2)
where,
Re is the mixing Reynolds number,
ρ is the solution density,
µ is the solution viscosity,
D is the Impeller Diameter.
The purpose of the Impeller Power Number Study was to provide Impeller
characteristic curves as shown by Figures 8, 10 and 11 for all Impeller configurations in
the given Rectangular Mixing Vessels so as to provide further understanding of the
vessel’s Mixing capabilities.
Figure 8 shows how every Impeller has a characteristic Power Number versus
Reynolds number curve. Figure 9 shows the standard configuration of an industrial
mixing vessel. Figure 10 and 11 are also graphs obtained from the Handbook of
Industrial Mixing. These illustrate the change in Power Number with Impeller clearance
from the vessel bottom for a given Impeller. Figure 12 shows the different kinds of
Impellers used in this study.

23
Figure 8. Examples of Impeller Power number vs. Reynolds numbers curves. Note (Paul
E.L. et al., 2004).
Figure 9. A standard Cylindrical Mixing Vessel. Note (Paul E.L. et al., 2004).

24
Figure 10. Effect of Clearance on Power Number for Rushton, Free Blade Turbine and
Pitched Blade Turbine Impellers. Note (Paul E.L. et al., 2004).
.
Figure 11. Effect of dual Impeller spacing on Power Number for Free Blade Turbine and
Pitched Blade Turbine Impellers. Note (Paul E.L. et al., 2004).

25
................
(a) (b)
(c)
Figure 12. Impeller types used (a) Lightnin A310 Impeller, (b) Pitched Blade Impeller
(PBT) and (c) Chemineer HE-3 Impeller.
General Procedure
v Torque vs. RPM data was recorded for three different solutions:
o 5% Polyethylene Glycol solution
o 20% Polyethylene Glycol solution
o Simulant solution
v For each solution, data Run Sets were recorded for six different Impeller
configurations:
o 2 Lightnin A310 Impellers
o 1 Lightnin A310 Impeller
o 2 Chemineer HE-3 Impellers

26
§ Data not recorded in Simulant Solution
o 1 Chemineer HE-3 Impeller
§ Data not recorded in Simulant Solution
o 2 Pitched Blade Turbine Impellers (PBT)
o 1 Pitched Blade Turbine Impeller
o 1 Lightnin A310 Impeller (Top) and Pitched Blade Turbine
Impellers (Bottom)
§ Data only recorded in Simulant Solution
o 1 Lightnin A310 Impeller (Bottom) and Pitched Blade Turbine
Impellers (Top)
§ Data only recorded in Simulant Solution
v For each Impeller configuration, with each Run Set, data Runs were
recorded for various Impeller clearance levels:
o For Single Impeller Runs:
§ The first Run data was collected for an Impeller clearance
of 1 inch.
§ The Impeller was moved up the shaft by 0.5 inches for
every subsequent Run.
§ The last Run data was collected for an Impeller clearance
of 9.5 inches.
o For Dual Impeller Runs:
§ The bottom Impeller clearance was kept constant at 1 inch.
§ The first Run data was collected for Top and Bottom
Impellers stacked at the shaft bottom.
§ The Top Impeller was moved up the shaft by 0.5 inches for
every subsequent Run.
§ The last Run data was collected for a Top Impeller
clearance of 9.5 inches.

27
Data Analysis
Raw data was obtained from the equipment in terms of RPM and Torque (Nm).
This data was filtered to exclude any points that may have been included due to the
acceleration or deceleration of mixing equipment. The torque transducer was zeroed at
the beginning of each run in order to exclude any zero errors in data. It was also
determined that the data was unreliable at lower RPMs due to lower sensitivity of
equipment and all data below 20 RPM was excluded for further analysis.
! = 2πNT (3)
where,
P is the Power consumed by mixer,
N is the mixing frequency in s-1
, and
T is shaft rotational torque.
Given that the N and T values were obtained from the experiment itself, the
power number, Np, was calculated using eq. (1) and (3) and the Reynolds number, Re,
was calculated using eq. (2) for each data point. The Newtonian fluid viscosities were
measured using the Brookfield CAP-2000+: a cone and plate type viscometer. All data
was plotted on logarithmic plots.

28
By definition, the viscosity value varies with shear for Non-Newtonian fluids and
in order to calculate the Reynolds numbers, viscosity had to be determined separately for
each Simulant solution RPM data point. Figure 5 identifies a relationship between the
solution viscosity and the Shear rate it is put under.
µ = 1.03γ!!.!"#
(4)
where,
µ is the solution viscosity,
γ is the mixing Shear rate,
K is the proportionality constant.
In order to use the relationship above denoted in eq. (4), the Shear rate had to be
estimated as a factor of the mixing RPM and eq. (5) was established. In concurrence with
the provided literature (Paul E.L. et al., 2004), the proportionality constant was assumed
to be 10.
! = KN (5)

29
where,
γ is the mixing Shear rate,
K is the proportionality constant.
All obtained Reynolds Number and Power Number data for both Newtonian and
Non-Newtonian solutions was plotted on logarithmic plots using the JMP Graph Builder.
Results
It was determined that even after refinement, the data was too scattered to plot
graphs such as in Figures 8, 10 and 11 possibly due to the equipment not being sensitive
enough. Regardless, the data plots revealed some interesting trends.
Newtonian
Figure 13 clearly shows the approximate doubling of Power numbers when the
number of each Impeller type being used was increased from one to two. It is also worth
noting that the Power numbers of the Lightnin A310 and Chemineer HE-3 Impellers are
fairly similar in comparison to that of the Pitched Blade Turbine.
Figures 14, 15 and 16 exhibit trends in Impeller Power numbers on changing the
top Impeller clearance. From all graphs it can be deduced that for the Single Impeller
runs which were studied, the Power number decreases on increasing Impeller clearance.
On the other hand, the Power number seems to increase on increasing the top Impeller
clearance for the Dual Impeller Runs. These trends may provide some clues as to how the
Impeller clearance impacts the mixing quality.

30
Figure 13. Comparative behavior of all Impellers that were studied in the Newtonian
solutions.
Newtonian Run Sets (all clearance data combined)
Np(ImpellerPowernumber)
Re (Reynolds Number)
—Dual A310
—Single A310
—Dual HE-3
—Single HE-3
—Dual PBT
—Single PBT

31
Figure 14. Comparative effects of top Impeller clearance in Newtonian solutions for Dual
and Single Lightnin A310 Impeller configurations.
—Impeller Clearance< 4.5 in.
—4.5 in ≤ Impeller Clearance ≤ 5.5 in.
—Impeller Clearance > 5.5 in.
Newtonian Run Set B: Single A310 Impeller
Newtonian Run Set A: Dual A310 Impellers

32
and Single Chemineer HE-3 Impeller configurations.
Newtonian Run Set D: Single HE-3 Impeller
Newtonian Run Set C: Dual HE-3 Impellers

33
and Single Pitched Blade Turbine configurations.
Newtonian Run Set E: Dual Pitched Blade Turbines
Newtonian Run Set F: Single Pitched Blade Turbine

34
Non Newtonian
While the Non-Newtonian data is not as convincing as the Newtonian data, it
seems to concur with the clearance change trends as suggested by the data in the
Newtonian fluid. Also the power numbers seem to roughly double when the number of
each Impeller type was increased from one to two.
It must be noted that the HE-3 Impeller was not studied in the Simulant fluid and
instead mixed configurations of A310 and Pitched Blade Impellers were studied. The
result, as described by Run sets C` and D`, suggest Clearance change trends similar to
those of Dual Impeller configurations. An interesting result is the configuration with the
Pitched Blade Turbine on bottom and A310 on top seems to have a slightly higher Power
Number than the other one shown by Figure 17.
Figure 17. Comparative behavior of all Impellers that were studied in the Non Newtonian
Simulant solution.
Non Newtonian Run Sets (all clearance data combined)
—Dual A310
—Single A310
—A310 Bottom, PBT Top
—PBT Bottom, A310 Top
—Dual PBT
—Single PBT

35
Figure 18. Comparative effects of top Impeller clearance in the Simulant solution for
Dual and Single Lightnin A310 Impeller configurations.
Non Newtonian Run Set B: Single A310 Impeller
Non Newtonian Run Set A: Dual A310 Impellers
Np(ImpellerPowernumber)Np(ImpellerPowernumber)

36
Mixed A310 and PBT Impeller configurations.
Non Newtonian Run Set C`: Mixed (A310 Bot, PBT Top)
Non Newtonian Run Set D`: Mixed (PBT Bot, A310 Top)

37
Dual and Single Pitch Blade Turbine configurations.
Non Newtonian Run Set E: Dual PBTs
Non Newtonian Run Set F: Single PBT

38
Sources of Error and Recommendations
v After observing the scattering in data, it was determined that all data collected
below the RPM of 20 must be excluded.
v The viscosity formula used to calculate the Simulant solution viscosity did not
take the solution’s thixotropic behavior into account. Hence, the formula was
incorrect as the solution’s had become much more viscous and Psuedoplastic.
v The Pitched Blade Turbine and the Chemineer HE-3 Impeller were purchased
from Indco, a mixing equipment manufacturer while the Lightnin A310 was
purchased directy from Lightnin.
o All three Impellers were of different blade thickness, a factor that could
introduce some variability in data.
o The PBT and HE-3 were not as precise as the A310 Impeller.
o The blades lengths of the PBT were slightly inconsistent.
o The PBT and HE-3 must be purchased from a different manufacturer for
further testing.
v While most of the data was collected by Saheb Kapoor, some of it was
collected by other co-op students with proper training. This operator
variability may have introduced some error as well.

39
V. BLEND TIME STUDY
The purpose of this study was to provide an optimal Impeller configuration for the
chosen Rectangular mixing vessel. The mixing quality of the Impeller configuration was
quantified through the amount of time required for the Impellers to attain uniform
temperatures across the entire solution.
General Procedure
Once all the equipment was obtained, the provided temperature sensors
(Thermocouples) were affixed to locations along vessel walls.
v As shown in Figure 21, the sensors were attached at varying depths with:
o Thermocouple 1 close to vessel bottom
o Thermocouple 2, three inches from vessel bottom along a vessel
corner edge.
o Thermocouple 3, six inches from vessel bottom centered along a
long vessel edge wall.
o Thermocouple 4, close to the solution surface at a corner edge but
not exactly at the edge.
v Once heated the solution temperature and viscosity were recorded.
v Based on scaled-down Volume from Cleveland production, the lab mixing
vessel was filled with unheated Simulant solution.
ü Top add Study:
v The study was done for the following Impeller configurations:
o Dual A310 Blades
o Dual Pitched Blade Turbine
v Solution was thoroughly mixed to attain a homogenous viscosity within a
spec range of 42 – 57 cP.

40
Figure 21. Thermocouple locations within vessel
v Viscosity of solution close to Thermocouple 4 was recorded.
v Based on maintaining a consistent Power/Volume between Cleveland
production and the lab equipment, mixing RPM was calculated and noted.
o The dual A310 setup was operated at 580 RPM.
o The dual PBT setup was operated at 380 RPM.
v Data collection:
o 600g of Simulant solution was heated at 120°F for 45 minutes.
o A temperature change was then induced at Thermocouple 4 by
adding the heated solution slowly and carefully so as to surround
the Thermocouple.
Thermocouple 1
Thermocouple 4
Thermocouple 3
Thermocouple 2

41
o Temperature at each sensor was recorded and the mixer was turned
on after being set at the calculated RPM.
o Temperature at each sensor was recorded every subsequent minute
until 7 full minutes of mixing was attained.
o Mixer was stopped and the solution viscosity at Thermocouple 4
was measured and recorded.
o To prepare for the next run, solution was thoroughly mixed at a
higher RPM if required so as to ensure homogeneity.
o All six steps above were performed repeatedly for six different top
Impeller clearance levels that were chosen based on data collected
from the Impeller Power Number Study:
§ 1.5 in. for Dual A310s and 2.25 in for Dual PBTs
§ 3.5 in
§ 4.5 in
§ 5.5 in
§ 6.5 in
§ 8.5 in. for Dual A310s and 7.5 in. for Dual PBTs
ü Bottom add Study:
v The study was done for the following Impeller configurations:
o Dual A310 Blades
o Dual Pitched Blade Turbine
v Solution was thoroughly mixed to attain a homogenous viscosity within a
spec range of 27 – 35 cP.
v Viscosity of solution close to Thermocouple 1 was recorded.
v Trial Run:
o Once heated, five similar density beads of a specific color were
added to the solution in order to be pumped into the vessel with the
heated solution.

42
pumping in the heated solution slowly and carefully so as to
surround the Thermocouple.
o Due to equipment constraints it was hard to pump the entire 600g
solution into the bottom and the leftover heated solution was added
on the solution surface so as to induce a temperature change at
Thermocouple 4 as well.
on after being set at 100 RPM.
o Every subsequent minute the temperature at each sensor was
recorded and the RPM was increased by 25 until seven full
minutes of mixing were attained.
o Based on obtaining a slow and steady temperature change in order
to compare clearance levels, an operating RPM was selected for
each Impeller configuration.
v Based on the data from the Trial run, an operating RPM was noted for the
study.
o The operating RPM was 250 for the Dual A310 setup.
o The operating RPM was 224 for the Dual PBT setup.
v Data collection:
o Once heated, five similar density beads of a specific color were
added to the solution in order to be pumped into the vessel with the
heated solution.
pumping in the heated solution slowly and carefully so as to
surround the Thermocouple.
o Due to equipment constraints it was hard to pump the entire 600g
solution into the bottom and the leftover heated solution was added
on the solution surface so as to induce a temperature change at
Thermocouple 4 as well.
on after being set at the chosen RPM.

43
o Temperature at each sensor was recorded every subsequent minute
until 7 full minutes of mixing were attained.
o The beads’ behavior and incorporation into the solution was
observed and noted.
o Mixer was stopped and the solution viscosity at Thermocouple 1
was measured and recorded.
o To prepare for the next run, solution was thoroughly mixed at a
higher RPM if required so as to ensure homogeneity.
o All four steps above were performed repeatedly for six different
top Impeller clearance levels that were chosen based on data
collected from the Impeller Power Number Study:.
§ 1.5 in. for Dual A310s and 2.25 in for Dual PBTs
§ 3.5 in
§ 4.5 in
§ 5.5 in
§ 6.5 in
§ 8.5 in. for Dual A310s and 7.5 in. for Dual PBTs
Results
The results seemed to narrow down an ideal clearance level range for both the
studied Impeller configurations of Dual Lightnin A310 and Dual Pitched Blade Turbines
based on the top add and bottom add studies.
The data was analyzed to generate column graphs of all temperature data
collected. The Blue column represents the difference between the temperature at the
Thermocouple with heated solution right before the mixing began and the temperature of
the solution. The Red column represents the same difference after one minute of mixing

44
while the Green one represents this difference after precisely seven full minutes of
mixing.
!!"#$! = !!!"#!$ − !!"#$%&"'
In order to visually analyze the mixing, a new parameter called the Bead Mix
Ranking was introduced for the Bottom Add studies. One to five Beads of a specific color
were introduced near Thermocouple 1 with the heated solution. When mixing began,
notes were taken to document the time at which the beads get incorporated into the
solution and the number of beads that get incorporated after seven minutes of mixing.
Dual Lightnin A310
Based on Figure 22 it is safe to conclude that the setup provides relatively better
top add mixing with the top Impeller clearance at or higher than 5.5 in. as compared to
below 5.5 in. In fact the mixing seems worst for the top Impeller clearance of 3.5 in.
According to Figure 23, the Bottom add mixing is worst for the Impeller
clearance of 8.5 in. The setup permits a temperature difference of more than 2°C even
after seven minutes of mixing. On observing the bead mix ranking it seems like the

45
Impeller clearances of 5.5 in. and 6.5 in. provide the second and third best Bead
incorporation into the solution.
While clearances below 5.5 in. can be ruled through results of the top add study,
8.5 in. can be ruled out using results of the bottom add study. The ideal top Impeller
clearance in the provided mixing vessel will be between 5.5 in. and 6.5 in. while the
worst mixing seems to happen at an Impeller clearance of 3.5 in.
Figure 22. Temperature change in Thermocouple 4 based on Impeller clearance.
0
5
10
15
20
25
1.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 8.5
Tgraph,Temperatureproximitytosolution(°C)
Top Impeller Clearance (in.)
—at 0 min
—at 1 min
—at 7 min
Dual A310 Top Add

46
Dual pitched blade turbines
The top add study data as shown in Figure 24 suggests that Impeller clearances of
4.5 in, 5.5 in, and 7.5 in provide the best mixing while the worst is when both Impellers
are stacked at the bottom of the shaft (2.25 in. clearance). The temperature data from the
bottom add study as shown by Figure 25 suggests that the better mixing at and below
Impeller clearance of 5.5 in. comparison to 6.5 in. and above. In concurrence with the
temperature data, Impeller clearances of 4.5 in. and 5.5 provide the first and second best
bead incorporation into the solution while 2.25 in. provides the worst.
In conclusion, the optimal Impeller clearance level for a Dual PBT setup must be
between 4.5 and 5.5 in. top Impeller clearance while the worst mixing seems to happen at
an Impeller clearance of 2.25 in.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1 (1/1) 6 (0/3) 5 (0/2) 2 (3/5) 3 (1/3) 4 (1/1)
1.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 8.5
Tgraph,Temperatureproximitytosolution
(°C)
Bead Mix Ranking (# incorporated/ # available)
—at 0 min
—at 1 min
—at 7 min
Dual A310 Bottom Add

47
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
2.25 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
6 (0/4) 3 (2/2) 2 (3/3) 1 (3/3) 4 (2/3) 5 (2/3)
2.25 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5
—at 0 min
—at 1 min
—at 7 min
Dual PBT Top Add
Bead Mix Ranking (# incorporated/ # available)
—at 0 min
—at 1 min
—at 7 min
Dual PBT Bottom Add

48
REFERENCES
Asay, David. Personal Communications. March 2013- April 2014.
Cook, Tom. Personal Communications. March 2013- April 2014.
Paul E.L., Atiemo-Obeng V.A., Kresta S.M. (2004). Handbook of Industrial Mixing :
Science and Practice. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., p149-163, p345 - 366.
Ppg industries bringing innovation to the surface. (2013).
Retrieved from http://www.ppg.com/en/Pages/home.aspx
SPX Lightnin: Impeller Information
Retrieved from http://www.spx.com/en/lightnin/about-us/
Tatarko, Andy. Personal Communications. March 2013- April 2014.

49
GLOSSARY
Chemineer HE-3: Chemineer HE-3 is 3 blade axial flow high efficiency Impeller
patented by Chemineer.
Lightnin A310: According to documentation provided by Lightnin, the A310 Impeller
series provides a combination of performance characteristics and high
flow efficiency not available from other types of axial flow impellers.
Non Newtonian: A non-Newtonian fluid is a fluid whose flow properties differ in any
way from those of Newtonian fluids. Most commonly the viscosity
(the measure of a fluid's ability to resist gradual deformation by shear
or tensile stresses) of non-Newtonian fluids is dependent on shear rate
or shear rate history
Shear thinning: Same as Psuedoplastic. Shear thinning is an effect where a fluid's
viscosity decreases with an increasing rate of shear stress.
Thixotropic: Certain gels or fluids that are thick (viscous) under static conditions
will flow (become thin, less viscous) over time when shaken, agitated,
or otherwise stressed. They then take a fixed time to return to a more
viscous state. These are known as Thixotropic.

50
APPENDIX
ABET PROGRAM OUTCOMES

51
PROGRAM OUTCOMES
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
Upon graduation, students receiving the Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering
Degree from Kettering University will have the following knowledge, skills, and
abilities:
A. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering.
The project required all three of the above listed skills in order to conduct the listed
experiments.
B. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
Two experiments were conducted as a part of this project and data was analyzed for
each of them
C. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within
realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health
and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability.
The project had several economic and safety constraints. The project stayed within
them.
D. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
The Mechanical Engineering co-op student worked in a team mostly comprising of
chemists or chemical engineers.
E. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
Mixing is an engineering issue, the students worked to resolve and make it better.
F. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
The student abided by all such responsibility in a professional manner.

52
G. An ability to communicate effectively.
There were several presentations and conference calls conducted by the student as a
part of this project.
H. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a
global, economic, environmental, and societal context.
The project did not require or provide any such skills.
I. A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in lifelong learning.
The project taught the student the importance of keeping an open mind while
performing experiments.
J. A knowledge of contemporary issues.
The project provided knowledge of contemporary mixing issues.
K. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for
engineering practice.
A few different software were used for data transfer, recording and analysis.
L. Familiarity with statistics and linear algebra.
Linear algebra and statistics were used for data analysis.
M. A knowledge of chemistry and calculus-based physics with a depth in at least one of
them.
Calculus-based physics was used more in the in-depth than Chemistry for this
particular project.
N. An ability to model and analyze inter-disciplinary mechanical/electrical/hydraulic
systems.
The mixing equipment was mechanical/ electrical.

53
O. An ability to work professionally in the area of thermal systems including the design
and realization of such systems.
Thermal systems were not a part of this project.
AA. An ability to work professionally in the area of mechanical systems including the
design and realization of such systems.
The mixing equipment design was studied and improved as a part of this project.

Saheb_Kapoor_Thesis

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (11)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to Saheb_Kapoor_Thesis

Similar to Saheb_Kapoor_Thesis (20)

Saheb_Kapoor_Thesis