6820 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.

2009, 48, 6820–6829

Mixing with Jets in Cross-Flow

Manoj T. Kandakure,† Vivek C. Patkar,† Ashwin W. Patwardhan,*,† and Janaki A. Patwardhan‡
Chemical Engineering Department, Institute of Chemical Technology, Matunga, Mumbai-400019, India, and
Process Consultant, Greenfield CHSL, Plot 8, Sector 16A, Vashi, Mumbai-400703, India

Mixing of gaseous species using jets in cross-flow is investigated with the help of computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) modeling. This situation is encountered in a variety of industrial situations such as combustion, chemical
vapor deposition, etc. Such operations are carried out in a specially designed chamber/mixer. For example,
hydrocarbons are mixed with oxygen prior to oxidation reactions, in a specially designed oxygen mixer. In
the present work, CFD simulations have been carried out for the mixing of two gaseous streams in a mixer.
The model has been validated with experimental data reported in the past literature. The effects of different
geometric configurations (hole diameter, number of holes) and operating conditions (velocity ratio) on the
mixing process have been investigated. The model has helped in the identification of the key parameters in
the design of such mixers.

1. Introduction usually so weak that the jet flows along the wall next to the
inlet of the jet. The most common flow regime in engineering
The chemical industry routinely carries out the mixing of two
applications is 1 < J < 100. In this regime, the wall distance
different gases. These gases must be mixed uniformly before/
H/D0 is an important parameter. For J > 100, jets behave more
as they enter the reactor, prior to contacting a catalyst and/or
like a free jet in static flow.3
another reactant. An intimate mixing of the reactants in the mixer
The phenomenon of JICF involves two stages. In the initial
is crucial to achieve the desired reaction rate and selectivity in
stage defined as the near field, the mixing process is dominated
the downstream reactor. Complete and rapid mixing may also
by jet turbulence. Beyond the near field, the mixing process is
be necessary to ensure safe operation. Typically this mixing
dominated by turbulence in the cross-flow stream. The axis of
process is carried out in specially designed chambers or mixers.
the jet or the jet trajectory is usually defined as the locus of the
Some examples of industrial processes requiring such gas mixers
maximum velocity in the plane of symmetry. The several
include synthesis of maleic anhydride, hydrocyanic acid, allyl
researchers have given the jet trajectory in the form of eq 2.
chloride, ethylene oxidation, acrylonitrile production, etc. Such
Figure 2 shows some of the typical velocity trajectories reported
mixing devices need to satisfy several design criteria; some of
in the previous literature.
them are as follows:
(1) The device should have a low pressure drop.
(2) If the components being mixed are hydrocarbon and
oxygen/air, there could be flammable zones, as the mixture
y
ReffD0
)A
x
( )
ReffD0
B
(2)

passes through the flammability limits. The volume of the In the next section, a brief literature review of jets in cross-
flammable mixture in the mixer should be very low, to minimize flow is given, so that the present work can be put in a proper
the potential hazard. perspective.
(3) The zones of flammable mixture should be away from
each other and the walls. This is because even if one zone 2. Previous Work on Jets in Cross-Flow
catches fire accidentally the gases will be quenched and will
not cause the whole mixer to ignite. Table 1 summarizes some of the experimental and numerical
The mixing process can be carried out by different types of investigations of the hydrodynamics of jets in cross-flow in the
jets such as axial, radial, and tangential.1,2 One of the most
common is radial (jets in cross-flow). The generic configuration
of the jet in cross-flow has been studied extensively in the past
due to its practical relevance in engineering and environmental
applications. Figure 1 illustrates the configuration of jet in cross-
flow (JICF). The main parameter that characterizes a jet in cross-
flow is the effective velocity ratio, Reff (eq 1), or the momentum
flux ratio, J ()Reff2).

( )
F0 U0
Reff ) (1)
F∞ Ucf

The momentum flux ratio determines the flow regimes

prevailing in the mixer. Typically, for J < 1, the jet flow is
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 91-22-2414 5616. Fax: 91-22-2414
5614. E-mail: [email protected].
†
Institute of Chemical Technology.
‡
Greenfield CHSL. Figure 1. Schematic representation of jet in cross-flow (JICF).

10.1021/ie801863a CCC: $40.75  2009 American Chemical Society

Published on Web 06/15/2009
 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 48, No. 14, 2009 6821
cross-flow having Reff ) 5.7. They investigated the effect of
the cross-flow velocity profile by placing the jet exit nozzle both
flush with the wind tunnel wall and also outside the cross-flow
boundary layer. They compared the jet development in terms
of the scalar trajectory of the jet for both cases (flush and
protruding nozzles). They reported that the jet issuing from the
flush nozzle has a tendency to penetrate further into the cross-
flow.
Acharya et al.8 performed the simulations of a single row of
six jets through square orifices issuing in a cross-flow. The
Reynolds number of the jet was 4700 with Reff ) 0.5. They
compared different turbulence models such as k-ε model and
RSTM. They reported that the turbulence models investigated
by them did not accurately predict the near-field statistics.
Considerable improvements were obtained with DNS and LES.
They reported that the two equation models overpredicted the
streamwise velocity and underpredicted the turbulent kinetic
Figure 2. Velocity trajectories of the jet from the previous literature: )
energy. Hence, underprediction of the jet spreading and over-
Kamotani and Graber (1974), 4 Su and Mungal (1999), 0 Gourara et al. prediction of jet penetration were obtained with the two-equation
(2004) measurements, s Li et al. (2006). models. They reported that the underprediction of the turbulent
kinetic energy was due to the incorrect computation of the
published literature. Kamotani and Graber4 studied the mixing isotropic eddy viscosity in two-equation models as the same
of combustion gases with air in gas turbine combustors. They eddy viscosity was used to represent the diffusion of the stress
carried out HWA measurements on a single round jet with J components in all three directions. This resulted in the inability
ranging from 8 to 72. They have compared the jets from the of the two-equation models to capture the energy production
straight nozzle and the contraction nozzle. They have reported and transport associated with the large scales.
that the trajectory of a jet from a straight nozzle can differ by Gourara et al.9 presented a general numerical method to assess
about 10% from the trajectory from a contraction nozzle, but both ignition and autoignition hazards in industrial flammable
the structure of the two jets was very similar. They have reported gas mixers. Their method was based on the LES predictions
that, for an unbounded single jet, the jet trajectories depend and LDV measurements of JICF issuing through 10 mm square
mainly on the momentum flux ratio (J). Their equation when orifices. The velocity ratios in their investigation were 5.4 and
written in terms of Reff becomes 8.0. They obtained good predictions of the jet trajectory and
the jet velocity decay as well as of turbulent mixing.
y
ReffD0
) A/
x
D0( ) 0.36
Reff0.3 (3) Denev et al.10 performed LES of JICF with a jet Reynolds
number of 6930 and Reff of 3.3 at a Sct of 0.6. They studied the
influence of the inflow boundary condition (laminar and
The constant A/ was equal to 0.89 for a jet from a contraction turbulent). They compared the jet trajectory for the turbulent
nozzle and 0.81 for a jet from a straight nozzle. They reported jet with the laminar jet. After comparing laminar and turbulent
that the trajectories and the structure of a single jet in a cross- jets, it was concluded that, at a distance of x/D ) 10, the
flow were only mildly affected by an opposing wall, unless the trajectory of the turbulent jet is lower than the laminar one by
momentum flux ratio was sufficiently strong so that the jet about 1.7D lower. This indicates that the turbulent jet bends
directly impinged on the wall. faster than the laminar jet. This is due to the increased exchange
Forney and Kwon5 investigated a turbulent methane jet of momentum between jet and cross-flow in the case of a
issuing normally into a turbulent air stream flowing through a turbulent jet.
pipe of 63.5 mm in diameter. They measured the jet trajectory Ibrahim and Gutmark11 investigated the effect of velocity ratio
and concentration of methane along it in the flow using a flame on the dynamics of a single jet and the behavior of a twin-jet
ionization detector. Reff was varied in the range of 2.3-7.05. arrangement using PIV. The velocity ratios used for the single-
They have reported that optimum mixing occurs when jet jet tests were 3.2, 4.8, and 8; the ratio was 3 for twin jets. They
centerline coincides with the pipe axis. They reported that, for reported that the jet trajectory and penetration increased with
Re0 > 9000, the optimum velocity ratio is independent of Re0. the increase in the velocity ratio. They correlated the mass
They used a simple entrainment model to derive a scaling law entrainment rates based on the jet trajectories with the help of
close to the orifice for the case of a single jet directed normally following equation.
into turbulent pipe flow.

( )
Forney et al.6 carried out the numerical simulations of jets m Reff F∞ x 1-B
of JICF type in a tubular reactor. They suggested that large jet- )1+ (5)
m0 AB F0 ReffD0
to-pipe momentum ratios are superior. They have related the
optimum diameter ratio to the jet-to-pipe flow ratio (eq 4), Li et al.3 carried out numerical simulations with RNG k-ε
assuming geometrically similar jet trajectories. turbulence model to compute the penetration, mixing, and
turbulence structures of a jet-injected perpendicular into a free
D
D0
) 0.33
U0
U ( ) 2
(4) stream through different circular nozzles. The orifice diameters
were in the range of 4.65-10.92 mm, and velocity ratios studied
were approximately 5 and 8.5. They reported that the jet
Su and Mungal7 carried out the simultaneous measurements trajectory based on the local velocity maxima did not correlate
of the velocity and scalar fields using the combined PIV-PLIF well when scaled with R and D0 alone. They reported that the
technique. They carried out the measurements for the jet in effect of the Reynolds number could be an additional factor
6822 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 48, No. 14, 2009

Table 1. Previous Literature on Jet-in-Cross-Flow (JICF) Experimental Measurements

experimental measurements
orifice pipe
velocity ratio, dimensions,
authors system details Reff Re0 type D0 mm type dimensions (mm)
4
Kamotani and Graber HWA 2.83-8.49 circular 6.35 square 710
Forney and Kwon5 flame ionization 2.3-7.05 10000-25900 circular 1.6-12.7 circular 63.5
detector
Su and Mungal7 PIV-PLIF 5.7 5000 circular 4.53
Gourara et al.9 LDV 5.39, 8 square 10 × 10 square 700 × 400 × 1900
Ibrahim and Gutmark11 PIV 3.2, 4.8, 8 circular 5 square 610

CFD simulations
orifice
domain grid points in
authors turbulence models velocity ratio, R Re0 type D0 mm x/D0 × y/D0 × z/D0 millions
Forney et al.6 k-ε circular 0.2
Acharya et al.8 k-ε, RSM 0.5 4700
Gourara et al.9 LES 5.39, 8 square 10 60 × 30 × 50
Denev et al.10 LES 3.3 6930 circular 14.2 × 13 × 8 1.9
Li et al.3 RNG k-ε 4.96-8.55 60000-74000 circular 4.65-10.92 110 × 45 × 28 0.9-2
present work k-ε 1.936.82 circular 4.8-6.0 600 × 32 × 32 1.7

that should be considered for scaling the data. They compared pipe, and the gas to be mixed is fed in the inner pipe. Jets of
their numerical results with the PIV measurements. They gas come out of these holes and mix with the cross-flow gas
reported that the potential core was underpredicted by 10% as flowing in the annular region. For example, if pure oxygen is
compared with experimental data. The predicted decay of jet to be mixed with a hydrocarbon, then the pure oxygen would
centerline velocity was lower than that experimentally observed be fed through the inner pipe and the cross-flow gas would be
value, indicating the underprediction of the turbulent kinetic the hydrocarbon. In such a case, the jet coming out of the holes
energy. would be of pure oxygen due to mixing of oxygen with
It can be seen that all the literature dealing with the jets in hydrocarbons, a flammable mixture would form inside the mixer.
cross-flow deals with the measurement of mean velocity fields, In the present study, effects of hole diameter (D0), number
jet trajectories, etc. Some of the recent investigations focus on of holes (N0), and hole velocity (U0) on the mixing character-
the turbulence characteristics like turbulent kinetic energy. Very istics are studied. The orifice diameters have been varied from
recent investigations deal with simulations of jets using LES 4.8 to 6.0 mm. The velocity ratios were varied in the range of
or DNS. However, these simulations, too, deal with hydrody- 2.7-6.2. In all the simulations, the cross-flow velocity has been
namic characteristics. The mixing performance of jets in cross- kept constant at 22 m/s. This value is taken from the actual
flow has received much less attention. Whatever papers deal plant data. The Reynolds number for the cross-flow is 4 144 000.
with mixing have not addressed design issues like (i) effects of In the present work, the velocity ratio, Reff, is changed from
various geometries and operating parameters (jet diameter, 2.6 to 6.2. This corresponds to jet velocities in the range
number of jets, velocity ratio) and (ii) flammable volume inside 47.3-113.8 m/s. Correspondingly the jet Reynolds number
the mixer, how far the flammable volumes are from the mixer varied from 308 000 to 785 000. The inlets of the mixer for
walls or from each other, etc. The present work was focused both the fluids were specified as “mass flow inlets” with a
toward addressing these issues. Another aspect of the present turbulent intensity of 10%. The outlet from the mixer was
work is to compare different JICF geometries for a given mixing specified as “outflow” boundary condition. The simulations
duty. carried out in the present work are for mixing of gases in an
ethylene oxide manufacturing process. Thus, the cross-flow gas
3. Present Work comprises essentially a mixture of inert (like methane) gas and
Figure 3 shows the geometry of the mixer in which mixing ethylene, and pure oxygen (to be mixed) is sent through the
of two gases is carried out. The jet is formed by holes (having orifices. All the physical properties are calculated considering
size D0) on an inner pipe having 38 mm i.d. (48 mm o.d.). This that the gases obey ideal gas law.
inner pipe is concentric to an outer pipe. The diameter of the The complete geometry is meshed using unstructured tetra-
outer pipe is 160 mm. The cross-flow gas is fed in the outer hedral meshing scheme. The size of the mesh is different for
different parts of the geometry. It is ∼0.5 mm near the orifice
and 5 mm at the end of the cross-flow pipe. The grid is fine in
the vicinity of the orifice, and its size gradually increases away
from the orifice. In our earlier work,12 computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) simulations of turbulent confined jets have been
carried out. The effect of grid size has been studied in detail.
The grid sizes for the present work were determined based on
this study. Typically, 1.7 million grid points have been used to
get a grid-independent solution. Further, it can be seen that 1.7
million grids used in the present work compares well with some
of the other CFD simulations reported in the previous literature.
No-slip boundary condition was enforced on all the walls. The
Figure 3. Schematic drawing of the geometry in the present work. standard k-ε turbulence model was used to model the turbulence
 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 48, No. 14, 2009 6823

Figure 4. (A) Comparison of the velocity trajectory of the jet between CFD predictions and published literature: ) Kamotani and Graber (1974), 0 Gourara
(2004), 4 Forney and Kwon(1979), - · - 0.55 million grid points in this work, s 1.7 million grid points in this work, 9 Maruyama (1982), ( Chassaing et
al. (1974), 2 Choucha et al. (2000), --- Forney and Fang (1999), X Gang Pan and Hui Meng (2001). (B) Comparison of the velocity decay along the jet
trajectory between CFD predictions and published literature: 0 Gourara (2004), - · - 0.55 million grid points in this work, s 1.7 million grid points in this
work. (C) Comparison of the turbulent kinetic energy along the jet trajectory between CFD predictions and published literature: s present CFD work, ---
simulations of Li et al.3 (D) Comparison of the turbulent kinetic energy along the jet trajectory between CFD predictions and published literature: s present
CFD work, ( experimental data of Ibrahim et al.11

behavior of the system. The scalar mixing was simulated by measurements and CFD simulations reported in the previous
considering the species transport model. The turbulent Schmidt work.4,5,9,13-17 From the figure, it can be seen that the CFD
number for the present work was kept constant at 0.7. The model predictions of the jet trajectory are in good agreement
second-order upwind discretization scheme was used for the with the previously published literature. It can also be seen from
momentum, species fraction, turbulence kinetic energy, and Figure 4A that there is a scatter in the experimental data of jet
dissipation rate. The SIMPLE scheme was used for the trajectories reported by previous workers. These differences
pressure-velocity coupling. The solution was iterated until could be due to differences in the nozzles used, measurement
convergence was achieved, such that the residue for each techniques, etc. Considering this variability, it can be concluded
equation fell below 10-4. Commercial CFD code Fluent 6.2 has that the present CFD simulations predict the experimental data
been used for all simulations. The time required for the fairly well. Figure 4B shows the comparison of the decay of
simulation was around 48 h on HCL Cluster with AMD Opteron the centerline velocity along the jet trajectory normalized by
64bit Processor. the hole velocity with the previously reported data. The figure
shows that the model predictions are in excellent agreement
4. Results and Discussion with the experimental measurements.
4.1. CFD Model Validation. As a first step, it is necessary It is worth mentioning that, though there is a large amount
to validate the CFD model. In our previous work,12 we have of data on jets in cross-flow, most of the data is focused on
validated the CFD model for a single free jet as well as a variation of mean velocity/concentration in the mixing region.
confined jet. The CFD model has been validated in terms of Typically the data is presented as variation of mean velocity or
the decay of the axial velocity spread of the jet in the radial concentration along the jet trajectory, variation of mean velocity
direction and turbulence quantities (rms velocity and Reynolds or concentration with normalized distance (r/ReffD0 or x/ReffD0).
stress). The effects of enclosure size, presence of draft tube, Data on turbulent quantities is scarce. Even when the data is
etc. on jet characteristics have also been investigated.12 The available, there is a large variation among the authors. In our
detailed comparison presented in our earlier work12 is sufficient previous paper,12 we have presented more details on the
to give confidence about the validity of the model. As an comparison of CFD predictions with the turbulent quantities.
additional validation, more comparisons are presented in this The wide variation among the published data on turbulent
work. quantities is evident, even for single jets in an infinite medium.
Figure 4A shows the comparison of the predicted jet Parts C and D of Figure 4 show the comparison of the CFD
trajectories from the present work with the experimental predictions with the experimental data on turbulent kinetic
6824 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 48, No. 14, 2009

minimize the volume of this mixing region. For example, if

one is considering mixing of oxygen with hydrocarbons, the
mixing region would indicate possible flammable zones. It
would then be desirable to (i) minimize the volume of these
zones and (ii) keep the mixing zone away from the walls, etc.
Figure 6A shows the contours of the mixing region at different
sections taken at several axial locations. This figure can be used
to identify the intermixing of the mixing regions coming out of
holes on the inner pipe. Figure 6B shows the contour plots of
the mixing region on the vertical section passing through the
pipe axis. This figure can be used to identify the proximity of
the mixing region to the walls of the outer pipe.
The presence of jets emerging from the hole on the inner
pipe can be clearly seen from parts A and B of Figure 6. It can
Figure 5. Comparison of decay of scalar concentration with downstream
be seen that the jet travels in the radial direction toward the
distance experimental data7 and CFD predictions: 0 Z ) 0, 4 Z) 0.22ReffD0, wall. As it travels to the wall, the jet velocity decreases (due to
) Z) 0.45ReffD0, s CFD predictions (Z ) 0), s CFD predictions (Z ) mixing) and it starts bending due to the cross-flow in the annular
0.22ReffD0), --- CFD predictions (Z) 0.45ReffD0). region. At low values of Reff (Reff ) 2.68), the mixing region is
small in size and is well away from the walls of the outer pipe
energy along the jet trajectory. This figure indicates that the (Figure 6B). However, since the jet velocity is low, the jets
predictions of turbulent kinetic energy are in fairly good issuing out of different holes tend to mix with one another
agreement with the experimental data. (Figure 6A). As the orifice velocity is increased (Reff ) 5.25),
As a further proof of validation, the mixing process is also the jets tend to go farther, closer to the wall before the bending
validated. Figure 5 shows the validation for the mixing process. starts. This results in no intermixing of jets coming out of
Figure 5 compares the CFD predictions of decay of the various holes (Figure 6A), but the mixing region starts ap-
concentration (normalized with the concentration at the nozzle) proaching the walls (Figure 6B). At still higher values of velocity
with distance along the jet trajectory (S) for different planes: Z
(Reff ) 6.2), the mixing region is much bigger in size and the
) 0, Z ) 0.22ReffD0, and Z ) 0.45ReffD0 with the previously
mixing process occurs along the walls of the outer pipe (Fig-
reported data.7 From Figure 5, it can be seen that CFD
ure 6B). As the velocity increases, the quantity of the gas to be
predictions match well with the experimental data at all the
mixed increases, and therefore, it is expected that the volume
locations. This figure indicates that the mixing process is
of the mixing region will also increase. Since the mixing process
captured accurately by the CFD model. It should be noted that
the predicted velocity fields have been compared with the data occurs by jet spreading (entrainment of the surrounding fluid
of several workers, and the predicted concentration field has due to turbulent viscosity), it was thought desirable to plot
been compared with the reported data of Su and Mungal.7 A contours of turbulent viscosity. These are shown in Figure 6C.
good match of predictions with two independent sets of reports It can be seen from Figure 6C that, with an increase in the orifice
can be considered as a good validation of the CFD model. The velocity (Reff), the turbulent viscosity values just outside of the
validated model can now be used for further predictions. holes and those along the jet trajectory increase. This is because
4.2. Effect of Velocity Ratio. CFD simulations of jets with the turbulent viscosity is proportional to the product of the length
different velocity ratios in the range of 2.7-6.2 at a constant scale of the eddies and the velocity scale of the eddies. An
cross-flow velocity have been performed. The hole diameter increase in Reff at constant D0 leads to an increase in the velocity
(D0 ) 4.8 mm) and the number of orifices (N0 ) 6) are kept scale, resulting in an increase in the turbulent viscosity.
constant for these simulations. An increase in the velocity ratio Figure 7 shows the variation of the volume of mixing region
implies an increase in the hole velocity. The mixing performance and the turbulent viscosity values at the holes with the velocity
of the mixer is analyzed in terms of the regions inside the mixer ratio. It can be seen that the turbulent viscosity at the holes
having concentrations above the lower flammability limit. In increases slowly with the velocity ratio (justification given
order to study the mixing process, the concentrations have been above). However, the volume of the mixing region was found
normalized as to vary with Reff in a highly nonlinear manner. For Reff values
between 2.5 and 5.5, the mixing region increases slowly with
C - Cfully mixed the velocity ratio Reff. This is due to the increase in the quantity
j )
C (6)
Cinitial - Cfully mixed of the gas to be mixed. However, beyond Reff ) 5.5, the volume
of the mixing region is found to increase very rapidly. This is
because, beyond this value of Reff, the mixing region is close to
As per the above definition, the normalized concentration is
“1” before mixing occurs and it becomes “0” under fully mixed the walls (Figure 6B). The values of turbulent viscosity in the
condition. It can be seen from the figure that, as the gas comes wall regions are very low (Figure 6C) due to decay of turbulence
out of the holes, its concentration is high (as no mixing has due to viscous dissipation at the walls. This causes a very low
occurred just at the tip of the holes) and the normalized rate of mixing, and the increase in mixing volume is very rapid.
concentration is equal to 1. This is indicated by the red color. In many cases, the high value of the mixing region and the
As the jet mixes with the cross-flow fluid, the concentration closeness of the mixing region to the walls need to be avoided,
reduces and the final, fully mixed concentration is equal to zero, and different ways must be thought of to achieve this. Since
as indicated with blue color. The region of mixing is shown the mixing process is due to turbulent diffusion and the
where the concentration changes from “1” to “0”. It is this region entrainment of the surrounding fluid, it would be worthwhile
of mixing that is of importance in such gas mixers. As discussed to manipulate the length and velocity scales of eddy by
in the Introduction, it is desirable to achieve rapid mixing and manipulating the geometry, number and size of the orifices, etc.,
 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 48, No. 14, 2009 6825

Figure 6. Effect of hole velocity: (A) Contour plots of mixing region at different sections for various axial locations; (B) contour plots of mixing region on
the vertical section passing through the pipe axis; (C) contour plots of turbulent viscosity on the vertical section passing through the pipe axis. Legend:.

and find out their effects on the mixing regions, location and of this, the mixing region shifts inward, that is, away from the
volume. These aspects are discussed in the subsequent sections. walls. The turbulent viscosity values (Figure 8C), being
4.3. Effect of Orifice Diameter. Parts A, B, and C of Figure proportional to the product of hole diameter and hole velocity,
8 show the contour plots of the mixing regions and the turbulent reduce as 1/D0 with an increase in the hole diameter.
viscosity for four different hole diameters. The gas flow rate Figure 9 shows the volume of the mixing region and the
has been kept constant, so that an increase in the hole diameter turbulent viscosity values at the holes for all the cases. This
results in a reduction in the velocity ratio. The first case, D0 )
figure shows an intriguing behavior. As explained earlier, the
4.8 and Reff ) 6.2, is the same as the last case shown in parts
A, B, and C of Figure 6. It should be noted that, under these turbulent viscosity values reduce with an increase in the hole
conditions, the mixing region volume was high and the mixing diameter. However, with an increase in the hole diameter, the
regions touch the walls (first set of figures in parts A and B of velocity ratio reduces dramatically, and the jet does not pene-
Figure 8). Since the gas flow rate is kept constant, an increase trate up to the walls, resulting in a mixing in the high-turbulent
in the hole diameter leads to a rapid reduction (1/D02) in the viscosity region. These two phenomena give rise to the
hole velocity (and, correspondingly, the Reff value). As a result nonmonotonic behavior of the volume of the mixing region.
6826 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 48, No. 14, 2009

Figure 7. Effect of velocity ratio on the turbulent viscosity at orifice and

volume of mixing region in the mixer: - · - · -, turbulent viscosity at orifice;
----, volume of flammable zones. Figure 9. Effect of orifice diameter on the turbulent viscosity at orifice
and volume of flammable zones in the mixer: ----, turbulent viscosity at
At low hole diameter (4.8 mm), the jet velocity is very high, orifice; s, volume of flammable zones.
and the turbulent viscosity values are very large. This causes
rapid mixing, and a large portion of the gas mixes very quickly viscosity values reduce, but the velocity ratio is still large enough
near the holes. However, due to the large velocity, the velocity to cause the jets to penetrate up to the wall (Figure 8B). This
ratio is high and the final mixing region is near the walls. With causes an increase in the mixing volume with an increase in
an increase in the hole diameter up to 5.5 mm, the turbulent the hole diameter. However, for larger hole diameters (6 mm),

Figure 8. Effect of orifice diameter (legends the same as Figure 6).

 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 48, No. 14, 2009 6827

Figure 10. Effect of number of orifices (N0) (legends the same as for Figure 6).

though the turbulent viscosity values are lower, the jet does
not penetrate up to the walls and the mixing process occurs in
the regions away from the walls (higher turbulent viscosity).
This results in a reduction in the mixing volume.
4.4. Effect of Number of Orifices. The effect of the number
of orifices on the mixing performance in the mixer is investi-
gated for 4, 6, and 8 number of orifices. In all these cases, the
flow rate of the gas and the total opening cross-sectional area
are kept the same by manipulating the hole diameter suitably.
Since the gas flow rate is kept the same and the cross-sectional
area is the same in the three cases, the hole velocity (and, hence,
Reff) is constant in the three cases. The results are shown in
parts A, B, and C of Figure 10. From the figure, it can be seen
that, when the number of holes is less (N0 ) 4), the hole
Figure 11. Effect of number of orifices (N0) on the turbulent viscosity at
diameter is large. The jet therefore has larger momentum as orifice: ----, N0 ) 4; s, N0 ) 6; - · - · -, N0 ) 8; and volume of mixing
compared to the case when the number of holes are larger (N0 region in the mixer: ----, N0 ) 4; s, N0 ) 6; - · - · -, N0 ) 8.
) 8). As a result, the jet penetrates further, and the mixing region
is closer to walls (larger volume of the mixing region) when result, the turbulent viscosity values are larger when the number
the number of holes are less (N0 ) 4). When the number of of holes is smaller (N0 ) 4). This is seen in Figure 10C.
holes are larger (N0 ) 8), the jet diameter (and, hence, Figure 11 shows the values of turbulent viscosity and volume
momentum) is lower, and the cross-flow jet is able to cause of the mixing region for different numbers of orifices at various
rapid mixing; the mixing region is smaller and further away velocity ratios. The figure shows that the turbulent viscosity
from the walls. values increase with an increase in the gas flow rate. The
A contradicting effect comes from the turbulent viscosity turbulent viscosity values increase with a reduction in the
values. When the hole diameter is larger (smaller number of number of holes. The dependence of the volume of the mixing
holes), the eddy length scale is larger; however, since the jet region with gas flow rate (with number of holes as a parameter)
velocity is constant, the eddy velocity scale is similar. As a is much more intriguing.
6828 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 48, No. 14, 2009

When N0 ) 4, the jet of gas penetrates closer to the walls

and the mixing region is close to the wall. Mixing occurs in
the regions of lowest turbulent viscosity. With an increase
in the velocity ratio, the jets further approach the walls. As
a result, the volume of the mixing region increases very
rapidly with an increase in the velocity ratio.
When N0 ) 8, the mixing region is far away from the walls
and the mixing occurs in the regions of high turbulent viscosity.
However, the turbulent viscosity values are much lower as
compared to a case with N0 ) 4. The overall effect is that the
volume of the mixing region is larger than that with N0 ) 4.
With an increase in the velocity ratio, the values of turbulent
viscosity increase, however, since the volume of the gas to be
mixed increases with an increase in the flow rate; the overall
effect is that the volume of the mixing region remains practically
the same for all gas flow rates. At low gas flow rates (N0 ) 4
or 8), the jets do not have sufficient momentum to penetrate
and the mixing region is away from the walls. Mixing occurs
in the regions of high turbulent viscosity. Since N0 ) 4 produces
higher turbulent viscosity as compared to N0 ) 8, the volume
of the mixing region is smaller for N0 ) 4 as compared to that
for N0 ) 8. However, at high gas flow rates, the jet has enough
momentum to penetrate when N0 ) 4 but not when N0 ) 8.
Thus, mixing occurs in different regions for N0 ) 4 and N0 )
8. For N0 ) 4, the mixing process occurs closer to the walls,
the turbulent viscosity values are lower, and the volume of the
mixing region is high. For N0 ) 8, the mixing still occurs away
from the walls, and since turbulent viscosity is higher here, the
volume of the mixing region is smaller than that for the N0 ) Figure 12. (A) Effect of velocity ratio on normalized turbulent viscosity
along the length of trajectories: s, Reff ) 5.8; s, Reff ) 5.26; ----, Reff )
4 case. Thus, there are two opposing phenomena: (i) region of 4.8. (B) Variation of volume of mixing region/flow rate with the trajectory
mixing shifts closer to walls with a reduction in N0, causing an averaged turbulent viscosity: s, effect of orifice diameter; s, effect of
increase in the volume of the mixing region and (ii) an increase velocity ratio.
in the turbulent viscosity values with a reduction in N0, causing
reduction in the volume of the mixing region. to increase. The abrupt change in the nature of the profile is
For N0 ) 6 case, though the turbulent viscosity values are analogous to that observed in Figure 7. Similar behavior is
lower than for the N0 ) 4 case but the mixing region is away observed for the effect of orifice diameter; the characteristic
from the walls, the mixing process occurs in the regions of high mixing time increases with an increase in the trajectory-
turbulent viscosity, and therefore, the volume of the mixing averaged turbulent viscosity.
region is smaller than that for the N0 ) 4 case. For N0 ) 6
case, the turbulent viscosity values are higher than for N0 ) 8, 5. Conclusions
and since the mixing region is away from the walls, the volume The mixing of gases using jets in cross-flow fluid has been
of the mixing region is smaller than for the N0 ) 8 case. This investigated. A CFD model has been developed and validated
results in the lowest volume of the mixing region for the N0 ) with the previous literature on the jets in cross-flow (JICF).
6 case as compared to the others. Effects of different geometric parameters (orifice diameter,
Figure 12A shows the variation of the normalized turbulent number of orifices) and operating conditions (orifice velocity)
viscosity along the trajectory for various velocity ratios. This over a wide range on the mixing behavior in the mixer have
figure shows that the profiles for the three velocity ratios been investigated. The mixing behavior has been studied in
practically overlap one another. On the basis of these profiles, terms of the volume of the mixing region. An increase in the
the trajectory-averaged turbulent viscosity has been calculated. jet velocity was found to result in an increase in the volume of
Figure 12B shows the variation of the volume of the mixing the mixing region. An increase in the hole diameter has been
region divided by the flow rate (characteristic time for the found to cause a marginal reduction in the volume of the mixing
mixing process) with the trajectory averaged value of turbulent region. The dependence of the number of holes on the volume
viscosity. This analysis has been done for two cases: (i) effect of the mixing region was found to have a complex behavior.
of flow rate at constant orifice diameter and (ii) effect of orifice For the range investigated in this work, six holes were found
diameter at constant flow rate. to produce a lower value of the volume of the mixing region.
For a given orifice size, as the flow rate increases, the All the results have been explained on the basis of jet spreading
orifice velocity increases; this causes the jet to penetrate (mixing) due to entrainment of the surrounding fluid arising
further and approach the wall (Figure 6B). The turbulent out of turbulent diffusion.
viscosity at the orifice increases (Figure 7), and therefore,
the trajectory averaged turbulent viscosity also increases
(Figure 12B). However, because the majority of the mixing Appendix
occurs near the walls, the increase in the mixing volume is Nomenclature
very large (Figure 7). This causes the characteristic mixing A, A′, B ) constants in eqs 2, 3, and 5
time (volume of the mixing region divided by the flow rate) C ) concentration of reactant gas (kmol/m3)
 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 48, No. 14, 2009 6829
C0 ) initial concentration of reactant gas (kmol/m ) 3 (4) Kamotani, Y.; Greber, I. Experiments on Confined Turbulent Jets
D0 ) orifice diameter (m) in Cross Flow; Report No. CR-2392; NASA: Washington, DC, 1974.
(5) Forney, L. J.; Kwon, T. C. Efficient single-jet mixing in turbulent
D ) outer pipe diameter (m) tube flow. AIChE J. 1979, 25 (4), 623–630.
DNS ) direct numerical simulations (6) Forney, L. J.; Nafia, N.; Vo, H. X. Optimum jet mixing in a tubular
h ) distance from orifice after which jet starts bending (m) reactor. AIChE J. 1996, 42 (11), 3112–3122.
H ) distance of the opposing wall from the orifice (m) (7) Su, L. K.; Mungal, M. G. Simultaneous measurements of velocity
J ) jet to cross-flow momentum flux ratio and scalar fieldssApplication in cross flowing jets and lifted jet diffusion
flames; Center for Turbulence Research. Annu. Res. Briefs 1999, 19–36.
LDV ) laser Doppler velocimetry (8) Acharya, S.; Tyagi, M.; Hoda, A. Flow and Heat Transfer Predictions
LES ) large eddy simulations for Film Cooling. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 2001, 934, 110–125.
m ) mass flow rate in a plane perpendicular to the jet trajectory (9) Gourara, A.; Roger, F.; Wang, H. Y.; Most, J. M.; Naudet, V.; Illy,
(kg s-1) F.; Louédin, O. Prediction of Ignition Hazard during Turbulent Gas
MixingsA Lagrangian Approach. J. Loss PreV. Process Ind. 2004, 17, 35–
m0 ) mass flow rate at the orifice (kg s-1) 41.
N0 ) number of orifices (10) Denev, J. A.; Fröhlich, J.; Bockhorn, H. Evaluation of mixing and
PIV ) particle image velocimetry chemical reactions within a jet in crossflow by means of LES, Proceedings
PLIF ) planar laser-induced fluorescence of the European Combustion Meeting, 2005.
Reff ) velocity ratio (defined by eq 1) (11) Ibrahim, I. M.; Gutmark, E. J. Dynamics of Single and Twin
Circular Jets in Cross Flow, 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and
Re0 ) jet Reynolds number Exhibit, Reno, NV, 2006; AIAA paper 1281.
Sct ) turbulent Schmidt number (12) Kandakure, M. T.; Patkar, V. C.; Patwardhan, A. W. Characteristics
S ) distance from the jet exit along the centerline (m) of turbulent confined jets. Chem. Eng. Process. 2008, 47 (8), 1234–1245.
tC ) characteristic mixing time (s) (13) Chassaing, P.; George, J.; Claria, A.; Sananes, F. Physical
Characteristics of Subsonic Jets in a Cross Stream. J. Fluid Mech. 1974,
Uc ) velocity along the jet trajectory (m s-1) 62, 41–64.
U0 ) orifice velocity (m s-1) (14) Chochua, G.; Shyy, W.; Thakur, S.; Brankovic, A.; Lienau, K.;
Ucf ) cross-flow velocity (m s-1) Porter, L.; Lischinsky, D. A computational and experimental investigation
F0 ) density of jet fluid (kg m-3) of turbulent jet and cross flow interaction. Numer. Heat Transfer, Part A
F∞ ) density of cross-flow fluid (kg m-3) 2000, 38, 557–572.
(15) Maruyama, T.; Mizushina, T. Turbulent mixing of two fluid streams
at an oblique branch. Int. Chem. Eng. 1982, 22 (2), 287–294.
(16) Forney, L. J.; Feng, Z. Jet trajectories of transverse mixers at
Literature Cited arbitrary angle in turbulent tube flow. Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 1999, 77
(A), 754–758.
(1) Karoui, H. A.; Sauze, N. L.; Costes, J.; Illy, F. Comparison of (17) Pan, G.; Meng, H. Experimental Study of Turbulent Mixing in a
aerodynamics and mixing mechanisms of three mixers: Oxynator gas-gas Tee Mixer Using PIV and PLIF. AIChE J. 2001, 47 (12), 2653–2665.
mixer, KMA and SMI static mixers. Chem. Eng. J. 2001, 84, 343–354.
(2) Wentinck, H. M.; Van Wolfswinkel, A. Fluid Mixer and Process ReceiVed for reView December 4, 2008
Using the Same. U.S. Patent No. 6092921, 2000. ReVised manuscript receiVed May 25, 2009
(3) Li, Z.; Murugappan, S.; Gutmark, E.; Vallet, L. Numerical Simulation Accepted June 1, 2009
and Experiments of Jets in Cross Flow, 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences
Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, 2006; AIAA paper 307. IE801863A