MIXING DEVICE WITH REVERSED COILED CONFIGURATION AND USE THEREOF

Abstract

The present invention relates to a tubular mixing device (6) with reversed coiled configuration (also referred to as “coiled flow reverser” CFR)) wherein after a number n of turns (2) with n=1; 2 the flow path is reverted to the opposite direction, and wherein the device (6) has an overall straight coil axis.

Claims

1. Tubular mixing device (6) with coiled helical configuration, wherein coiling direction is reverted to the opposite direction after number n of full turns (2) with n=1; 2 at a re-direction point (7) and having a straight coil axis (9).

2-3. (canceled)

4. Tubular mixing device (6) with helical configuration according to claim 1, further comprising a carrier member (3) onto which the coiled configuration is wound.

5. Tubular mixing device (6) with helical configuration according to claim 1, comprising at least one re-direction aid (8) arranged at a re-direction points (7).

6. Tubular mixing device (6) with helical configuration according to claim 1, wherein the fluids to be mixed are fed to the mixing device (6) with a parallel orientation of the fluids interface with respect to the coil axis (9) at the inlet surface of the mixing device (6).

7. Tubular mixing device (6) with helical configuration according to claim 6, wherein the fluid is a liquid.

8. Use of a tubular mixing device (6) with helical configuration according to claim 1 for mixing of fluids in a laminar flow regime with 10≤Re≤3000.

9. Use of a mixing device with helical configuration according to claim 8 for mixing of fluids in a laminar flow regime with Re≥500.

10. Use of a mixing device according to claim 8 for heat transfer applications.

11. Tubular mixing device (6) with helical configuration according to claim 4, comprising at least one re-direction aid (8) arranged at a re-direction points (7).

12. Tubular mixing device (6) with helical configuration according to claim 5, wherein two or more re-direction aids (8) are arranged onto the surface of the carrier member (3) along a vertical line extending in parallel to the coil axis (9).

13. Tubular mixing device (6) with helical configuration according to claim 4, wherein the fluids to be mixed are fed to the mixing device (6) with a parallel orientation of the fluids interface with respect to the coil axis (9) at the inlet surface of the mixing device (6).

14. Tubular mixing device (6) with helical configuration according to claim 13, wherein the fluid is a liquid.

15. Tubular mixing device (6) with helical configuration according to claim 5, wherein the fluids to be mixed are fed to the mixing device (6) with a parallel orientation of the fluids interface with respect to the coil axis (9) at the inlet surface of the mixing device (6).

16. Tubular mixing device (6) with helical configuration according to claim 15, wherein the fluid is a liquid.

17. Use of a tubular mixing device (6) with helical configuration according to claim 4 for mixing of fluids in a laminar flow regime with 10≤Re≤3000.

18. Use of a tubular mixing device (6) with helical configuration according to claim 5 for mixing of fluids in a laminar flow regime with 10≤Re≤3000

19. Use of a tubular mixing device (6) with helical configuration according to claim 6 for mixing of fluids in a laminar flow regime with 10≤Re≤3000

Description

[0020] In the following the present invention is explained in more detail with reference to the accompanying figures, wherein is shown in

[0021] FIG. 1 a front view of a prior art conventional straight helical coil,

[0022] FIG. 2 a front view of a coiled flow inverter (CFI),

[0023] FIG. 3 a front and side view of an exemplary embodiment of the coiled-flow reverser (CFR) of the present invention,

[0024] FIG. 4 schematically the two extreme cases with parallel and perpendicular orientations of the fluids interface with respect to the coil axis at the inlet surface together with the secondary flow lines,

[0025] FIG. 5a, b a comparison of final mixing coefficient at the outlet surface as a function of Re for (a) 6-turn configurations and (b) 3-turn configurations with parallel initial interface (i) and perpendicular initial interface (ii),

[0026] FIG. 6a, b a comparison of surface-averaged outlet temperature as a function of Re (left), and the relative increase in temperature compared to a straight coil (right) for (a) 6-turn configurations and (b) 3-turn configurations with (i) surface-averaged outlet temperature and (ii) percent increase in temperature, and

[0027] FIG. 7 a comparison of pressure drop per unit length as a function of Re for (a) 6-turn configurations and (b) 3-turn configurations.

[0028] FIG. 1 shows a conventional straight helical coil 1 with 6 turns 2 coiled around a cylindrical carrier member 3, with coil pitch p, pipe diameter d and coil diameter D.

[0029] The known coiled-flow inverter (CFI) 4 with an overall of 6 turns 2 with two turns per arm 5 is shown in FIG. 2.

[0030] The CFI is coiled around a cylindrical carrier member 3 composed of 3 arms 5 with two 90° bends with respect to the coil axis.

[0031] After each two turns 2 the coil is bent at an angle of 90° with respect to the coil axis.

[0032] The configuration of the CFI of FIG. 2 is used in the following examples for a comparison with the performance of the present CFR having also 6 turns with a reversal of coiling direction after each second turn.

[0033] An exemplary embodiment of the coiled-flow reverser (CFR) 6 of the present invention with an overall of 6 turns 2 with a reversal of coiling direction (redirection point 7) after each second turn is shown in FIG. 3.

[0034] In the embodiment of FIG. 3, the coil of the CFR 6 is wound around a straight cylindrical carrier member 3.

[0035] For supporting redirection of the coil path at the point of redirection 7, redirection aids 8 can be provided around which the coiled tube is redirected to the opposite direction. The redirection aid 8 shown in FIG. 3 is a kind of lug projecting perpendicularly from the surface of the carrier member 3. The redirection aid 8 can have a cylindrical shape. Of course, any other shape can be also used which is helpful for redirecting the coiled pipe. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 3, the redirection aids 8 are positioned at regular distances along a line extending parallel to the coil axis of the CFR.

[0036] It becomes clear from the comparison of the CFR 6 shown in FIG. 3 and the known CFI 4 shown in FIG. 2, the present CFR has a straight coil axis without bendings contrary to the CFI. This straight coil axis offers the advantage of being easily coiled along a straight carrier member 3 in its core, like a standard straight coil rather than bending of the coil along its extension as is the case in the CFI 4.

[0037] The dimensions of the CFR can be selected according to need, such as overall path length, pipe diameter, coil diameter, number of reversals, etc. The present CFR is particularly suitable for flow mixing and heat transfer in the laminar flow regime with 10≤Re≤3000, in particular Re≥500.

[0038] The absolute pitch of the coil of the CFR in both directions is the same, with the pitch distance between two adjacent turns with the same flow direction being the same.

[0039] Any suitable design for a carrier member 3 can be used. As shown in FIG. 3, it can have a cylindrical shape, such as a solid rod or tube, the surface can be continuous or have openings, for example, a mesh.

[0040] The following investigations relate to liquids, but the present invention is likewise suitable for fluids in general, such as gases.

Investigations

[0041] For a comparison of the mixing efficiency in particular in terms of flow mixing versus pressure drop and heat transfer numerical investigations were conducted with the present coiled flow reverser, a conventional straight helical pipe mixer and the coiled flow inverter.

[0042] Apart from the coiling geometry coil parameter were identical such as the number of turns (3 turns and 6 turns, respectively), overall path lengths, coil pitch (P=16 mm), pipe diameter (d=10 mm) and coil diameter (D=118 mm).

[0043] Further, in order to evaluate the influence of inlet orientation a parallel and perpendicular inlet orientation of the initial interface of the liquids to be mixed were examined.

[0044] The coils were tested over a range of Reynolds number (Re) of 10 to 3000 corresponding to a Dean number range of 3 De 900.

[0045] Two identical miscible liquids (liquid 1, (L1) and liquid 2 (L2)) were used, having the physical properties of water (density p=998.2 kg/m.sup.3, dynamic viscosity p=1.003 10.sup.−3 Pa.Math.s. To differentiate between the liquids L1 was marked with a numerical tracer.

[0046] For accomplishment and evaluation of the investigations, explicit reference is made to Ref. 5 and Ref. 6.

[0047] The mixing efficiency between the two liquids (also referred to mixing coefficient Mc) was determined, were Mc can vary from 0 to 1 with 0 indicating no mixing at all (0% mixing efficiency) and 1 indicating complete mixing (100% mixing efficiency).

[0048] As shown in FIG. 4 two different inlet configurations (parallel (left side) and perpendicular (right side)) were tested at the inlet surface. For this purpose, the inlet surface was split into two halves by a straight line, either parallel or perpendicular to the coil axis 9, each half being occupied by only one liquid. These two cases correspond to the limit cases of best and poorest mixing in a straight helical pipe.

[0049] The orientation of the streamlines of secondary flow (Dean vortices) with respect to the inlet surface is illustrated in the bottom figures.

Mixing Efficiency

[0050] The final mixing coefficient obtained at the outlet of all configurations as a function of Re was compared. In FIG. 5, the final mixing coefficient of (a) the 6-turn and (b) the 3-turn configurations, considering (i) parallel and (ii) perpendicular initial interfaces is shown. As can be seen, the parallel interface led generally to a higher mixing coefficient. As mentioned above, the interface orientation has a severe influence on the mixing efficiency of the standard helical pipe while its influence is less pronounced for CFI and CFR. For the parallel interface (i), the present CFR produced a perfect mixing (Mc>0.99) for the whole range of Re 50. Even for the maximum Re=3000, the mixing coefficient of the CFR was not decreased in spite of the strong reduction of residence time.

[0051] It can be observed that the mixing coefficient of the CFI shows a smooth and stable behavior along the whole range of Re 50, independently from the initial interface. The mixing coefficient of the CFR shows stronger fluctuations, but becomes systemically better than CFI for Re 500; for this condition, excellent mixing was obtained by the CFR for all cases.

Comparison of Heat Transfer

[0052] The heat transfer performance and thermal homogenization of all three coiled configurations were compared.

[0053] The entering liquids were assumed to be close to room temperature (T=27° C.) at the inlet section. The working fluid was water, with a Prandtl number of Pr=μc.sub.p/k=6.7, where c.sub.p is the specific heat, and k is the thermal conductivity. A constant-wall-temperature boundary condition was used for the walls with Tw=77° C. (initial temperature difference of 50° C.).

[0054] In FIGS. 6a, b the surface-averaged outlet temperature for all configuration was compared as a function of Re. As can be seen, the outlet temperature was constant and equal to the wall temperature for all geometries as long as Re≤100; in this case, perfect heat transfer was obtained due to the long residence time. However, for higher values of Re, i. e. shorter residence time, the CFI and the CFR showed better heat transfer and thermal homogenization in terms of higher averaged outlet temperatures. This effect was more pronounced in the 3-turn configurations (FIG. 6b), when re-directing the coil path after each turn in the CFI and the CFR.

[0055] FIGS. 6a (ii) and 6b (ii) show the percentage increase in outlet temperature of the CFI and CFR compared to that of the straight coil. In the CFI and the CFR, the heat transfer enhancement compared to the standard straight coil was continuously increasing for increasing Re. In all cases, the present CFR showed the highest surface-averaged outlet temperature and, thus, the best heat transfer and thermal homogenization. For example, compared to a straight helical coil at Re≥2000 an increase in outlet temperature exceeding 5% was observed in the CFR.

Pressure Drop

[0056] In FIG. 7, the pressure drop per unit length was compared for (a) the 6-turn configurations and (b) the 3-turn configurations.

[0057] As can be seen in FIG. 7a the pressure drop in the CFI and the CFR were very similar to that of a straight coil when re-directing the coiling after two turns.

[0058] In the 3-turn configuration (FIG. 7b) with a reversal of coiling after every single turn a slight but visible increase in the pressure drop per unit length was observed for the CFR, particularly at very high Reynolds numbers (Re=3000), with a relative increase in pressure drop up to a maximum of 9% compared to that of the straight coil.

[0059] Summarizing, the present CFR and CFI, showed similar superior mixing efficiencies for low and moderate Re (10 Re 500).

[0060] At higher values of Re>500 the present CFR showed much more mixing than the straight coil and CFI, despite of a strongly reduced residence time.

[0061] Additionally, CFR showed a systematically improved heat transfer.

[0062] The present CFR provides an efficient mixing device in coil configuration with a simple design resulting in economically costs.

[0063] As shown by the results set out above with the CFR of the present invention comprising 3 to 6 turns and not more than 2 flow reversals very good mixing with only low pressure drop as well as improved heat transfer is obtained.

[0064] Thus, the present invention presents a novel structured and simple coiled configuration which involves very low flow modifications since redirecting the flow only 2 times results in an excellent performance with only negligible increase in pressure drop.

REFERENCE NUMBERS

[0065] 1 straight helical coil (prior art) [0066] 2 turn [0067] 3 carrier member [0068] 4 coiled flow inverter (CFI) [0069] 5 arm [0070] 6 coiled flow reverser (CFR) [0071] 7 re-direction point [0072] 8 re-direction aid [0073] 9 coil axis [0074] P coil pitch [0075] d pipe (tube) diameter [0076] D coil diameter, [0077] n number of turns

REFERENCES CITED

[0078] Ref 1 [0079] F. Jiang, K. S. Drese, S. Hardt, M. Kupper, F. Schönfeld, Helical flows and chaotic mixing in curved micro-channels, AIChE J. 50 (9) (2004) 2297-2305. [0080] Ref 2 [0081] L. Dong, Z. Shufen, Numerical and experimental investigation of the effect of geometrical parameters on the performance of a contraction-expansion helical mixer, Int. J. Chem. React. Eng. 12 (1) (2014) 465-475. [0082] Ref 3 [0083] Y. Lasbet, B. Auvity, C. Castelain, H. Peerhossaini, Thermal and hydrodynamic performances of chaotic mini-channel: application to the fuel cell cooling, Heat Transfer Eng. 28 (8-9) (2007) 795-803. [0084] Ref 4 [0085] A. Alam, K.-Y. Kim, Analysis of mixing in a curved micro-channel with rectangular grooves, Chem. Eng. J. 181 (2012) 708-716. [0086] Ref 5 [0087] M. Mansour, Z. Liu G. Janiga, K. D. P. Nigam, K. Sundmacher, D. Thévenin, K. Zähringer, Numerical study of liquid-liquid mixing in helical pipes, Chem. Eng. Sci. 172 (2017) 250-261. [0088] Ref 6 [0089] M. Mansour, G. Janiga, K. D. P. Nigam, D. Theévnin, K. Zähringer, Numerical study of heat transfer and thermal homogenization in a helical reactor, Chem. Eng. Si. 177 (2018) 369-379.