Theoretical Model for Drop and Bubble Breakup in

Turbulent Dispersions
Hean Luo and Hallvard F. Svendsen
Dept. of Chemical Engineering, University of Trondheim, Norwegian Institute of Technology,
7034 Trondheim, Norway

A theoretical model for the prediction of drop and bubble &kid-particle) breakup
rates in turbulent dispersions was developed. The model is based on the theories of
isotropic turbulence and probability and contains no unknown or adjustable parame-
ters. Unlike previous work, this model predicts the breakage rate for original particles of
a given size at a given combination of the daughter particle sizes and thus does not need
a predefined daughter particle size distribution. The daughter particle size distribution is
a result and can be calculated direct2y from the model. Predicted breakage fractions
using the model for the air - water system in a high-intensity pipeline jlow agree very
well with the available 1991 experimental results of Hesketh et al. Comparisons of the
developed model for specific particle breakage rate with earlier models show it to give
breakage-rate values bracketed by other models. The spread in predictions is high, and
improved experimental studies are recommended for verification.

Introduction
Turbulent mass transfer in liquid-liquid and gas-liquid
dispersed systems is common in the chemical, petroleum, (1)
mining, food, and pharmaceutical industries. The possibility
of predicting fluid particle (drops or bubbles) size distribu- Hinze (1955) made a semiquantitative analysis of the forces
tions is very important for determining interfacial areas and controlling deformation and breakup of fluid particles and
heat- and mass-transfer rates when designing and scaling up developed methods to estimate a stable bubble or drop size
equipment such as chemical reactors and separators (e.g., ex- in a dispersion system relying on two dimensionless groups: a
tractors, distillation columns, and flotation tanks). Weber group and a viscosity group. Based on this concept,
Population balances can be used to describe changes in the Hughmark (1971) suggested the following correlation for d ,
fluid particle size distributions and other dispersion proper- in turbulent pipe flows:
ties, and are usually the result of dynamic fluid particle
breakage and coalescence processes. The main problems in
utilizing this technique are to generalize the coalescence and (2)
breakup rate models and express them as functions of the
basic fluid dynamics and the physical properties of a system.
These problems have received considerable attention during
the last thirty years. This article focuses only on the rate of
Previous work on breakup rates
drop and bubble breakup in turbulent dispersion systems. Considerable effort has been spent in detailed analysis and
The early work was directed at establishing methods for modeling of the breakup rate process. Valentas et al. (1966)
estimating the maximum stable bubble or drop size, d,. proposed a purely empirical correlation for the specific drop
Shinnar (1961) proposed the following expression for d , in breakup rate:
stirred tanks based on Kolmogorov’sconcepts:
1 2
fl,(d)
-= c p , c,=o,- -,1.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to H. F. Svendsen. n 3’3

AIChE Journal May 1996 Vol. 42, NO. 5 1225

 Ross and Curl (1973) used an analog to the “activated so-called “daughter drop- or bubble-size distribution,” be-
complex” concept from chemical-reaction kinetics and ob- cause many combinations of daughter particle sizes can occur
tained the relationship: after breakage, ranging from two particles of equal size to
one very small and one very large particle. All the previously
cited rate models only give the total breakup rate for a given
parent particle size and say nothing about the resulting
daughter particle sizes. Therefore, most of the previous mod-
els rely on direct assumptions regarding the daughter size
Coulaloglou and Tavlarides (1977) assumed identical ki- distributions. In addition, they are empirical in nature,
netic energy distributions for drops and turbulent eddies in and usually two or more unknown parameters need to be
order to develop drop breakup efficiencies. They also as- determined.
sumed the motion of daughter drops to be similar to that of For binary breakage, Valentas et al. (1966) assumed a delta
turbulent eddies and could thereby estimate a “characteristic function as the discrete breakup daughter particle-size distri-
breakup time.” Based on this, a drop breakup model, nearly bution, and a truncated normal density function for the con-
identical to that of Ross and Curl (19731, was obtained for tinuous breakup daughter size distributions. The truncated
stirred tanks. normal function has also been used by other authors, such as
Narsimhan et al. (1979) gave a more theoretical analysis of Coulaloglou and Tavlarides (1977), Chatzi et al. (1989), and
the processes leading to drop breakage. Based on probability Chatzi and Kiparissides (1992).
theory and such assumptions as the number of eddies arriv- Narsimhan et al. (1979) and Randolph (1969) assumed that
ing at the surface of a droplet being a Poisson process, the a uniform distribution could be used, while Lee et al. (1987b)
arrival frequency of eddies being constant, they proposed a used a beta distribution function. All the functions men-
binary drop-breakage model as tioned earlier, except the uniform distribution, have the same
characteristics: a decreasing breakage percentage appears
when uI -+ 0 or u, while the equal-sized breakage has the
(5) highest probability.
As pointed out by Nambiar et al. (1992), the models that
assume a uniform or a truncated normal function-like distri-
where A = [3(2m - 1)]v and A is the average frequency of bution, centered at u/2, for the daughter bubble or drop size,
eddies arriving at a drop surface. Narsimhan et al. (1979) as- may not be representative of the underlying physical situa-
sumed that A was independent of drop size. tion. The physical concept is clear: more energy is required
In 1983 Chatzi (Chatzi and Lee, 1987) assumed a breakage for binary equal-sized breakage than binary unequal-sized
mechanism in which a drop will break if its turbulent kinetic breakage. This is also supported by the experimental results
energy is greater than its surface energy, and gave a drop of Hesketh et al. (1991a) for bubble and drop breakage in
breakage rate model in stirred tanks as turbulent pipe flows. These results show that equal-sized
breakage has the lowest breakage probability while the high-
est breakage likelihood occurs when uI -+ 0 (or -+ u ) .
Hence, for the daughter particle-size distribution, Hesketh
et al. (1991b) proposed a so-called 1/X-shaped function with
an adjustable parameter determined by a best fit to their ex-
Lee et al. (1987a) also developed a bubble breakage model perimental data. However, the l/X-shaped function has a zero
based on the work of Narsimhan et al. (1979) using dimen- probability for equal-sized breakage, which is in contradic-
sional analysis to obtain an expression for the average fre- tion with their own experimental results.
quency of eddies, A, arriving at a drop surface. Recently, Nambiar (1992) proposed a method to predict
the daughter drop-size distribution for drop breakage in tur-
bulent stirred dispersions based on an eddy interaction model,
but this method still predicts a zero probability for equal-sized
breakage. In their coalescence model, the interaction time
correlation proposed by Levich (1962), based on dimension-
where F( ) is the cumulative chi-square distribution function.
Hesketh et al. (1991b) combined the natural oscillation less analysis, was also needed.
mode of a sphere given by Lamb (1932) and a correlation for
the maximum stable drop size in a stirred tank developed by
themselves, and obtained an empirical drop breakage rate:
Purpose of this work
As seen from the preceding review, previous breakup mod-
(8) els all include two or more unknown parameters that need to
be determined by experimental work. This may involve costly
experimental programs, and may also reduce the generality
of the models.
Previous work on daughter particle-size distributions Thus, this article is aimed at developing a more fundamen-
As pointed out by Valentas et al. (1966), a complete de- tal rate model for drop or bubble breakage in turbulent
scription of drop or bubble breakup processes also needs the fluid-fluid dispersion systems.

1226 May 1996 Vol. 42, No. 5 AIChE Journal

Breakup Rate Hesketh et al. (1991a) support the assumption. They found
that all bubble and drop breakage events were binary in tur-
Phenomenological simpl$cations bulent pipeline flows. In the present model, the assumption
In turbulent dispersion systems, the fluid dynamics and of binary breakage is also used. In this context this means
breakup processes are complex. Hence, in order to develop that multiple breakages o n the same particle do not occur
the breakage model, certain simplifications are necessary. simultaneously. This is partly done to simplify the model, but
1. To make the problem tractable, the turbulence is usually also from the viewpoint that in the process of bubble or drop
assumed to be isotropic. This assumption is fairly acceptable breakage into more than two bubbles/droplets, the likelihood
for stirred-tank systems. For other systems, like bubble of two or more breakage events taking place precisely at the
columns, the turbulence is nonisotropic (Menzel, 1990). Nev- same time is very small.
ertheless, the isotropic turbulence assumption has often been 3. The breakage volume fraction is assumed to be a stochastic
used also for these systems (e.g., Lee et al., 1987a; Prince and variable. For binary breakage, a dimensionless variable de-
Blanch, 1990). This is because theoretical considerations and scribing the sizes of daughter drops or bubbles (the breakage
experimental evidence have shown, as concluded by Hinze volume fraction) can be defined as
(1959), that the fine-scale structure of most actual non-
isotropic turbulent flows is locally nearly isotropic. Many fea-
tures of isotropic turbulence may thus be applied to phenom- (9)
ena in actual turbulence that are determined mainly by the
fine-scale structure (Hinze, 1959). Furthermore, even an ac-
tual turbulence situation with a nonisotropic large-scale where d, and d , are diameters (corresponding to volumes uI
structure, or that is nonisotropic through an essential part of and u I I ) of the daughter particles in the binary breakage of a
its spectrum, can often, as a first approximation, be treated parent particle with diameler d (corresponding to volume u ) .
as if it were isotropic. The differences between results based Obviously, the value interval for the breakage volume frac-
upon the assumed isotropy and actual results are often suffi- tion should be 0 < f B v < 1 (f B v = 0.5 meaning equal binary
ciently small to be disregarded compared to the uncertainty breakage and fBv = 0 or 1 meaning no breakage).
of the experimental data (Hinze, 1959). Fluid particles will break into a preferred range of daugh-
2. Only the binaly breakage of fluid particles in a turbulent ter particle sizes depending on the flow conditions. However,
dispersion is considered. As is well known, a bubble or drop Hesketh et al. (1991a) found that there was no correlation
may break into two or more particles with equal or unequal between the range of f B v values and the size of the parent
volumes, depending on the breakage type. It is commonly be- particle. In addition, no evidence exists that there is a rela-
lieved that more than one mechanism for particle breakage tionship between the breakage volume fraction and the eddy
may exist in turbulent dispersions, since a drop or bubble is sizes, although Nambiar et al. (1992) attempted to develop
not only exposed to a turbulent field, but is also subjected to such a relationship (e.g., an eddy of size equal to the drop
both inertial and viscous forces. Normally, two are consid- diameter was considered to split the drop into two equal
ered to be important, these being turbulent (deformation) fragments).
breakage and viscous shear (tearing) breakage (Sleicher, 1962; Thus, as an approximation, in this work it is assumed that
Collins and Knudson, 1970; Walter and Blanch, 1986; Hes- the breakage volume fraction, f B v , is a stochastic variable.
keth et al., 1991a). 4. The occurrence of breakup is determined by the energy leuel
The turbulent breakage is induced by fluctuating eddies of the am’uing eddy. Analogous to droplets in turbulence, ac-
bombarding the particle surface (Walter and Blanch, 1986) cording to Narsimhan et al. (1979), oscillations of a bubble or
causing oscillations (or deformations) of the particle surface. drop induced by a particular eddy, may be changed by the
That is, a fluid particle of sufficient size will oscillate around arrival of other eddies. The degree of interference is largely
its equilibrium shape. The oscillations are brought about by determined by the frequency of the eddy arrival process com-
the kinetic energy of the turbulent motion in the continuous pared to the already existing oscillations of the particle. If
phase, or by the relative velocity fluctuations between points the two frequencies are comparable, the effects of successive
in the close vicinity of the particle surface. In other words, eddies continually interfere with each other. Since particle
the kinetic energy of the turbulent motion brings about an oscillations, sufficiently vigorous to make the particle break,
increase in the surface energy of the particle through defor- are caused only by hits of eddies with scale similar to, or
mations. Fragmentation of the particle occurs if the turbulent smaller than the particle diameter, then the smaller particles
motion provides an increase in surface energy sufficient to require very small eddies to induce oscillations. Furthermore,
cause breakage. Usually, binary breakage occurs in this case. the time scale of oscillations should be inversely proportional
For the shear breakage, a drop or bubble may break into to the eddy frequency. Thus the smaller eddies will be ex-
several drops or bubbles with varying volumes due to viscous pected to create high-frequency oscillations.
shear. However, when concerned with bubble or drop break- In this work, the assumption also used by Narsimhan et al.
age in highly turbulent flow, the viscous forces can usually be (1979) and Lee et al. (1987a), is employed: the particle oscil-
neglected, as the bubbles and drops are usually much larger lation frequency is larger than the arrival frequency of ed-
than the microscale of turbulence (Shinnar, 1961; Narsimhan dies. This implies that the eddies affect the particles inde-
et al., 1979). pendently such that once an eddy of sufficiently high energy
The simplification of binary breakage has been used by arrives, the particle will break.
many authors (e.g., Narsimhan et al., 1979; Hesketh, 1991a; 5. Only eddies of length scale smaller than or equal to the
Nambiar et al., 1992). The recent experimental results of particle diameter can induce particle oscillations. Nambiar et

AlChE Journal May 1996 Vol. 42, No. 5 1227

al. (1992) discuss the movement of particles in a field of ho- where ti, is the number of eddies of size between A and A +
mogeneous turbulence. When the Reynolds number is large d A per unit reactor volume, and E, is the turbulent velocity
enough, the large eddies are responsible for most of the of eddies of size A. This is also considered to be the relative
translatory motion of particles, while small eddies determine velocity between particle and eddy.
the strain experienced by the individual particle or group of The mean turbulent velocity of eddies with size A in the
particles. The latter thus dominate the deformation of the inertial subrange of isotropic turbulence can be expressed by
particles in the flow field. It may therefore be reasonable to (Kuboi et al. (1972a,b)
assume that only eddies of length scale smaller than or equal
to the particle diameter can participate in its deformation
and that the larger eddies merely convect the particle.

Basic model of breahge rate

In a turbulent field, velocity fluctuations at a point can be where the constant, fi = (3/5)r(1/3)a. Here a is considered
thought of as caused by the arrival of eddies of a spectrum of to be a universal constant, as given by Batchelor (19821, based
lengthscales (frequencies). Similarly, the fluctuations in rela- on turbulence theory. fi becomes about 2.41 when using (Y =
tive velocity on the surface of a bubble or drop exposed to a 1.5 (Tennekes and Lumley, 1972). The measured value of fi
turbulent field can be considered to be due to the arrival of is 2.0 according to Kuboi et al. (1972a).
similar eddies at the surface. This is equivalent to the The energy spectrum, E ( k ) , gives the kinetic energy con-
“bombardment” of eddies on a particle surface. Of course, +
tained in eddies of wave number between k and k d k , or
the various arriving eddies contain different amounts of en- equivalently, of size between A and A + dA, per unit mass
ergy, and thus will provide or supply different energies to the (Tennekes and Lumley, 1972). When this is known, a rela-
surface energy required for fragmentation of a particle. tionship between n, and E ( k ) can be obtained as follows
The kinetic energy contained in an eddy and the number
density of the eddy depend on its length scale. Since the re-
quired energy for a particle breakage depends on the break-
age volume fraction, f B v , we propose a general rate model
for fluid particle breakage in turbulence as follows:
where ed is the local fraction of dispersed phase.
The functional form of the energy spectrum for the whole
range of isotropic turbulence is not available, but in the iner-
tial subrange it is well described (Tennekes and Lumley, 1972)
by
Here h,,,(u) is the arrival (bombarding) frequency of eddies
+
of size (length scale) between A and A d A onto particles of E ( k )= a~2/3k-~/3. (14)
size u ; PB(u:u,, A) is the probability for a particle of size u to
break into two particles, one with size (volume) uI = UfBV, The relationship between the wave number and the size of
when the particle is hit by an arriving eddy of size A. Accord- an eddy is k = 2r/A (Tennekes and Lumley, 1972). There-
ing to assumption 4 in the preceding subsection, PB(u:uI,A) fore, the number of eddies of sue between A and A + d A per
will equal the probability of the arriving eddy of size A having unit reactor volume, or the number density of eddies, is
a kinetic energy greater than, or equal to, the minimum en-
ergy required for particle breakage to occur. The upper limit
for the integral in Eq. 10 is based on simplification (assump-
tion 5) in the same subsection. (15)
One should note that since f B v is considered to be the
independent variable with range (OJ), then R,(u:uf,,) is the where
breakage rate of particles of size v into a fraction between
fev and f B V + df,, (one of the daughter particles has a vol-
ume between ufBv and ufBv + udf,,) for a continuous f B v ,
and into a fraction equal f B v for a discrete f,,, respectively.

Equation (15) indicates that smaller eddies have higher

Arrival or bombardingfrequency of eddies number densities. However, the equation is only valid for ed-
The arrival frequency of eddies with a given size A on the dies in the inertial subrange of isotropic turbulence because
surface of drops or bubbles with size d, is equivalent to the the used turbulent energy spectrum function and the turbu-
collision frequency between the same eddies and fluid parti- lent velocity are only valid in this subrange. This limitation
cles. Since the motion of eddies is considered random, the will probably have an insignificant effect on the eddy bom-
collision frequency of eddies of a size between A and A + d A barding consideration, since the very small eddies have very
with particles of size d can be expressed by low energy contents and very short lifetimes.
Consequently, the bombarding frequency of the eddies with
size between A and A + d A on particles of size d can be ex-
(11)
pressed as

1228 May 1996 Vol. 42, No. 5 AIChE Journal

 bB,A(d>= b ~ , , ( E ) = C q ( l - E,)n(Ed)v
(l+ o2 (17) Since the time scale of particle oscillations is assumed to
be smaller than that associated with the eddy bombardment,
~

&&"/3 '
implying that once an eddy of sufficiently high energy arrives,
this leads to particle breakage, then the condition for an os-
where 5 = A/d is the size ratio between an eddy and a Parti- cillating deformed particle to break is that the kinetic energy
cle, and of the bombarding eddy exceeds the increase in surface en-
ergy required for breakage:
c4 = c37rpP/4 = 0.923. (18)
e(A) 2 ii,(d) = cf7rd2u. (23)
Breakage probability (eficiency)
Consequently, according to probability theory, the probability
For a particular eddy hitting a particle, the probability for for a particle of size u or d to break into a size of uI = ufBv
particle breakage depends not only on the energy contained when the particle is hit by an arriving eddy of size A, will be
in the arriving eddy, but also on the minimum energy re- equal to the probability of the arriving eddy of size A having
quired by the surface area increase due to particle fragmen- a kinetic energy greater than or equal to the minimum energy
tation. The latter is determined by the number and the sizes required for the particle breakup. This gives
of the daughter particles formed in the breakage processes.
To determine the energy contained in eddies of different
PB(u:ufBV,h)=P,[e(A)2Zi(d)I=P,[ X 2 Xcl
scales, a distribution function of the kinetic energy for eddies
in turbulence is required. Lee et al. (1987a) used Maxwell's = I - P,[ x I xCI, (24)
law for this function. However Maxwell's law is especially for
free-gas molecular motion and may not be suitable for turbu- where y, is the dimensionless energy, e(A)/E(A), and ,yc is
lent eddies. Angelidou et al. (1979) have developed an en- the critical dimensionless energy for breakup:
ergy-distribution density function for fluid particles in liquids,
which satisfies a natural exponential function. Actually, for
the kinetic energy of turbulent eddies, this exponential-en- (25)
ergy density function is found to be equivalent to the com-
mon assumption that the velocity distribution of turbulent
eddies is a normal density function (Saffman and Turner, Then, the conditional breakage probability, PB(u:ufBv, A), can
1956; Coulaloglou and Tavlarides, 1977; Narsimhan et al., be expressed as
1979). This assumption of a normal velocity distribution is
also supported by the experimental results of Kuboi et al.
(1972a) for a turbulent liquid-liquid dispersion system.
Hence, this distribution function is also used in the present
work to describe the kinetic energy distribution of the eddies
in turbulence: The expression for breakage rate
Substituting Eqs. 17 and 26 into Eq. 10, the breakup rate
of particles of size u or d into particle sizes of ufBv and
u(1- fBv) can be obtained as

Here the mean kinetic energy of an eddy with size A, .?(A), is

given by (1- E d h

When a particle of size d breaks into two particles with a where tmi, = Amin/d.
given value of f B V , the increase in surface energy is In the preceding integral the microscale of eddies, A,,
should actually be used as the lower limit, but it has been
replaced by the minimum size of eddies in the inertial sub-
range of isotropic turbulence, Amin. The reason is that the
expressions for bombarding frequency of eddies and break-
where cf is defined as the increase coefficient of surface area, age probability developed earlier are only valid for this sub-
that is range. However, as discussed previously, this change is ac-
ceptable since the very small eddies have very low energy
(22) contents and very short lifetimes, thereby having a negligible
effect on the breakage of particles.
As seen, cf(O I cf I 2 -0.5v- 1) depends only on the break- Tennekes and Lumley (1972) have given the minimum size
age volume fraction, f B v , and is a function that is symmetri- of eddies in the inertia subrange as 27rAd/Ami, = 0.2-0.55 or
cal about f B v = 0.5. hmin/hd= 11.4-31.4.

AIChE Journal May 1996 Vol. 42, No. 5 1229

 The integrand in Eq. 21 can be expressed by the incom- Results and Discussion
plete gamma functions and is then easy to calculate. In contrast to previous models for bubble or drop break-
As mentioned before, since f B v is the independent vari- age, the present model for fluid particle breakup has no un-
able in the interval (O,l), then nB(u:ufBV) represents the known or tuned parameters. Both the breakage rate and the
breakage rate for particles of size u into fractions repre- daughter bubble or drop size distribution can be predicted,
+
sented by an f B v between fBv and f B v df,, for a continu- given the operating conditions and the fluid system.
ous f B v function. Thus, the total breakage rate of particles of The present model shows that the particle sizes resulting
size u or d can be obtained by integrating the preceding from a bubble or drop breakage are normally functions of the
equation over the whole interval. The total breakage rate of original bubble size, the energy dissipation rate, and the
particles of size u or d is then expressed as
physical properties. The dimensionless daughter bubble size
distribution vu, for the air-water system, is illustrated in Fig-
ure 1. It shows that the dimensionless daughter size distribu-
tion is a U-shaped function and that the lowest probability
(which is nonzero) is found for equal-sized breakage for any
where the factor 1/2 takes into account that the effective given original particle size. This agrees well with both physi-
range of f B v is either 0-0.5 or 0.5-1 (the integrand is sym- cal intuition and the experimental results obtained by Hes-
metrical with f B v = 0.5). keth (1991a,b).
The daughter bubble size distribution depends, as men-
Daughter Particle Size Distribution tioned earlier, not only on the energy dissipation rate, but
also on the original bubble size. As seen from Figure 1, the
As mentioned before, all previous models for breakage rate curves for 6-mm bubbles are flatter than for 3-mm bubbles,
depend on a predefined daughter particle size distribution. and the difference between the two energy dissipation rates
This is because the rate models can only give the total break- is smaller for the larger bubble size. For even larger bubbles,
age rate for particles of size u, n,(u). The daughter particle the effect of the energy dissipation rate becomes insignificant
size distribution, q( u: u,), was first introduced by Valentas et and the daughter bubble size distribution tends to become
al. (1966) to describe the size distribution of daughter drops flat. This situation can be seen more clearly in Figure 2, where
or bubbles. It was also called the “breakage kernel.” For a the breakage fraction is given as a function of breakage vol-
continuous daughter particle size distribution, q(u:u,)du, ume fraction, fBV. The breakage fraction is defined as the
represents the fraction of particles of size u that break into number fraction of original bubbles, breaking into a certain
particles of size between uI and u, + du,. distribution of daughter bubbles defined by fBv. The frac-
However, as mentioned before, the choice of daughter par- tions are summed over every interval of 0.05 in f B v . For 3-mm
ticle size distribution has usually been more or less arbitrary bubbles and a low-energy dissipation rate (0.5 mz/s3), the
by previous authors. Most of the functions used, except the
uniform distribution, have the same characteristics; a de-
-
breakage fraction is high, ( 0.6) for unequal-sized breakage,
and goes down to about 0.02 for equal-sized breakage,
creasing breakage percentage appears when u, 0 or u , while
-+
whereas for 6-mm bubbles at E = 1 m2/s3, the same span is
the equal-sized breakage has the highest probability. Nam- from 0.29 to 0.07. This is physically reasonable, since there is
biar et al. (1992) have pointed out that the models that have a wider size range of eddies affecting the larger bubbles, and
hitherto assumed a uniform or a truncated normal function- therefore a higher chance of breaking them into daughter
like distribution, centered at u/2 for the daughter bubble or bubbles with close to equal sizes. An increase in the energy
drop size, may not be representative of the underlying physi-
cal situation. This is correct in a physical sense because more
energy is required for binary equal-sized breakage then bi- 3 - :
i:

nary unequal-sized breakage, The experimental results of d =0.003m,&=0.5

- .....e----- m?s3
Hesketh et al. (1991a) have also shown that equal-sized 4 - 25
\\
......A ..... d =0.0061~
&=0.5 &s3
breakage has the lowest breakage probability, while the high- s - ------*....- d =O.O03m, E = 1.0 m?S3
.----.&-..-. d = 0.006 m, E = 1.0 &s3
est breakage likelihood occurs when u, 0 (or -+ u ) .
-+ 4 2 -
Unlike previous work, the present model does not need .i -
Air-water system

!b r
the daughter particle size distribution because the model di-
rectly gives the “partial breakage rate” for particles of size u -’...................................
breaking into the daughter particles with a given fBv. The
P
**
--... A .... .,.. .,.&....P A - . -
I -
daughter particle size distribution now comes out as a result 3
.- - e-0 .... * *...*...*....*
8 0.5 -
_,,,

and can be calculated directly from this model. ‘0....

. Q....o’
For a continuous fBv, the CL,( u:ufBv) describes the rate at
0-...
.....__
0- 0 * ...o....e....w’’

which particles of sue u or d break into a size between u and 2 o ; I t I I

+
u, du, ( u , = ufsv). Then, according to the definition, the 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

daughter particle size distribution is given by

1230 May 1996 Vol. 42, No. 5 AIChE Journal

 0.7
3.0
.-
r, 7 I
0.6

0.5
HI\
.C
Energy dissipation rate
m2/s3

23 0.4

80 0.3

8
19 0.2

0.I

0
0.025 0.075 0.125 0.175 0.225 0.275 0.325 0.375 0.425 0.475 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.o
Breakage volume fraction fBV Breakage volume fraction, f BV
Figure 2. Effect of bubble size and energy dissipation Figure 3. Effect of bubble size and energy dissipation
rate per unit mass, on the breakage fraction rate per unit mass, on the dimensionless
as function of the breakage volume fraction daughter bubble-size distribution, q (v:vf,, ) v ,
for the air-water system. for the system oil-water.
Interfacial tension oil-water u,*= 0.05 N/m.

dissipation rate also makes the distribution flatter since this

is equivalent to providing a higher energy for breakage. It is
the measured results of Hesketh et al. (1991a,b), as shown in
also consistent with the distinction made by Narsimhan et al.
Figure 4, which also illustrates the predicted results. It can
(1984) between “thorough” and “erosive” breakages, where
be seen that the agreement between the predicted results of
“erosive” breakages, meaning separations of small particles,
the present model and the experimental results is very good.
was found to be more common. For large particles, however,
In addition, it can be found that the original bubble size, d,
the chances of equal-sized, “thorough” breakage became
has nearly no effect on the: daughter bubble distribution or
more probable.
breakage kernel, under the high-energy dissipation rates, E =
From Figures 1 and 2 it is seen that the prevalent breakage
13.3 m2/s3, which prevailed during the experiments. Further-
volume fraction lies in the low range of daughter bubble sizes.
more, unlike the models of Hesketh et al. (1991b) and Nam-
This means that most frequently small bubbles separate from
biar et al. (19921, the present model shows that the fraction
the original larger bubble. The separation of a small bubble
of equal-sized breakage is nonzero, except for very small bub-
from a large bubble may of course take place many times in
bles (close to the minimum length scale of eddies in a system)
rapid succession, and thus resemble the breakage into more
or at very low-energy dissipation rates. This is also supported
than two bubbles. There is no inherent assumption made in
by the experimental results of Hesketh et al. (1991a).
the present model preventing a fluid particle from being hit
The influence of bubble size and energy dissipation rate on
by more than one eddy almost at the same time. In fact, mul-
the specific breakage rate, ll,A(l- ed)n],is shown in Figure
tiple breakage may be caused by a close to “simultaneous”
5, with the air-water system as an example. The larger the
bombardment of several smaller eddies. In this way, the model
bubble size and/or the energy dissipation rate, the higher the
may be thought of as also covering the erosion type of break-
age that is described by Chatzi and Kiparissides (1992). How-
ever, basically, each separation is modeled as a binary 0.8
breakup.
In liquid-liquid dispersions in stirred tanks, smaller droplet , Data of Hesketh et al. (1991b)
sizes prevail. Model results for the case of small oil droplets d = 0.003 m, E = 13.3 &s3
0.6
(d = 200 pm) in water are shown in Figure 3. As expected U
d = 0.006 m, E = 13.3 d s 3
8 Model of Hesketb et al. (1991b)
the energy dissipation rates needed to break these smaller P
droplets are much greater than for the air-water system. En- ,&
o 0.4
ergy dissipations rates in the range 70-350 m7s3 were used.
This is the range that would be expected in the region near
4
the impeller in a stirred tank. According to Keey (19671, dis- 0.2
sipation rates in this region may be 70 times higher than the
average value. It is clearly seen that the probability for un-
equal breakage increases dramatically, compared to the 0
air-water system. At smaller droplet diameters, the effect is 0.025 0.075 0.125 0.175 0.25 0.275 0.325 0.375 0.425 0.475
Breakage volume fraction fBV
even greater. Also for these droplet sizes the model predicts
a flattening of the daughter droplet size distribution with in- Figure 4. Comparison of predicted breakage fractions
creasing dissipation rate. for two bubble sizes from the developed
In order to test the present breakage rate model against model with the measured data of Hesketh et
experimental results, the predicted breakage fractions for the al. (1991a).
air-water system in pipeline flows have been compared with The system is air-water.

AIChE Journal May 1996 Vol. 42, No. 5 1231

.
r
," 8 0 1 ;s.w
..t
e.r.n......... E = 0.25 m4s3

~ = 0 . 5 m?s3
/ l.OE+O =
E

6" - E=1.0 d S 3

.
v)
M

+-d
1.OE-1 r

c!
Q 1.OE-2
2
...
.._._...
3
..._...~'"
.._...
......._... I p!
0
1.OE-3 :
9
0
B --- Narsimhan el al. (1984)
1.OE-4 F
Bubble diameter, mm ~ Laso el al. (1987)
_ . -
Coulaloglauel al. ( I 976)
Figure 5. Effect of bubble size and energy dissipation 1.OE-5 -
rate per unit mass on the specific breakage
rate, a,/[(l- z d ) n ] ,for the air-water system.
1.OE-B I I , A
0.0
Droplet diameter, mm

specific breakage rate. This is reasonable, as pointed out be- Figure 7. Comparison between various models for the
fore, since a larger bubble can be hit by a wider range of specific breakage rate, a./[(l - z,,)nI, as
eddies, and a larger energy dissipation rate means a higher function of droplet diameter.
energy content per unit mass of eddies. The specific break- The system is oil-water with interfacial tension u I 2= 0.05
age rate of very small bubbles is close to zero, because the N/m .
eddies capable of causing the bubbles to oscillate are too small
to make them break. As the energy dissipation rate increases,
the bubble size under which no breakage occurs, is de-
creased. The same tendency is shown in Figure 6 for small Chatzi et al. (1989), and Chatzi and Kiparissides (1992), are
(200 pm) oil droplets in water, but even more pronounced. all fitted to data from stirred-tank experiments using popula-
In this case, the breakage rate is generally much lower than tion balance modeling, and they contain one or more param-
for bubbles in water because of the increased density and eters. In addition, the geometric dimensions of the tank/im-
viscosity of the fluid particles. Also the energy dissipation level peller system enter into the formula in different ways. The
needed for breakup in this size range is higher since higher numerical comparison in Figure 7 is thus done at a fixed av-
energy levels are needed to break smaller drops. erage energy dissipation rate ( E = 1 m2/s3>,but with the per-
Figure 7 contains a comparison between the present model tinent geometric data given for each reference. The figure
for specific breakage particle rate and models found in the shows that the spread in predicted breakage rates is wide.
literature. The literature models, Narsimhan et al. (1984), This is similar to what was found by Laso et al. (1987), and
Laso et al. (19871, Coulaloglou and Tavlarides (1976, 19771, they attributed the inconsistencies to differences in the ex-
perimental conditions. This may be true, as all models are
extensive in nature and thus tailored to the equipment used.
- However, the underlying model assumptions also vary, in par-
ticular the treatment of the coalescence processes taking
Energy dissipation rate
m2/s3 place.
This model is geometry independent and predicts breakage
c = 3 0
rates in the middle of the other models. At droplet sizes above
c = 5
,
0
0.2 mm the predicted rates are higher than those from the
, model of Laso et al. (1987). For smaller droplet sizes the
L = 10 ,
0
present predictions are lower than those of Laso et al. (1987),
- c = 7 0
0
,' but in this range higher than the model of Coulaloglou and
0
Tavlarides (1977). It has not been possible to run a direct
comparison with the models of Chatzi and Kiparissides (1992)
c
# . * ~
because of lack of parameter values. However, extrapolating
0 semiquantitatively their own comparisons from the model of
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Laso et al. (1987), their model seems to give values below
Droplet diameter, mm that model above 0.2-mm drop size and fall off to low break-
Figure 6. Effect of bubble size and energy dissipation age rate values, very similar to the model presented in this
rate per unit mass on the specific breakage work, at low droplet sizes.
rate, fi,/[(l - ~y,,)n], for the oil-water sys- To improve the possibilities for verification of the various
tem. models, independent droplet/bubble breakup studies are
Interfacial tension oil-water uI2= 0.05 N/m. needed, both concerning the impact of shear and turbulence.

1232 May 1996 Vol. 42, No. 5 AlChE Journal

Conclusions and Coalescence Frequencies of Liquid-Liquid Dispersions in Flow
Vesels,” AIChE J., 22, 289 (1976).
A theoretical fluid-particle (drops and bubbles) breakup- Coulaloglou, C. A., and L. L. Tavlarides, “DescriDtion of Interaction
rate model has been developed, based on the theories of Processes in Agitated Liquid-Liquid Dispersiois,” Chem. Eng. Sci.,
probability and turbulence. The breakage-rate model has no 32, 1289 (1977).
unknown parameters since all the constants in the model are Hesketh, R. P., A. W. Etchells, and T. W. F. Russell, “Experimental
Observations of Bubble Breakage in Turbulent Flow,” Ind. Eng.
determined from isotropic turbulence theory. This is in con- Chem. Res., 30, 845 (1991a).
trast to previous models that have at least three unknown Hesketh, R. P., A. W. Etchells, and T. W. F. Russell, “Bubble
parameters. In addition, the developed model does not need Breakage in Pipeline Flows,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 46, 1 (1991b).
a predefined daughter particle size distribution, as it directly Hinze, J. O., “Fundamentals of the Hydrodynamic Mechanism of
Splitting in Dispersion Process,” AZChE J., 1, 289 (1955).
gives the breakage rate for a given combination of daughter Hinze, J. O., Turbulence, McGraw-Hill, New York (1959).
sizes. Also, the daughter particle size distribution can directly Hughmark, G. A., “Drop Breakup in Turbulent Pipe Flow,” AZChE
be derived from the breakage-rate model. J., 17, 1000 (1971).
The breakage fractions predicted by the present model for Keey, R. B., “Interpreting MiKing with Isotropic Turbulence Theory,”
the air-water system in high-intensity pipeline flow are shown Brit. Chem. Eng., 12, 1081 (1967).
Kuboi, R., I. Komasawa, and T. Otake, “Behavior of Dispersed Par-
to be in very good agreement with the experimental results of ticles in Turbulent Liquid Flow,” J. Chem. Eng. Japan, 5, 349
Hesketh et al. (1991a,b). The developed model for specific (1972a).
breakage rate has been compared to models found in the lit- Kuboi, R., I. Komasawa, and T. Otake, “Collision and Coalescence
erature, and is found to give breakage-rate values bracketed of Dispersed Drops in Turbulent Liquid Flow,” J. Chem. Eng.
Japan, 5 , 423 (1972b).
by the other models. The spread in predictions is, however, Lamb, H., Hydrodynamics, 6th ed., Cambridge Univ. Press, Cam-
large, and improved experimental studies are recommended. bridge, U.K. (1932).
Laso, M., L. Steiner, and S. Hartland, “Dynamic Simulation of Liq-
uid-Liquid Agitated Dispersions: I and 11,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 42,
Notation 2429 (1987).
c1,c2=unknown constants in breakage rate models Lee, C.-H., L. E. Erickson, and L. A. Glasgow, “Bubble Breakup and
c3,cq=constants defined by Eqs. 16 and 18 Coalescence in Turbulent Gas-Liquid Dispersions,” Chem. Eng.
D =diameter of impeller, m Commun., 59,65 (1987a).
e = energy of individual eddies, J Lee, C-H., L. E. Erickson, and L. A. Glasgow, “Dynamics of Bubble
F =mean of e, J Size Distribution in Turbulent Gas-Liquid Dispersions,” Chem.
Pi =increase of surface energy due to a bubble breakage, J Eng. Commun., 61, 181 (1987b).
n =number of bubbles or drops per unit dispersion volume, Levich, V. G., Physicochemical Hydrodynamics, Prentice-Hall, Engle-
m-3 wood Cliffs, NJ (1962).
P, =energy probability Menzel, T., “Die Reynolds-schubspannung als wesentlicher parame-
i =friction velocity, ( t , / p , ) p , m/s ter zur modellierung der stromungsstruktur in blasensaulen und
airliftschlaufenreaktoren,” PhD Thesis, V M Verlag, Diisseldorf
(1990).
Greek letters Nambiar, D. K. R., R. Kumar, T. R. Das, and K. S. Gandhi, “A New
Model for the Breakage Frequency of Drops in Turbulent Stirred
p =constant defined in Eq. 12 Dispersions,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 47, 2989 (1992).
r( ) =gamma function Narsimhan, G., J. P. Gupta, and D. Ramkrishna, “A Model for
=energy dissipation rate per unit mass, m * ~ - ~ Transitional Breakage Probability of Droplets in Agitated Lean
A, =eddy size of viscous dissipation, m Liquid-Liquid Dispersions,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 34, 257 (1979).
p , =viscosity of continuous phase, Paes Narsimhan, G., G. Nejfelt, and D. Ramkrishna, “Breakage Functions
p, =viscosity of dispersed phase, Pa. s for Droplets in Agitated Liquid-Liquid Dispersions,” AZChE J., 30,
pc =density of continuous phase, kg/m3 457 (1984).
pd =density of dispersed phase, kg/m3 Prince, M. J., and H. W. Blanch, “Bubble Coalescence and Break-Up
u =surface tension, N/m in Air-Sparged Bubble Columns,” AIChE J., 36, 1485 (1990).
Randolph, A. D., “Effect of Crystal Breakage on Crystal Size Distri-
bution in a Mixed Suspension Crystallizer,” Znd. Eng. Chem. Fun-
Literature Cited dam., 59,58 (1969).
Angelidou, C., M. Psimopoulos, and G. J. Jameson, “Size Distribu- Ross, S . L., and R. L. Curl, “h4easurement and Models of the Dis-
tion Functions of Dispersions,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 34, 671 (1979). persed Phase Mixing Process,” Joint Chem. Eng. Conf, Paper 29b,
Batchelor, G. K., The Theory of Homogeneous Turbulence, Cambridge Vancouver (Sept., 1973).
Univ. Press, Cambridge, England (1982). Saffman, P. G., and J. S . Turner, “On the Collision of Drops in Tur-
Chatzi, E., and J. M. Lee, “Analysis of Interactions for Liquid-Liquid bulent Clouds,” J. Fluid Mech., 1, 16 (1956).
Dispersions in Agitated Vessels,” Znd. Eng. Chem. Res., 26, 2263 Shinnar, R., “On the Behavior of Liquid Dispersions in Mixing Ves-
(1987). sels,”J. Fluid Mech., 10, 259 (1961).
Chatzi, E., A. D. Garrielides, and C. Kiparissides, “Generalized Sleicher, C. A,, “Maximum Stable Drop Size in Turbulent Flow,”
Model for Prediction of the Steady-State Drop Sue Distributions AIChE J., 8, 471 (1962).
in Batch Stirred Vessels,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 28, 1704 (1989). Tennekes, H., and J. L. Lumley, A First Course in Turbulence, The
Chatzi, E., and C. Kiparissides, “Dynamic Simulation of Bimodal MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1972).
Drop Size Distributions in Low-Coalescence Batch Dispersion Sys- Valentas, K., 0. Bilous, and N. Amundson, “Analysis of Breakage in
tems,”Chem. Eng. Sci., 47, 445 (1992). Dispersed Phase Systems,”Znd. Eng. Chem. Fundam., 5,271 (1966).
Collins, S. B., and J. B. Knudson, “Drop-Size Distributions Produced Walter, J. G., and H. W. Blanch, “Bubble Break-up in Turbulent
by Turbulent Pipe Flow of Immiscible Liquids,” AZChE J., 16, 1072 Flows,” Chem. Eng. J., 32, B7 (1986).
(1970).
Coulaloglou, C. A,, and L. L. Tavarides, “Drop Size Distributions Manuscript received Dee. 2, 1994, and revision received Aug. 16, 1995

AIChE Journal May 1996 Vol. 42, NO. 5 1233