Chapter 6

DYNAMIC BREAKUP OF LIQUID-LIQUID JETS

Many, it may even be said, most of the still unexplained phenomena
of Acoustics are connected with the instability of jets of fluid. For
this instability there are two causes; the first is operative in the
case of jets of heavy liquids, e.g., water, projected into air (whose
relative density is negligible), and has been investigated by Plateau
in his admirable researches on the figures of a liquid mass, withdrawn
from the action of gravity. It consists in the operation of the capillary
force, whose effect is to render the infinite cylinder an unstable
form of equilibrium and to favour its disintegration into detached
masses whose aggregate surface is less than that of the cylinder.
The other cause of instability, which is operative even when the jet
and its environment are of the same material, is of a more dynamical
character.
Lord Rayleigh, On the instability of jets (1879)
6.1

Background
The liquid-liquid jets discussed in chapter 5 eventually break up due to

increasing amplitude of disturbance waves on their surface. In this chapter we investigate the length of the resulting jets, which is dependent on many factors. The
axisymmetric, dynamic breakup of a Newtonian liquid jet injected vertically into
another immiscible Newtonian liquid at various Reynolds numbers is investigated.
When a liquid is injected into another liquid at a velocity above a certain critical
value, a jet forms, rises to a certain length, and then breaks up into drops (Meister,
1966; Meister and Scheele, 1967; Scheele and Meister, 1968; Meister and Scheele,
1969a, 1969b; Richards, 1978; Richards and Scheele, 1985; Richards et al., 1993;
Richards et al., 1994a). These drops result in the creation of large new surface
area, which leads to enhanced heat and mass transfer (Skelland and Walker, 1989).
107

108
This has immediate implications for design of, for example, sieve-tray liquid-liquid
extractors. The prediction of the jet dynamics is thus important as a means to
explore both quantitative aspects of performance, e.g., to calculate the size of the
drops formed, and qualitative features, such as a test of stability theories.
The technique applied to steady laminar jets as described in chapter 5
has been slightly modified to represent better the physical stability limits of the
system, and is used in the present chapter to predict jet length and subsequent
breakup into drops.
Jet breakup has been extensively studied, both experimentally and theoretically, for jets injected into air with the air modelled as a vacuum or an inviscid
fluid; a brief review up to 1990 is given by Mansour and Lundgren (1990). Theoretical developments started with the elegant analysis of Rayleigh (1879) for the
case of an infinite free inviscid jet injected into air. In the liquid-liquid jet problem
additional, non-trivial, effects enter due to the presence of an outside continuous
phase. The Rayleigh stability analysis was extended by Tomotika (1935) to a
viscous cylinder surrounded by a viscous fluid. However, he solved the general
eigenvalue relation only for the limiting case of a very viscous liquid in another
very viscous liquid. The general eigenvalue equation was first solved numerically
by Meister and Scheele (1967) and covered all the previous special cases such as a
viscous liquid jet in a gas by Weber (1931) and an inviscid liquid jet in an inviscid
liquid by Christiansen and Hixson (1955, 1957).
In a series of publications, Meister and Scheele (Meister, 1966; Meister and
Scheele, 1967; Scheele and Meister, 1968; Meister and Scheele, 1969a, 1969b)
worked to develop an understanding of the jet and drop formation based on
experiments obtained with 15 liquid-liquid systems. They described the general
behavior of the jets as follows. For low flow rates drops form, grow, and break
off from the nozzle at regular intervals. Above a certain critical velocity a jet
is formed that rises to a certain length from the nozzle at which point it breaks
up into drops. At still higher nozzle velocities, the jet disrupts into small drops.

109
Much of the earlier literature on liquid-liquid jet breakup has been reviewed by
Meister and Scheele (1969a) and more recently by Skelland and Walker (1989) (up
to 1989).
Meister and Scheele (1969a), using the Tomotika (1935) stability equation,
developed an expression for the jet length at breakup that was an improvement
over that used by Smith and Moss (1917). This equation involved a Galilean
translation of the infinite Tomotika stationary jet at an average velocity of the
interface, calculated by assuming a certain form for the velocity profile inside the
jet and by solving for the unknown coefficients invoking overall momentum and
mass balances. We believe that this theory, although developed in the late 60s,
still represents the best one available for engineering design estimates of the jet
length.
For liquid jets injected into air, Sterling and Sleicher (1975) included in
the analysis the aerodynamic interaction between the jet and the air and found
that the presence of the air led to an enhanced growth rate of the axisymmetric
disturbances. In particular, they examined the case of a viscous liquid injected
into a stationary inviscid medium, and they developed an equation for the growth
rate which was an improvement over the one used by Weber (1931). Several
attempts have been made to include in the stability analysis the relative motion
of the continuous phase in liquid-liquid systems, the most recent being those of
Kitamura et al. (1982), Bright (1985), and Russo and Steen (1989). Kitamura et
al. (1982) experimentally varied the motion of the continuous phase to be either
faster, the same as, or slower than the jet down to the case of a stagnant continuous
phase. They found that the jet shortened as the absolute value of the continuous
phase velocity relative to the jet increased from zero. Moreover, the condition
of a zero relative phase velocity was found to give the best agreement between
Tomotikas stationary jet solution (translated at the average velocity of the jet) and
the experimental measurements. Thus, they attributed the discrepancy between
experiments and Tomotikas analysis in the nonzero relative velocity cases to the

110
relative motion of the continuous phase, rather than to other factors, such as, for
example, a velocity profile relaxation.
Bright (1985) attempted to perform a linear viscous stability analysis assuming a constant, but unequal, velocity in each liquid phase. One difficulty with
this study rests on the inconsistency of having a discontinuity of velocity at the
interface for fluids that are not assumed to be inviscid. Even assuming that the
equations are formulated correctly, we have found that the particular solution provided by Bright (a nonhomogeneous modified Bessel ODE) is incorrect; its correct
form is much more complex than the one provided by his equation (18). Details
of the derivation can be found in appendix H.
Russo and Steen (1989), in a study on liquid bridge stability, performed
numerically a linear stability analysis for an infinite cylinder of viscous fluid with
a constant shear applied to the outer free surface. From their predicted growth
rates, they found qualitative agreement with the data of Meister and Scheele
(1969a), but they noted that they could not expect quantitative agreement since
they neglected not only the relaxation of the velocity profile along the jet, but also
the possibility of spatially growing instabilities (Russo and Steen, 1989). Linear
stability analyses can be further characterized as temporal or spatial. Temporal
stability analyses (e.g., Tomotika, 1935; Christiansen and Hixson, 1957; Mansour
and Lundgren, 1990) examine how spatially periodic disturbances grow in time. In
contrast, spatial stability studies assume that disturbances starting at the nozzle
tip are temporally periodic waves that travel spatially with the jet (Keller et al.,
1973; Busker et al., 1989; Russo and Steen, 1989). The most severe assumption
is that of a uniform (at least in the axial direction) base flow. Furthermore,
note that the usefulness of eigenvalue analysis, through linear stability analysis,
for a non-self-adjoint system of equations (e.g., the Navier-Stokes equations) has
been recently questioned as far as its relevance to the time evolution of finite
amplitude disturbances is concerned, by the discovery of solutions to the subcritical
linearized problem of Poiseuille and Couette flow that grow greatly even though

111
all eigenmodes decay monotonically (Trefethen et al., 1993).
Thus, all the previous liquid-liquid stability theories, as based on rather
drastic simplifying assumptions, have limited validity. As was observed by Meister
and Scheele (1967) regarding previous stability analyses, the agreement between
experimental results and theoretical instability analyses has been good when
experiments are performed which closely approximate the assumptions made in
the theoretical development. The difficulties are associated with the various
effects (such as viscous, buoyancy, surface tension, inertial forces, jet contraction,
velocity profile relaxation, and relative motion of the continuous phase) that are
not all fully accounted for in any of the previous theories. This lack of an adequate
theoretical description which is driven by the inherent complexity of the problem
led us to the present direct numerical simulation of the jet breakup process.
The only assumptions involved with the present approach are those of laminar
flow of the two Newtonian fluids with constant bulk densities and viscosities,
constant interfacial surface tension, and axisymmetric disturbances. Of these the
latter assumption has been shown experimentally to fail in the region above a
certain critical velocity where the jet lengthens appreciably to a maximum length
(Meister and Scheele, 1969a). However, in the region below this critical velocity,
experimental observation (Meister and Scheele, 1969a) shows that axisymmetric
disturbances dominate, and in consequence, this is the region of validity of the
present study (see Figure 7.1 which is Figure 1 of Meister and Scheele, 1969a).
The motivation for selecting the VOF method in this numerical study has
been elaborated previously in chapters 1 and 3 (Hirt, 1968; Nichols et al., 1980;
Hirt and Nichols, 1981; Kothe et al., 1991; Brackbill et al., 1992; Richards et al.,
1993). Primarily, the present numerical algorithm can capture the irregular shapes
of free surfaces, such as those that are realized during necking and detachment of
drops from the jet; this has not been possible with other methods devised for single
phase jets without considerable modification of the algorithms. For example,
Mansour and Lundgren (1990) followed the breakup of an initially stationary

112
cylinder of inviscid liquid using a nonlinear boundary element method. They were
able to follow the solution until necking just before breakup; then, in a second stage
of calculation, they cut the forming satellite drop at the throat and continued the
development of the satellite shape. Boundary element techniques could be used,
but they would involve a restart after every necking-drop detachment and a rather
elaborate remeshing to capture the inertial effects. In contrast, the VOF method
allows very naturally arbitrary jet and drop shapes to be calculated.
The objectives of the present study are to use the VOF based numerical
method that we have developed for calculating liquid-liquid jet dynamics, from
the startup of their time evolution to their apparent (or pseudo) steady-state
involving the region from the nozzle exit to their breakup through necking and
detachment of drops. Our aim is to predict the jet length and the shape, as well as
the subsequent shape and size of drops that are formed. We compare the results
with the available experimental data of Meister and Scheele (1969a) and Bright
(1985) and the available linear stability theory of Meister and Scheele (1969a). We
also show that quantitative agreement of the present model is obtained with the
dynamic linear initial-value problem of Christiansen and Hixson (1955, 1957).
In section 6.2 we present the definition and formulation of the governing
equations for the solution to the problem of a Newtonian liquid jet injected vertically into another Newtonian quiescent liquid. The analytical solution to the linear
inviscid liquid-liquid cylinder breakup problem is illustrated, and the stability analyses of Tomotika (1935) and Meister and Scheele (1969a) for viscous liquid-liquid
jets are discussed. In section 6.3 we then discuss the numerical implementation
of the governing equations to the liquid-liquid jet problem. In section 6.4 the
numerical simulation is compared with the inviscid liquid-liquid cylinder breakup
solution. The present numerical simulation of free surface dynamics and jet lengths
is compared to the existing experimental data (Meister and Scheele, 1969a; Bright,
1985) and the Meister and Scheele (1969a) stability analysis. Finally, in section
6.5 we reach conclusions based on the results of the present work.

113
6.2

Problem Definition and Formulation

The flow configuration investigated here is shown in Figure 6.1. It corre-

sponds to the experimental setup of Meister and Scheele (1966, 1969a) and Bright
(1985), details of which can be found in those references. Briefly, the problem
investigated involves the jet of an alkane (either n-heptane or n-decane) injected
vertically from a circular nozzle upwards into a tank of stationary mutually saturated immiscible water. Figure 6.1 shows the stationary tank of fluid 1 (water)
with density 1 and viscosity 1 with the jet of fluid 2 (alkane) flowing upward
with density 2 and viscosity 2 , from a nozzle of inner radius R and outer radius
Ro with average velocity v. The constant interfacial surface tension is , and the
gravitational acceleration, g, is directed downward. The distance from the nozzle
tip to the top of the tank is L1 and to the bottom is L2 . The distance from the
centerline of the nozzle to the outer tank wall is L3 and the nozzle is of total length
L4 with the velocity profile fully developed at length L5 from the nozzle tip. Disturbances originating in the nozzle propagate with the jet flow and eventually lead
to breakup of the jet, with the length of the jet given by L, and the wavelength
of the growing disturbance given by .

6.2.1 Governing Equations

Equations (3.1) to (3.13) are solved with appropriate boundary conditions
as discussed in section 5.2.1. For the nozzle and the bottom of the tank no-slip
conditions are used:
u=v=0

(6.1)

For the axis of symmetry at r = 0:

u = 0,

v
=0
r

(6.2)

Outflow
Boundary
Continuous
Fluid 1
F=0
1, 1

AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
A
AAAA
A
AAAA
A
AAAA
A
AAAA
A
AAAA
A
A
A

114

Dispersed
Fluid 2
F=1
2, 2
Axis of
Symmetry

L1

L3

Inflow
Boundary
v

AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
AAAA
A
AAAA
A
AAAA
A
AAAA
A
AAAA
A
AAAA
A
A
A

Tank Wall

Jet
Interface

r=a(z)

L5

R
Ro

L2

L4

Nozzle

Figure 6.1: Liquid-liquid jet flow configuration (not to scale).

115
For the inflow into the nozzle, at distance L5 from the nozzle tip, fully developed
Poiseuille flow is assumed:
u = 0,



2
v = 2
v 1 r

(6.3)

where r r/R is the dimensionless radial distance, and v is the average velocity
in the nozzle. Dimensionless variables in this work are denoted with an asterisk
using R as the characteristic length and v as the characteristic velocity. The
experimental nozzle length ratio L4 /R was assumed to be sufficiently large to
guarantee condition (6.3) (Meister and Scheele, 1969a). In the VOF approach,
fluid is allowed to flow through the mesh with a minimum of upstream influence.
For the outflow boundary at the top of the mesh, z = L1 , it is assumed that there
is no change in the axial direction (Nichols et al., 1980; Hirt and Nichols, 1981;
Richards et al., 1993):
u
v
=
=0
(6.4)
z
z
To allow for the presence of a lateral wall far away from the nozzle
(L3 /R  1) without increasing the computational grid size excessively, it is assumed that there is no change along the radial direction at the outer boundary of
the computational grid at r = L30 , L30 < L3 :
u
v
=
=0
r
r

(6.5)

The numerical implications of using the boundary condition (6.5) to represent the
outer lateral wall (as opposed to a no-slip condition used in the previous work,
Richards et al., 1993 ) are discussed in section 6.3. The jet interface is assumed to
be pinned at the nozzle lip, a fact that is observed experimentally, so no contact
angle needs to be specified in this problem.
6.2.2 Inviscid Free Liquid-Liquid Cylinder Breakup
To test the accuracy and performance of our method on the dynamics of
jet breakup, it was first applied to the problem of the capillary breakup of an

116
initially stationary infinitely long inviscid liquid cylinder inside another inviscid
liquid within an outer free-slip wall. This problem was chosen because it has a
closed form analytical solution which was first derived for arbitrary values of the
initial conditions by Christiansen and Hixson (1955, 1957). The detailed derivation
is given in appendix F.1. We use the general solution of Christiansen and Hixson
(1957) to solve the initial value problem with initial conditions a = R + a0 cos(kz)
and da/dt = 0 at t = 0, where a0 is the initial amplitude, s is the growth rate,
and k = 2/ is the axial wavenumber of the disturbance. The particular solution
expressed in terms of the velocity potential i , where vi = i , i = 1, 2 in both
phases becomes:
a = R + a0 cosh (st) cos (kz)
 a s   K (kr) + I (kr) 
0
0
0
sinh (st) cos (kz)
1 =
k
K1 () I1 ()
 a s   I (kr) 
0
0
2 =
sinh (st) cos (kz)
k
I1 ()
where:

2

n h
i
h
s2 =
K0 ()
R3 2 II01()
+

1 K1 ()
()

+ I0 ()
I1 ()

io

(6.6)
(6.7)
(6.8)

(6.9)

K1 ()/I1 (), kR, and kL3 . Note that this equation reduces to
Rayleighs (1879) particular result for an inviscid liquid in a gas if the density of
the outer fluid is taken to be zero, 1 = 0. Also note that as the outer wall radius
is increased, as 0.
6.2.3 Viscous Free Liquid-Liquid Cylinder Breakup
The linear stability analysis to calculate the growth rate, s, of a disturbance
on an initially stationary, infinitely long, viscous liquid cylinder in another viscous
liquid was first derived by Tomotika (1935). The detailed derivation is given in
appendix G. His solution is derived by the introduction of the streamfunction
u = (1/r) (/z), v = (1/r) (/r), and by the substitution of normal mode
solutions of the form a = R + a
(r) exp (ikz + st) into the linearized equations,

117
where a
(r) is purely a function of r. The determinant of the coefficients of the
equations for the growth rate is:


I1 ()


I ()

 2  0
2
 2k

1 I1 ()

f
1

I1 ()
K1 ()
I0()
K0 ()


k2 +m22 21 I1 () 2k2 K1 ()
f2
f3



K1 ()

K0 ()

=0


k2 + m21 K1 () 

f4
(6.10)

where:

f1 = 2k

2
1

s2
dI1 ()
k
2
+
I0 () +

1
I1 ()
d
1
s1 R2


f2 = 2km2




2 dI1 ()
k
+
2 1 I1 ()
2
1
d
s1 R

f3 = 2k2

dK1 () s1

K0 ()
d
1

dK1 ()
d
s1
m21 = k2 +
1
s2
m22 = k2 +
2

f4 = 2km1

(6.11)

(6.12)
(6.13)
(6.14)
(6.15)
(6.16)

with Rm1 , and Rm2 . This quadratic equation (6.10) is solved for the
growth rate s and the dimensionless wavenumber is varied until the maximum
value of s is obtained. However, an iterative procedure is necessary since m1
and m2 depend on s (Meister, 1966). This maximum value of s corresponds to
the most dangerous wavenumber . Note that the determinant equation (6.10)
reduces to the eigenvalue relation (6.9) of the previous section as 1 0 and
2 0 (Meister, 1966).
6.2.4 Meister & Scheeles Linear Stability Analysis for Jet Length
Meister and Scheeles (1969a) simplified model (MS) for the jet length, L
(see Figure 6.1), is now briefly reviewed, both as a convenience to the reader, and

118
to describe the exact algorithm used in this chapter to estimate L based on this
theory. Further details can be found in Meister and Scheele (1969a). This theory
improves a previous estimate by Smith and Moss (1917) based on the amplification
of the critical disturbance obtained from the linear stability theory of the free jet
problem:

 
R
v
L = ln
s
a0

(6.17)

where v is the average nozzle velocity and s is the maximum growth rate obtained
from the Tomotika analysis, equation (6.10). By assuming that the disturbance
travels not with the nozzle velocity v as implied by (6.17), but at the speed of
the interfacial velocity vI and by adjusting the interfacial velocity to that of a
noncontracting jet, Meister and Scheele (1969a) estimated the jet length to be:
v
L=
2s

"

vI
vA


+

z =5

vI
vA


ln

L
z= R

R
a0


(6.18)

where vI and vA v/a 2 are the axial interfacial and average velocity respectively,
a a/R is the dimensionless interfacial radius, z z/R is the dimensionless
axial distance. An iterative calculation is required to evaluate the ratio vI /vA
at z = L/R since this ratio is a function of L; only two iterations are usually
necessary. The evaluation of this ratio at z = 5 (which is approximately z /2)
and z = L/R represents an arithmetic average at these two characteristic points.
Here we have substituted Meister and Scheeles equation (21) for vI into their
equation (22) for L to show that the correction to the nozzle velocity does not
depend on a directly, as is implied by their jet contraction equation (15). Values
of a are necessary only if values of vI are desired for comparison to experiment
using equation (6.26) to be presented below. If vI = vA in equation (6.18), we
recover the equation of Smith and Moss (1917) (6.17).
The ratio vI /vA is obtained from an assumed velocity profile in the jet

119
evaluated at the interface:





vI
= 1 + eA(z )z
1 eB(z )z
vA

(6.19)

The authors assumed velocity distributions both in the jet and in the continuous
phase involving four unknown functions of the axial distance, z . They used continuity of mass in the jet, continuity of axial velocity at the interface, continuity
of tangential shear stress at the interface, and an approximate axial jump momentum balance across the interface to evaluate these unknown functions. They then
arrived at the following equations:

1 + e

G 1 e

Bz

Az


1
1 e
2

Bz


=1

2 h


dB
dA
2B + 2z dz
1 e
A+z dz
(2 e

Bz ) e Bz

(6.20)

Bz

i
=1

(6.21)

where G R
v (1 2 ) 1 /22 . Since the method of solution of these two equations was not given the following approach was taken here. Equation (6.20) is
differentiated with respect to z , and the resulting equation and equation (6.21)
are solved directly for the derivatives of the unknown functions A(z ), B(z ) as
follows:
dA
=
dz



h
i

4AGe4Bz AGeAz + 11AG e3Bz + (3AG2) eAz + 11AG 2 e2Bz

h
i

Az

(3AG1) e
+ 5AG 1 eBz + AGeAz + AG





4e4Bz eAz + 11 e3Bz + 3eAz + 11 e2Bz


Gz

3eAz + 5 eBz + eAz + 1

(6.22)

120
dB
=
dz






4BGe4Bz BGeAz + 11BG + 4 e3Bz + 3BGeAz + 11BG + 4 e2Bz




Az

3BGe
+ 5BG + 1 eBz + BGeAz + BG





4e4Bz eAz + 11 e3Bz + 3eAz + 11 e2Bz



Gz

3eAz + 5 eBz + eAz + 1

(6.23)
These ODEs are integrated numerically for z > 0 subject to initial conditions as
z 0:

  13
2
3
A=
z 3
G

B=

3
2G

 13

z 3

(6.24)

(6.25)

The interfacial velocity vI /

v can then be calculated from:
vI
1
= 2
v
a

vI
vA


(6.26)

where the dimensionless jet radius a a/R is obtained by using the macroscopic
mechanical energy balance for free jets developed by Addison and Elliott (1950)
(assuming an initially flat velocity profile at the nozzle, and by neglecting viscous
dissipation terms), which was found useful as a rough estimate close to the nozzle
in chapter 5.
Nj a


4  4
4
3
+
a a
+ a 1 = 0
We

(6.27)



Re2 1
Here Nj
1 , the buoyancy number appropriate for a liquid-liquid
F r 2
jet pointed upwards (+) or downwards () respectively, Re2 2R2v/2 , is
the dispersed phase Reynolds number, F r v2 /2Rg, is the Froude number,
W e 2R
v 2 2 /, is the Weber number, and z /Re2 is the axial position
downstream scaled with the dispersed phase Reynolds number. Note that equation

121
(6.27) differs from the one used by Meister and Scheele (1969a) who erroneously
used an 8 instead of a 4 multiplying the second term.
6.3

Numerical Implementation
The method discussed in chapter 3, after validation on several test prob-

lems, is used to calculate the axisymmetric dynamic flow and breakup of a liquidliquid jet. For the breakup studies, a temporal sinusoidal perturbation of amplitude a0 and angular frequency was introduced in the F function at the nozzle
lip. Other disturbances such as perturbations on the inlet velocity profile (6.3) are
also possible but have not been used here.
Two important factors in the numerical calculation of jet breakup that must
be mentioned here are the method used to calculate the surface tension volumetric
forces, and the upwinding method in the finite difference approximation of the
inertial terms contribution to the momentum equations (3.2) and (3.3). The
original SOLA-VOF of Nichols et al. (1980) algorithm for liquid-liquid surface
tension force calculation was found to be completely unstable for liquid-liquid jet
calculations. This motivated the incorporation of the CSF algorithm (Kothe et
al., 1991) into the code, which resulted in a stable calculation for the steadystate region of the nozzle (Richards et al., 1993). A critical feature for numerical
stability is some smoothing of the interface, especially important given the discrete
character of the interface shape approximation.

Spatial smoothing of the F

function for calculation of the curvature, equation (3.5), is possible in the CSF
algorithm (see section 3.5), but this can lead to excessive stabilization of the jet,
preventing its breakup. A minimal amount of smoothing (one pass through the
spatial filter in the CSF algorithm) was used in the present work. Similarly, if the
inertial terms are approximated by second-order accurate central differencing, the
algorithm is numerically unstable (Hirt, 1968) If they are approximated by firstorder accurate upwinding or donor-cell differencing, the algorithm is stable
but it might be overstable due to the presence of excessive artificial viscosity

122
(see section 3.2).
6.4

Results and Discussion

Several free surface test problems that have known analytical or numerical

solutions were used to test the accuracy and validate the algorithm; the results for
the inviscid free liquid-liquid cylinder breakup of Christiansen and Hixson (1955,
1957) discussed in section 6.2.2 are discussed in more detail in section 6.4.1 below.
As previously discussed in section 6.1, Meister and Scheele (1969a) measured the jet length, L, vs. the dispersed phase Reynolds number, Re2 , for five
nozzle diameters. Their results, obtained by averaging the lengths of jets measured from four photographs per point, are summarized in Figure 7.1 which is
Figure 1 of Meister and Scheele (1969a). We have used their data as well as the
photograph in Figure 1 of Bright (1985) for comparison purposes. The parameters
corresponding to the six base cases that we have used in this work are summarized
in Table 6.1, encompassing six nozzles and two liquid-liquid systems. The systems
have been allowed to become mutually saturated (to avoid mass transfer between
the phases) before the experiments, and the physical parameters for the saturated
systems are given in Table 6.2. In Table 6.2 note the substantial differences between the experimentally measured and the literature values for the interfacial
surface tension. The most probable cause for this difference is the presence of
(unknown) contaminants. Since the emerging jet forms a new, clean surface that
under the experimental circumstances is not anticipated to have had enough time
to become saturated with the contaminant, the literature values for pure components were used for the interfacial surface tension in this work. However, possible
additional implications are discussed later in this section.
Five independent dimensionless groups result from the dimensionless form
of equations (3.1)-(6.1).

Those are listed in Table 6.1 as Re2 2R2v/2 ,

the dispersed phase Reynolds number, Re1 2R1v/1 , the continuous phase
Reynolds number, F r v2 /2Rg, the Froude number, W e 2R
v 2 2 /, the

123
Table 6.1: Experimental systems studied.
Data of

Meister and Scheele (1969a)

Continuous, 1

water

Dispersed, 2

n-heptane

n-decane

Nozzle

R, cm

0.04065

0.08

0.127

0.166

0.344

0.08

Ro , cm

0.0635

0.1055

0.161

0.24

0.51

v, cm/s

48.7

29

21.6

24.7

15.48

44

L1 /R

1500

762

480

367

177

L3 /R

375

191

120

92

44

L4 /R

3001

1525

961

735

355

Re2

688

806

953

1425

1851

521

Re1

412

482

570

853

1107

639

We

2.577

1.799

1.584

2.707

2.204

4.36

1.8731 1.8739

0.3552

12.3386

Fr

29.7472 5.3599

Nj

10.6

68.9

233.3

348.5

2388.2

15.4

2 /1

0.41

0.41

0.41

0.41

0.41

0.9

2 /1

0.686

0.686

0.686

0.686

0.686

0.733

Ca2
,a rad/s
a

Bright (1985)

0.00375 0.00223 0.00166 0.0019 0.00119

400

121

57

50

15

0.00838
184

Perturbation angular frequency used in this work.

Weber number, and Nj =

Re2
Fr

1
2


1 , the buoyancy number appropriate for a

liquid-liquid jet pointed upwards. The Re2 , Re1 numbers represent the ratio of
inertial to viscous forces, F r represents the ratio of inertial to gravitational forces,
W e represents the ratio of inertial to surface forces, and Nj represents the ratio

124
Table 6.2: Physical properties.
Continuous, 1

water

Dispersed, 2

n-heptane

n-decane

, pure,a dyne/cm

51.1c

52c

, exp.,b dyne/cm

36.2d

22.5e

2 , g/cm3

0.683d

0.732e

1 , g/cm3

0.996d

0.999e

2 , g/(cm s)

0.00393d

0.0099e

1 , g/(cm s)

0.00958d

0.011e

Pure value used in this work.

Measured value used in MS model.

Johnson (1966)

Scheele and Meister (1968)

Bright (1985)

of buoyancy to viscous forces. Alternatively, one or more of these dimensionless

groups can be replaced by other dimensionless parameter combinations, such as
the viscosity ratio 2 /1 , or the capillary number, Ca2 W e/Re2 , representing
the ratio of viscous to surface forces.
In the numerical simulations, the flow rate at the nozzle was instantaneously
increased from zero to its final value with the alkane filling the nozzle and water
filling the tank, in much the same way as the physical system was started. Then
the simulation followed the time evolution of the flow until the jet length vs.
time profile reached pseudo-steady behavior. A typical (coarse) mesh is shown
in Figure 6.2, with the increased mesh refinement confined, as illustrated, to the
dispersed phase. A locally refined, but uniform, mesh is used inside the jet region,
whereas a variable, coarser, mesh is employed in the much slower moving outer

125
region. The mesh size that was used for the liquid-liquid jet runs involved 55
cells stacked in the radial direction (with 40 cells being confined to the interval
0 r 2) and 255 cells in the axial direction, with the exception of nozzle 1 and
nozzle 4, which involved 65 cells in the radial direction. This cell distribution was
optimized through mesh sensitivity studies. In addition, the effects of the effluent
boundary distance L1 , the bottom distance, L2 , the fully developed velocity profile
distance, L5 , and the outer wall distance L3 were investigated separately by
sensitivity studies. The actual tank dimensions L1 /R and L3 /R are given in Table
6.1. The bottom distance was not given in the reference, but was estimated as at
least L2 /R > 10. In any case, Yu and Scheele (1975) have found experimentally
that placing an annular disk flush with the nozzle tip (L2 = 0) had little effect on
the measured jet radii, so this dimension appears to be of little importance.
For the conditions of Table 6.1, it was found that L1 /R = 50, L2 /R = 1,
L3 /R = 12, and L5 /R = 1 were large enough to establish insensitivity of the
results to the actual values of L1 /R, L2 /R, and L3 /R. For example, comparing
results obtained with L3 /R = 6 to 12, no significant difference was found in the
breakup length. Likewise, because of the high speed of the jet, comparing results
corresponding to L1 /R = 25 to 50 for nozzle 5, no significant difference was found
in the dispersed phase solution as long as the jet breakup occurs far from the
outflow, as was mostly the case.
For the high velocity jet cases it was found necessary to modify the outflow
condition (6.4) by forcing only flow out of the mesh at the outflow boundary
z = L5 , i.e., by requiring v 0, a method suggested by Hirt (1993). This was found
to alleviate a problem with the jet initially hitting the outflow reflective boundary
and causing a significant backflow and consequent jet disruption. Further, it was
found that it was preferable to use the boundary conditions (6.5) at the far outer
radial region rather than the no-slip condition (e.g., (6.1)) used in chapter 5. More
specifically, it was found that since the axial domain is longer in this study than the
previous one, use of a no-slip condition led to the development of a recirculation

126

50

Symmetry
Axis

z*

Jet
Interface

0
-1

AA
AA
AA
1

12
r*

Figure 6.2: Coarse mesh layout.

Nozzle

127
in the outer continuous phase. Since this outer boundary at L30 is actually closer
to the nozzle than the actual tank wall at L3 , the recirculation does not exist
in the physical system. Thus, a more reasonable physical choice, which does not
produce this recirculation (i.e., (6.5)), was to use the fact that the radial gradients
of velocity diminish rapidly with distance from the nozzle.
The breakup of the jets occurs experimentally as a result of naturally
occurring perturbations. Given the uncertainty of its exact form in the reported
experiments, we added a numerical perturbation to the free surface at the nozzle
lip as discussed in section 6.3. The angular frequencies of the perturbations applied
are given in Table 6.1. As was first pointed out by Rayleigh (1879), the most
dangerous frequency, corresponding to the fastest growing disturbance on the
jet, dominates all others, and it becomes the one observed in experiments. We
have estimated this frequency in the following way. We calculated from the linear
theory equation (6.10) the most dangerous wavenumber = kR. Then assuming
that the average interfacial velocity vI was about half the nozzle velocity (Bright,
1985), the angular frequency was estimated as = k vI . This estimate is close
enough to the most dangerous frequency since a sensitivity study on the nozzle 3
case revealed that the jet length decreases by only 19% as is varied from 28 to
114 rad/s, with 57 rad/s being the base angular frequency.
The amplitude of the perturbation, a0 /R = 0.01, was fixed for all the
present simulation cases. Its variation has a varying influence on the results,
depending on the Reynolds number. In fact, for the high Reynolds number,
Re2 , cases such as nozzle 5, no perturbation was necessary, there being enough
numerical noise to break up the jet. However, the low Re2 jets, such as nozzle 1,
required a finite perturbation to break within L/R 50; the larger the amplitude
of the perturbation, the shorter the jet length, in agreement with the logarithmic
dependence of the perturbation given in equation (6.18).

In calculating the

predicted jet lengths from the linear theory of Meister and Scheele (1969a), we
have used their recommended value, ln(R/a0) = 6, corresponding to a value

128
of a0 /R = 0.0025. The use of a0 /R = 0.01 would have resulted in a wider
disagreement of the MS model and the data. The variation of this parameter
in the present simulation is discussed in section 6.4.4.
The value of interfacial surface tension used in the present simulations was
the pure value taken from the literature and listed in Table 6.2. Meister and Scheele
(1968) used the Harkins and Brown (1919) drop volume technique to measure
the interfacial surface tension, which is an equilibrium or static measurement.
However, Bohr (1909) recognized that a dynamic measurement of surface tension
was needed to describe new, freshly formed surfaces, which are presumably free
from surface active contaminants, and developed a relationship in terms of the
undulations on a jet exiting from a circular nozzle into a gas. Later workers
(Addison and Elliott, 1950; Garner and Mina, 1959) used a contracting jet
technique to measure the surface tension as a function of surface age for liquidliquid jets. Garner and Mina (1959), in a study of aqueous solutions of n-hexyl
alcohol jetting into mutually saturated medicinal paraffin, showed in their Figure 9
that when the surface age approached 0.4 s for low concentrations of alcohol the
dynamic interfacial tension decreased from near the water/paraffin value to a lower
value as the surface active agent (alcohol here) adsorbed on the surface. Thus,
instead of the lower interfacial tension values measured by Meister and Scheele
and Bright, and listed in Table 6.2, which are probably due to slight impurities,
we have used the pure values, since the surface ages of the breaking jets in this
study are all less than about 0.1 s. However, to calculate the predicted jet lengths
of the linear theory of Meister and Scheele (1969a), we have used their measured
surface tension values. Again, use of the pure surface tension values would have
resulted in a higher discrepancy between their predictions and the data. Further
discussion of dynamic surface tension can be found in the work of Edwards et al.
(1991).

129
6.4.1 Inviscid Free Liquid-Liquid Cylinder Breakup
The problem of the capillary breakup of an initially stationary infinitely
long free inviscid liquid cylinder in another inviscid liquid with an outer freeslip wall (Christiansen and Hixson, 1957) was chosen as a validation test of
the numerical method developed in the present work. This problem involves
a transient flow, a non-constant surface curvature, and admits an analytical
solution at least for small times obtained from a linear analysis as given in
section 6.2.2. Figure 6.3 shows the complete breakup time sequence as obtained
with the VOF numerical calculation for one axial wavelength using an initial
cosine amplitude perturbation with a0 /R = 0.001 on the interface and the most
dangerous wavenumber kR = 0.6773 as calculated from equation (6.9). A half
wavelength was used for the actual computational domain with free-slip conditions
at z z/R = 0 and z = 4.6384, and the distance from the centerline to the
free-slip wall is L3 /R = 3; similar results were obtained for two wavelengths.
Figure 6.4 shows the early time sequence for a half wavelength calculated
using the linear theory of Christiansen and Hixson (1957) (CH) (equations (6.6)
and (6.9)) compared to the present nonlinear simulation. The densities used were
those of n-heptane in water given in Table 6.2, 1 = 2 = 0, and = 51.1 dyne/cm.
The uniform mesh used for the simulation comprised 75 cells in the radial and
120 cells in the axial directions. This cell distribution was optimized through
mesh sensitivity studies. The breakup time of 0.023 s predicted by the simulation
compares well with that predicted by the linear theory of 0.024 s (when a = R
in equation (6.6)). This result is consistent with the calculations of Mansour and
Lundgren (1990), who also found good agreement with breakup times between
their nonlinear model and Rayleighs (1879) linear theory, but, in addition, found
significant interface deviation from the linear theory near breakup time, leading
to the formation of the satellite drop. The excellent agreement of the simulation
results with the analytical theory validates the numerical code under conditions
that share many factors with the actual physical problems studied in this work.

130

Figure 6.3: Inviscid liquid-liquid cylinder breakup. Heptane in water, t =

0.002 s.

131

CH
This work
4

Interface at t = 0 s

z*

t = 0.014 s
2

t = 0.018 s
t = 0.022 s
Free Slip Wall

Axis of
Symmetry

r*
Figure 6.4: Inviscid liquid-liquid cylinder. Heptane in water with interface positions at four times before breakup. Linear theory of Christiansen
and Hixson (1957) (CH) compared to the present nonlinear model.

6.4.2 Long-Time Free Surface Dynamics

The main body of the results presented here are comparisons between
the experiments of Meister and Scheele (Meister, 1966; Meister and Scheele,
1969a) and Bright (1985) and our numerical simulations. Figures 6.5, 6.6, and
6.7 represent free surface comparisons of nozzle 5, 3, and 6 respectively (see
Table 6.1). The experimental interface data, traced from photographs of the
interface, are located in the lower right corner frame of each figure (labeled with
the experimenters name). Each frame of the figures is a contour of the interface

132
(F = 1/2) at equal time intervals, starting from startup at t = 0.
Figure 6.5, nozzle 5, represents a short jet at high Re2 with only one
undulation before breakup into drops. Our numerical simulation also shows one
undulation before breakup, and about the same jet length before breakup as the
data. Notice the cap-like drop formation and the general trend to oscillating
ellipsoid-like drops in both the numerical and experimental data. There is some
evidence of non-axisymmetric drops in the experimental frame on Figure 6.5; this
is obviously not captured by the simulations, but appears to be a minor feature in
the overall picture. Qualitatively the drop sizes predicted by our simulation can
be seen to be about the same as the data, but the quantitative comparison of drop
sizes is the subject of chapter 7, and is not discussed here. Our simulation also
indicates a significant jet interface contraction before breakup, also in agreement
with the data.
Figure 6.6, nozzle 3, represents a jet of intermediate length, obtained at
intermediate Re2 with again only one undulation before breakup into drops. The
numerical simulation also shows one undulation before breakup, and about the
same jet length before breakup as the experimental data. The oscillating ellipsoidlike drops can also be seen in some of the simulation frames. The drop sizes
predicted by the simulation can again be seen to be about the same as the data,
with more shape variety in the simulation results. The simulation also indicates
some jet interface contraction before breakup, in agreement with the data.
Figure 6.7, nozzle 6, represents the dynamic behavior of a long jet, obtained
at the lowest Re2 with, in general, three undulations observed before breakup.
The numerical simulation shows about two undulations before breakup, and again
about the same jet length before breakup as the data. Notice the pear-like drops
formed, which can also be seen in the numerical simulations. The present simulation indicates very little jet interface contraction before breakup, in agreement
with the data.

133

Figure 6.5: Free surface comparison. Experimental data of Meister (1966) compared to the present simulation. Heptane into water, nozzle 5, R =
0.344 cm, v = 15.48 cm/s.

134

Figure 6.6: Free surface comparison. Experimental data of Meister (1966) compared to the present simulation. Heptane into water, nozzle 3, R =
0.127 cm, v = 21.6 cm/s.

135

Figure 6.7: Free surface comparison. Experimental data of Bright (1985) compared to the present simulation. Decane into water, nozzle 6, R =
0.08 cm, v = 44 cm/s.

136
6.4.3 Short-Time Free Surface Shape Sequence
Meister and Scheele (1969a) presented a short-time sequence of frames for
the liquid jet obtained with nozzle 3 to illustrate that alternating larger and smaller
drops could be produced from a liquid-liquid jet. Their tracings of the free surface
taken from a high-speed movie (their Figure 6) are shown in Figure 6.8. For
comparison, a jet case with the same conditions, corresponding to nozzle 3 and
Figure 6.6, was simulated numerically and is illustrated in Figure 6.9.
In Figure 6.8 the data indicate a pattern corresponding to a large drop
breaking off, a small drop breaking off about five frames later, followed by another
large drop breaking off about 18 frames later. The numerical simulation indicates
about the same pattern and interval between frames being produced. It turns
out that in the simulation this pattern did not always recur, with several large
drops being produced before the large-small-large pattern appeared again. It is
interesting also that most of the simulation frames do not contain satellite drops
which would be formed from the neck of the fluid drawn out during drop break off.
This appears to be consistent with the experiments of Meister and Scheele (1969a)
who found that only in some instances were satellite drops formed. This is in
contrast to single phase jets where satellite drops are frequently formed (Donnelly
and Glaberson, 1966).
6.4.4 Jet Length Comparisons and Discussion
The jet length, L/R, was calculated as a function of time for each simulation
case, and a typical result is shown in Figure 6.10. As can be seen in that figure,
the general pattern is a rise to a certain length, detachment of a drop, with a
buildup in length to form the next drop. This results in a sawtooth pattern
as seen in the figure, a result that was confirmed by Fourier analysis of the time
series data. Superimposed on that, a longer-term trend appears in that the mean
height between drops rises from zero at startup and levels off to a pseudo-steadystate (limit cycle) value. However, it can be seen that at long times the length is

137

Figure 6.8: Free surface sequence. Experimental data of Meister and Scheele
(1969a) Heptane into water, nozzle 3, R = 0.127 cm, v = 21.6 cm/s,
t = 0.00416 s.

138

Figure 6.9: Free surface sequence the present simulation. Heptane into water,
nozzle 3, R = 0.127 cm, v = 21.6 cm/s, t = 0.00416 s.

139
not periodic, but rather chaotic. We have found that the variation in amplitude
and period generally increases with increasing Reynolds number, Re2 , with the
fluctuations becoming more random. We thus conjecture that the aperiodicity
is due to the increasing importance of the nonlinear terms in the momentum
equations, causing a chaotic response.
30

L/R

20

10

1
t (s)

Figure 6.10: Jet length vs. time. Heptane into water, nozzle 3, R = 0.127 cm,
v = 21.6 cm/s.

The average, minimum, and maximum lengths at the pseudo-steady-state

predicted by the numerical simulation are shown in Figures 6.11 to 6.13 for all six
cases. Also shown are the experimental length data of Meister and Scheele (1969a)

140
and Bright (1985) and the numerical results of Meister and Scheele (1969a) (MS)
from equations (6.18) (6.25). Figure 6.11 shows the predicted lengths for nozzles
1, 3, and 5 as a function of Reynolds number, Re2 . Figure 6.12 shows the predicted
lengths for nozzles 2 and 4 as a function of Reynolds number, Re2 . Figure 6.12
also shows the predicted lengths of the current simulation for nozzle 2 at two
perturbation levels, a0 /R = 0.01 and 0.001. Figure 6.13 shows predicted length
vs. experimental length for all six nozzles. As pointed out by Meister (1966), since
the average measured height of the jet is increased by /2 due to the forming and
detaching of the drops (see, e.g., Figure 6.10), a value of /2 was added to the MS
model length predictions to be comparable to the photographic data.
Several points regarding the origin and nature of the experimental data
should be noted assessing the agreement of theory with experiment.

One is

that Meister and Scheele (1969a) took four photographs of the jet and averaged
them to obtain their experimental length (see Figure 1 of the reference). No
information is available on the accuracy (or long-term reproducibility) of this
approach, except the regularity and frequency of the data points themselves, but it
can be conjectured by considering the numerically simulated length in Figure 6.10
that only four points of this curve taken at random times would not be a very
representative sample. Only one photograph was available for the data point of
Bright (1985) which was used in Figure 6.13. One can then imagine minimum
and maximum bars on the experimental data about as large as those included in
Figures 6.11 to 6.13 for the numerical simulations.
Another aspect of the data inadequately accounted for in the simulations is
the fact the magnitude and frequency of the perturbations is experimentally unknown. We have kept the amplitude constant for all cases for both the MS model
(a0 /R = 0.0025) and the numerical simulations (a0 /R = 0.01). A better fit of the
data could be obtained by varying this parameter for each nozzle but little is to be
gained from this approach in terms of improving the predictive capability of the
simulations. As previously mentioned, the frequency of the perturbation was also

141

50
MS model
This work
MS Data, R = 0.04065 cm
MS Data, R = 0.127 cm
MS Data, R = 0.344 cm

40

L/R

30

20

10

0
500

1000

1500

2000

Re2

Figure 6.11: Jet length vs. Reynolds number data of Meister and Scheele (1969a)
(heptane into water) and numerical results of Meister and Scheele
(1969a) (MS) compared to the present simulation for nozzles 1, 3,
and 5.

varied in the numerical simulations to evaluate the sensitivity of the results, which
proved in this case to be small. The MS model used the maximum in the growth
rate according to equation (6.10) to estimate the most dangerous wavelength. To
eliminate this ambiguity a future experimental study could be undertaken with
forced amplitude and frequency perturbations for liquid-liquid jets analogous to
the experiments of Donnelly and Glaberson (1966) who investigated liquid jets in
air. Recently we became aware of an experimental study by Tadrist et al. (1991),

142

50
MS model
This work, ao/R=0.001
This work, ao/R=0.01
MS Data, R = 0.08 cm
MS Data, R = 0.166

40

L/R

30

20

10

0
500

1000

1500

2000

Re2

Figure 6.12: Jet length vs. Reynolds number data of Meister and Scheele (1969a)
(heptane into water) and numerical results of Meister and Scheele
(1969a) (MS) compared to the present simulation for nozzles 2 and
4.

in an attempt to characterize the instability as completely as possible, measured

fluctuations of the interface of a liquid-liquid jet and found them to be characteristic of a weak-bad random signal with the power spectra densities of typical
signals presenting a band of a given width around a characteristic frequency. Near
the nozzle the jet amplitude fluctuations were slight, but fluctuations increased
rapidly with distance from the nozzle. This study also found that the measured
amplitude of the disturbance on the jet was (a0 /R 0.01), a value that we found

143

50

L/R Predicted

40

30

20

MS model, MS Data
MS model, Bright Data
This work, MS Data
This work, Bright Data

10

10

20
30
L/R Experimental

40

50

Figure 6.13: Jet length predicted vs. experimental data of Meister and Scheele
(1969a) (heptane into water) and Bright (1985) (decane into water) and numerical results of Meister and Scheele (1969a) (MS)
compared to the present simulation for nozzles 1 6.

independently by our simulations that best fit the data.

As was mentioned previously in this section, a surface contaminant was
probably present in the experiments as evidenced by the discrepancy between the
pure and measured surface tension values listed in Table 6.2. Since the jet is
generating a clean surface at the nozzle tip, the contaminant concentration will
be low. As surface age increases, the contaminant will diffuse to the surface,
therefore resulting in an axial concentration gradient with a subsequent surface

144
tension gradient resulting. This can lead to surface forces along the axial direction
resulting in a Marangoni flow (Edwards et al., 1991). However, in the present
cases, the magnitude of this gradient is probably small since the jet breaks up
rather quickly, and the measured value for the interfacial tension of n-heptane is
only 21% lower than the pure value.
Although the predictions from the MS model come close to the data at
L/R 15, it can be seen from Figure 6.13 that their slope is much less than
the 45 line (which corresponds to perfect agreement). On the other hand, while
the results from the simulations show the same general trend of the 45 line,
they also show a small bias to over-prediction of the length. This should be
attributed to the presence of numerical viscosity (Hirt, 1968) which tends to
make the numerical solution more stable than the physical one. For example, in
numerical calculations where HN was set to unity (full donor-cell differencing),
the nozzle 5 case would not break in the region L/R 20. As was mentioned
previously, HN was set to 1.2 times the minimum required for numerical stability
to minimize this viscosity effect. As a smaller value for HN would have made
the code numerically unstable, it appears that the only remedy is mesh refinement
that the present availability of computer resources has limited to about 65 255
cells. A stringent numerical stability criterion (Hirt and Nichols, 1981) is used to
adjust the time step automatically to a small value (typically 1 105 s), and
combined with the large number of mesh cells, this results in about 10 teraflop of
work for a typical calculation such as those reported in Figures 6.11 to 6.13.
An exception to the above observation for overprediction of jet-length
are the results obtained for nozzle 2, which are substantially under-predicted.
A possible explanation is that this nozzle may correspond to an exceptionally
low value of a0 /R experimentally. To test this we simulated the nozzle 2 case
with a ten-fold lower value of a0 /R = 0.001 and found the results to be more
consistent with the data as expected from linear stability analysis. As can be seen
in Figure 6.12, the simulation approaches the data as the perturbation is lowered.

145
Keeping the preceding discussion in mind, we conclude that, in most cases, the
present simulation agrees satisfactorily with the data, within experimental error.
To be more quantitative, a more careful control of the noise present during the
experiments appears to be necessary.
The MS model has many assumptions, as mentioned in section 6.2.4. As
can be seen by examining the jet length equation (6.18), two of the critical steps
are the calculation of the most dangerous growth rate s and the velocity at
which the disturbance is propagated, the interfacial velocity vI . As discussed
in section 6.1, Kitamura et al. (1982) experimentally varied the relative motion of
the continuous phase. They found that the jet length shortened as the absolute
value of the continuous phase velocity relative to the jet increased from zero with
condition of zero relative phase velocity giving the best experimental agreement
with Tomotikas stationary jet solution translated at the average velocity of the jet.
They concluded that the discrepancy between experiment and Tomotikas analysis
in the nonzero relative velocity cases was due primarily to the relative motion of
the continuous phase, and not to other factors such as velocity profile relaxation.
In our case, the outer phase is relatively stagnant away from the interface, and
this could result in a shearing type instability (Russo and Steen, 1989) that would
result in an incorrect s, since the Tomotika equation (6.10) assumes that the two
phases have the same axial velocity. To correct this, an analysis similar to that
of Sterling and Sleicher (1975), Bright (1985), or Russo and Steen (1989) would
have to be performed, but since gravity (buoyancy) and the outer phase viscosity
would have to be included, the modifications would be nontrivial and, if feasible,
would result in a rather complex solution procedure. The value of the Tomotika
analysis is that it is currently the only approach that incorporates in the outer
phase the physical properties of density and viscosity.
Another source of error in the MS model is the calculation of the axial
interfacial velocity, vI . It is noteworthy that Kitamura et al. obtained good results
at zero relative phase velocity, using the average velocity of the jet in their jet

146
length equation, the same equation used by Smith and Moss (1917) (6.17), with the
maximum growth rate s calculated using Tomotikas equation (6.10). This can be
explained by the fact that if the jet is long (their shortest heptane into water jet was
L/R = 16), the velocity profile will have relaxed so that the interfacial velocity will
be comparable to the average velocity. However, if the velocity profile has not had
a chance to relax, this would not be true. Bright (1985) found experimentally that
the surface wave velocity was about half the nozzle velocity for decane into water
jets at v = 150 cm/s. Meister and Scheele (1969a) reported only two experimental
point checks of liquid-liquid interfacial velocities predicted by equations (6.19)
(6.27) as measured by observing disturbance node velocities on the surface of the
jet. To test these ideas we compared the MS model calculation of jet radii a/R
v (equation (6.26)) with the current
(equation (6.27)) and interfacial velocities vI /
simulation for nozzle 3; the results are shown in Table 6.3. The comparison is
quite good until just before jet breakup, which is consistent with the experimental
checks by Meister and Scheele (1969a). Therefore, we conclude that the error in
the calculation of the interfacial velocities is not a major contributor to the overall
discrepancy between the MS model and the data. Thus, given this fact, coupled
with the experimental observations by Kitamura et al., and by examining the MS
jet length equation (6.18), the most likely reasons for the MS disagreement are
(1) the maximum growth rate s is assumed independent of the jet velocity v, and
(2) the entire analysis is a local one, not taking into account the velocity profile
relaxation in the axial direction away from the nozzle exit. Still, the MS analysis
can be used as a first estimate, its major drawback being its relative insensitivity
towards Reynolds number changes.
6.5

Conclusions
The robust and stable VOF-based numerical method developed in this

dissertation has been used here successfully to simulate high Reynolds number,
high buoyancy number, and low Weber number flows, up to and beyond the

147
Table 6.3: Jet radii a/R and interfacial velocity vI /
v as a function of axial
position z/R. Comparison between the MS model and this work at
two nozzle velocities v for nozzle 3.
v

z/R

cm/s

a/R
MS model

vI /
v
This work

Equation (6.27)

MS model

This work

Equation (6.26)

21.6

0.851

0.870

0.528

0.525

21.6

10

0.766

0.750

0.773

0.790

21.6

15

0.710

0.634

0.990

1.29

28.0

0.890

0.880

0.451

0.487

28.0

10

0.819

0.841

0.635

0.632

28.0

15

0.769

0.807

0.795

0.742

28.0

20

0.730

0.765

0.942

0.865

28.0

25

0.699

0.690

1.08

0.956

jet breakup into drops. We have compared the predicted interface and drop
shapes and average jet lengths with experimental data of Meister and Scheele
(1969a) and Bright (1985). We conclude that, given the stochastic nature of the
results, and their sensitivity to initial conditions, the present simulation agrees
satisfactorily with the data, within experimental error. The use of this direct
numerical simulation allowed us to ascertain the accuracy of the approximate
numerical model of Meister and Scheele (1969a) and to examine the validity of the
key underlying assumptions.
The experimental system displays many aspects of an actual liquid-liquid
contactor but it is especially difficult to simulate. There is also a non-deterministic
character of the outcome, particularly at high Reynolds numbers, due to unknown
disturbances as well as the nonlinearity of the governing equations. Additional
issues include such aspects as impure materials, resulting in the possible need

148
to include dynamic surface tension, which has an influence on the predicted jet
lengths. Predominant among the issues that the present study revealed is the sensitivity to the external disturbances. An experimental study further characterizing
these ambiguities could be undertaken with pure materials and forced amplitude
and frequency perturbations for liquid-liquid jets, analogous to the experiments
of Donnelly and Glaberson (1966), who investigated liquid jets in air. However, a
broader implication for real liquidliquid contactors is that totally predictive simulations will remain difficult, even with the great improvements in computational
power that continue to become available.
The physical problem studied here is a challenging one because of the
existence of moving complex free surfaces and the significant roles of surface
tension, inertia, and gravity, as well as experimental disturbances of unknown
frequency and amplitude. It particularly places stringent requirements of stability
and accuracy on our numerical technique in fact, any numerical technique
aiming to handle these types of high Reynolds number free surface problems.
As in all numerical computations, our current calculations are able to provide
an approximate answer only.

Much more extensive mesh refinement and/or

use of adaptive (local) mesh refinement is needed for more accurate answers.
This additional computational effort is not currently justified, however, given the
existing uncertainty in the magnitude of the experimental disturbances driving
the jet breakup.