CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,250Fluid Dynamics and MixingFluid Dynamics and Heat TransferParticle Dynamics in Fluid Flows

Theoretical model for drop and bubble breakup in turbulent dispersions

Luo, Hean, Svendsen, Hallvard F.·1996·AIChE Journal
DOI 10.1002/aic.690420505
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract A theoretical model for the prediction of drop and bubble (fluid‐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 parameters. 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 directly from the model. Predicted breakage fractions using the model for the air–water system in a high‐intensity pipeline flow 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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/aic.690420505

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Haegeaether et al. [279] propose a new breakup criterion based on the energy density and the surface energy criterion, where the energy density of an eddy must be higher or at least equal to the energy density of the daughter particles, and the new model removes the deficiency of the Luo and Svendsen model by setting a limit to the minimum size of the daughter particle.

    “To remove this deficiency, the authors propose a new breakup criterion based on the energy density and the surface energy criterion. The energy density criterion briefly states that the energy density of an eddy must be higher or at least equal to the energy density of the daughter particles. The new model removes the deficiency of the model of Luo and Svendsen [274] by setting a limit to the”

    From Modeling and Simulation of Photobioreactors with Computational Fluid Dynamics—A Comprehensive Review (2022) · cites this paper as [274]

  • One advantage of the Luo and Svendsen model is that it does not require a correlation for the daughter particle size distribution.

    “One of the advantages of the Luo and Svendsen model is that it does not require a correlation for the daughter particle size distribution.”

    From Modeling and Simulation of Photobioreactors with Computational Fluid Dynamics—A Comprehensive Review (2022) · cites this paper as [274]

  • The model of Luo and Svendsen [274] is based on assumptions that turbulence is isotropic, breakage of bubbles is binary, breakage volume fraction is a stochastic variable, and the energy level of the eddies that hit a bubble determines the occurrence of the break-up.

    “Specifically, turbulence is assumed to be isotropic, the breakage of bubbles is assumed to be binary, the breakage volume fraction is assumed to be a stochastic variable, and the energy level of the eddies that hit a bubble determines the occurrence of the break-up.”

    From Modeling and Simulation of Photobioreactors with Computational Fluid Dynamics—A Comprehensive Review (2022) · cites this paper as [274]

  • Haegeaether et al. [279] start from the Luo and Svendsen [274] break-up model and improved it, criticizing that the Luo and Svendsen model assumes particle fragmentation occurs when an eddy possesses enough turbulent kinetic energy, which implies breakage every time an eddy collides with a fluid particle and leads to a large and most probably unreasonable number of break-up events.

    “Haegeaether et al. [279] also start from the Luo and Svendsen [274] break-up model and improved it. The main criticism of the Luo and Svendsen model is that the model is based on the assumption that particle fragmentation occurs when an eddy possesses enough turbulent kinetic energy. This implies that breakage occurs every time an eddy collides with a fluid particle since theoretically there is”

    From Modeling and Simulation of Photobioreactors with Computational Fluid Dynamics—A Comprehensive Review (2022) · cites this paper as [274]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Luo, H., & Svendsen, H. F.
Affiliations
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
Corresponding author
Svendsen, Hallvard F.
ORCID
Svendsen, Hallvard F.
Venue
AIChE Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1996-05
Volume
42
Issue
5
Pages
1225-1233
ISSN
  • 0001-1541 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-5905
DOI
10.1002/aic.690420505
OpenAlex
W2165520457
Cited by
1,250
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 80 · 2025: 94 · 2024: 85 · 2023: 75 · 2022: 70 · 2021: 76 · 2020: 75 · 2019: 77 · 2018: 63 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 41 · 2014: 58 · 2013: 46 · 2012: 32
FWCI
2.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 2969 d)
Locations
AIChE Journal (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Fluid Dynamics and Mixing
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Fluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Ocean Engineering › Particle Dynamics in Fluid Flows
Keywords
droplet breakup, bubble breakup, turbulent dispersion, breakage rate, isotropic turbulence, air-water flow, pipeline flow, particle breakage

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review