Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 15 (2009) 45–49

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jiec

Estimation of hindered settling velocity of suspensions

Sangkyun Koo *
Dept. of Industrial Chemistry, Sangmyung University, Seoul 110-743, Republic of Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Four effective-medium models (EM-I, II, III, IV) are utilized and compared for determining hindered
Received 13 May 2008 settling velocity of equi-sized particles in a viscous fluid. Among the models, EM-IV model is found to
Accepted 3 August 2008 accurately predict the effective viscosity and the hindered settling velocity of monodisperse
suspensions. In EM-IV model which was developed for determining the diffusivity of proteins in a
Keywords: biological membrane by Dodd et al. [T.L. Dodd, D. A. Hammer, A.S. Sangani, D.L. Koch, J. Fluid Mech. 293
Hindered settling velocity (1995) 147], the effective-medium region begins at the distance R = a[(1  S(0))/f]1/3 from the origin
Sedimentation
where the center of the test particle is located, where a is the radius of the particle, f is the volume
Suspension
fraction of the particles in the suspension, and S(0) is the zero wavenumber limit of the structure factor.
Effective-medium theory
Structure factor The estimations by EM-IV model agree very well with the exact calculations and the experimental
observations. The hindered settling velocity U of the particles is given, in Richardson–Zaki form, by U/
U0 = (1  f)5.5, where U0 is the settling velocity for an isolated particle.
ß 2009 The Korean Society of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights
reserved.

1. Introduction
Sedimentation of suspensions has been widely used for
separating the particles from the fluid in a suspension. In particular
the sedimentation of suspensions in very low particle Reynolds
number based on the radii and the average settling velocity of the
particles has received the greatest attention. A major issue in the
study of the sedimentation is to determine the settling velocity of
the particles in suspension as a function of the particle
concentration. When an isolated particle falls through a viscous
fluid due to gravity, the terminal velocity of the particle follows
Stokes settling velocity. In case that many particles settle, each
particle is hindered by other particles and the settling of each
particle is influenced by the existence of other particles. This
influence, called multiparticle hydrodynamic interaction, is
reached to quite long particle–particle distance. The evaluation
of the multiparticle effect requires complicated computations
whose cost increases with the number of particles. Moreover the
calculation should satisfy the randomness of particle distribution
by taking averages for quite large number of particle configura-
tions. Since Batchelor’s [1] work, there have been many
investigations to determine the sedimentation velocity using
microscopic analysis of the suspension [2–10]. Focus has been on
developing numerical methods for accurately computing the
multiparticle interactions over wider range of concentrations of
particles. Remarkable theoretical calculations for the multiparticle
interactions have been presented by Brady and Bossis [5], Ladd [6],
and Mo and Sangani [7]. Their calculation schemes, however, are
too complicated to be available for further or other relevant
analysis. Therefore it is necessary to develop a simple theory which
also matches with the rigorous calculations. The theory should also
properly accounts for important physics of the multiparticle
interactions. Effective-medium theories have been developed for
predicting the transport properties of suspensions or composite
materials consisting of random arrays of particles in a fluid or a
medium. The advantage of effective-medium theories is to use the
concept of ensemble average, that is, the average over all
configurations of all particles. A variety of effective-medium
models have been proposed for determining various transport
properties of physical or biochemical processes. Some examples
are the cases of determining the diffusivity of integral proteins in a
bilipid membrane system [11], the thermal conductivity of
composite materials [12], and the mass transfer coefficient in a
hollow-fiber membrane system [13].
Some of these effective-medium models are utilized in the
present study for determining hindered settling velocity of
monodisperse suspensions. Specifically four effective-medium
models (EM-I, II, III, IV) are used and the predictions of the
hindered settling velocity using these models are compared with
rigorous calculation results and experimental observations.
2. Theory and calculations

We consider spherical rigid particles falling through a viscous

* Tel.: +82 2 2287 5338; fax: +82 2 2287 0070. fluid. When the Reynolds number based on the particle radius and
E-mail address: skkoo@smu.ac.kr. the average settling velocity of particles is small, the fluid motion

1226-086X/$ – see front matter ß 2009 The Korean Society of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jiec.2008.08.013
46 S. Koo / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 15 (2009) 45–49

particle satisfies a similar equation with rf replaced by the particle

Nomenclature
density rp. Physical quantities of the random configurations of
particles in a suspension are described in terms of ensemble
a radius of particle averages. Taking ensemble average of these equations subject to
Fap apparent force acting on particle the presence of a particle with its center at origin, 0, gives:
g acceleration due to gravity
gr radial distribution function r  sðxj0Þ þ ½r f þ ðr p  r f Þhxi1 ðxj0Þg ¼ 0 (2)
n number density of particles
with x being a particle phase indicator function whose value is
p pressure
unity when x lies inside a particle and zero otherwise. Thus
P(x) probability of finding a particle at x hxi1(xj0) is the conditional (ensemble) average of x and given by
P(xj0) probability of finding a particle at x given a particle
Z
at origin hxi1 ðxj0Þ ¼ Pðx0 j0ÞdV x0 (4)
r radial distance from the center of the particle at jxx0 ja

origin
where P(x0 j0) is the probability density for finding a particle with
R distance from the origin to the effective-medium
its center at x0 given the presence of a particle at the origin. Note
boundary
that x approaches f as r becomes infinity. For suspensions with
S(0) structure factor at zero wavenumber limit for hard- isotropic pair probability density a closure relation for the stress is
sphere suspension introduced:
U hindered settling velocity of particles in a fluid
U0 settling velocity of an isolated particle in a fluid hsi1 ¼ h pi1 I þ mðxÞ b rhuic þ ðrhuic ÞT c (5)
u velocity of the fluid
where hpi1 is the conditionally averaged pressure and m(x) is
x position vector
viscosity of the suspension at x. And I is the isotropic unit tensor.
The conditionally averaged pressure and velocity are required to
Greek letters
approach, respectively, the unconditional averages as r becomes
x phase indicator function of particle very large. The average sedimentation velocity of the particles
hxi1 pair probability density, conditional ensemble equals the conditionally averaged velocity evaluated at r = 0.
average of x Effective-medium approximations are developed to determine
f volume fraction of particles the conditionally averaged velocity. Schematic diagrams for the
m(x) viscosity at position x in suspension approximate models are shown in Fig. 1. One simple approxima-
mf viscosity of fluid tion is to model the suspension as the representative (test) particle
m* effective viscosity of suspension at origin and the effective-medium which occupies just outside of
r(x) density at position x in suspension the particle [14]. In this model the region for r > a, r being the
distance from the origin, is considered as the effective-medium.
rf density of fluid
We denote the distance from the origin as R from which the
rp density of particle
effective-medium begins. This model has been proposed by Hill
rs density of suspension [14] for the analysis of composite materials and is referred to as
s stress tensor EM-I in the present study.
Another choice for R can be af1/3. This model is called EM-II
here. In this model a representative particle at origin is surrounded
satisfies: by clear fluid up to the distance R = af1/3 beyond which particle–
r  s þ rfg ¼ 0 (1) fluid system is considered as an effective-medium [15]. Hence, for
example, viscosity m is taken to equal the suspending fluid
where s is the stress at point x in the fluid, rf the density of the viscosity mf in the region a < r < R and equal to effective viscosity
fluid, and g the gravitational acceleration. The stress inside the m* of the effective-medium for r > R. Similarly, hxi1 is taken equal

Fig. 1. Schematic diagrams for effective-medium models (R = a for EM-I, R = af1/3 for EM-II, R = a[(1  S(0))/f]1/3 for EM-IV).
 S. Koo / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 15 (2009) 45–49 47

(7). This requires R to be given by

R3 f ¼ ð1  Sð0ÞÞa3 (9)

where
Z
Sð0Þ ¼ ½Pðxj0Þ  PðxÞdV x (10)

The zero wavenumber structure factor S(0) for the hard-sphere

molecular systems is well approximated by the Carnahan–Starling
Fig. 2. Graphical representation of (6). approximation:
4
ð1  fÞ
to zero in the region a < r < R and equal to f in the effective- Sð0Þ ¼ 2 3 4
(11)
1 þ 4f þ 4f  4f þ f
medium.
Unlike EM-I and EM-II, it is possible to directly calculate the The choice of R in (9) can be also interpreted as consideration of the
conditional average of the indicator function. Acrivos and Chang volume exclusion effect due to the presence of the test particle at
[16] have calculated the effective conductivity of composite origin. In other words, the presence of test particle at origin
materials using an effective-medium model in which a represen- excludes the possibility of finding another particle centered at the
tative particle is surrounded by an effective-medium whose distance less than 2a from the origin and hence the particles are
properties such as density and viscosity are allowed to vary non-overlapping in the vicinity of the test particle.
continuously. We refer to this model as EM-III. The conditional For numerical calculations in the effective-medium models we
average of the indicator function is determined by solving Percus– make use of well-known Lamb’s general solution for Stokes flow
Yevick equation [17] for the radial distribution function for hard around a spherical particle with boundary conditions comprised of
spheres. For suspensions in which the pair probability density is continuities of the velocity and stress fields at the effective-
independent of the orientation of the pair, volume integral in (4) medium boundary and no-slip condition on the surface of the
can be reduced using geometrical consideration shown in Fig. 2 to particle at origin. And the velocity vanishes as r becomes very large.
integration over y: Details for Lamb’s solution are given in Mo and Sangani [7].
Z rþa Applying Lamb’s solution to the effective-medium models above,
hxi1 ðxj0Þ ¼ np g r ðyÞð2y  y2 =r  r þ a2 =rÞydy (6) the velocity fields, ur and uu, and stress fields, trr and tru, are given
ra
by
where n is the number density of spheres and gr is the radial  
distribution function for hard spheres. 1 s r2 r 2
ur ¼ P þ P  3 ’s þ ’r h (12)
Since the determination of hxi1 and solution of EM-III are r 10 r
somewhat cumbersome, we need to develop a simple effective-   qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
medium model. This model, to be referred to as EM-IV, is similar to 1 s r2 r 1
uu ¼ P þ P þ 3 ’s þ ’r ð 1  h2 Þ (13)
EM-II except the modification in defining the distance R. In EM-IV, 2r 5 r
m(r) is taken to equal the suspending fluid viscosity in the region  
a < r < R and equal to the effective viscosity m* of the suspension 3 s 3r r 12 s
t rr ¼ mðrÞ  P  P þ ’ h (14)
for r > R. Similarly, hxi1 is taken equal to zero in the exclusion r2 5 r4
region and equal to f in the effective-medium. This model was   qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
developed for determining the diffusivity of integral membrane 3r r 6
t ru ¼ mðrÞ P  4 ’s ð 1  h2 Þ (15)
proteins in a lipid bilayer by Dodd et al. [11]. The distance R is 10 r
chosen such that the behavior of the conditionally averaged
where Ps, Pr, ws and wr are the coefficients of spherical harmonics
velocity obtained from the effective-medium model agrees with its
and the superscripts s and r represent the singular and regular part,
rigorous behavior as r becomes very large. The latter is obtained by
respectively. And h = cos u and u is the spherical polar angle with
recognizing that the apparent force on the test particle at origin
respect to the coordinate systems centered at origin with x1-axis as
must balance the net force due to gravity. This apparent force
the polar axis. The above-mentioned boundary conditions are used
obtained by integrating (hsi1  hsi0)n on the surface of a sphere is
to determine the coefficients and hence the effective viscosity and
given by
Z the hindered settling velocity.
Fa p ¼ ðr p  r f Þg ½hxi1 ðxj0Þ  fdV x0 (7) Another calculation method is also available. Since the mean
flow is chosen such that the conditionally averaged velocity is
Here, n is the unit outward normal on the surface and hsi0 being axisymmetric around x1 axis, it is possible to use a stream function
the unconditional (ensemble) average of the stress. The integral in to simplify the equations of motion. The stream function can be
the above equation equals the volume of the particle multiplied by expressed as
the zero wavenumber structure factor S(0) so that the apparent c ¼ f n ðrÞQ n ðhÞ (16)
force on the particle is S(0) times the force on the particle in a very
dilute suspension. It is easy to show that the apparent force for the where Qn is the integral of the Legendre function. The function Qn is
effective-medium model with the distance R is given by given as Q2 = h(h2  1)/2 for the effective viscosity problem and
Q1 = (h2  1)/2 for the sedimentation problem (see, e.g., Leal [18]).
4p
Fa p ¼  g½ðr p  r f Þa3 þ ðr f  rs ÞR3  (8) The function f must be determined by numerical integration of the
3 equations of motion with the boundary conditions. Utilization of
where rs = rf + (rp  rf)f is the suspension density. In order that stream function is suitable for EM-III model which requires
the effective-medium model predicts correct behavior of con- integration of the radial distribution function. Details of this
ditionally averaged stress, and hence the velocity, the apparent calculation are given in Song and Koo [19] for an effective viscosity
force calculated from (8) must be the same as that calculated from problem.
48 S. Koo / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 15 (2009) 45–49
3. Results and discussions
The calculation of sedimentation velocity requires the informa-
tion of the effective viscosity of the suspensions. The effective-
medium models are used for the calculation of the effective
viscosity first. The results are presented in Fig. 3. The estimations
by EM-II, III and IV reconcile with each other and are in excellent
agreement with the rigorous calculations by Mo and Sangani [7].
Meanwhile, EM-I yields higher values of the effective viscosity
than the others and its predictions are aphysical beyond f of 0.4.
The difference among the EM model I, II, and IV is the definition of
the distance R where the effective-medium region begins from the
origin (r = 0). Fig. 4 shows the distance R for the effective-medium
as a function of the volume fraction f. As mentioned earlier, the
Fig. 3. Normalized effective viscosity m/m0 as a function of f.
Fig. 4. R versus f.
radius of test particle at origin is chosen as the distance R in EM-I.
This model does not seem to account for the multiparticle effects
properly. In EM-II and IV, R varies with f. The EM-II model assumes
that the particles are well separated and is further modified to EM-
IV which additionally takes the volume exclusion effect due to the
presence of the test particle at origin into account. And EM-III
model is conceptually closer to rigorous calculations since it is
based on direct calculation of the conditional average of the
indicator function instead of using relatively simple distinction of
the effective-medium region as in EM-I, II, and IV. However EM-III
requires somewhat cumbersome calculation for the integration of
radial distribution function. The predictions by EM-II, III and IV also
agree with the rigorous calculation results by Mo and Sangani [7]
and Ladd [6]. It seems that simple EM-II model is sufficiently
accurate for estimating the effective viscosity of the suspensions as
a function of particle volume fraction. However, this trend does not
hold for the case of sedimentation.
The calculation results for the sedimentation velocity of
suspensions with the information of the effective viscosity are
given in Fig. 5. It is shown that EM-II model under-predicts the
sedimentation velocity unlike the effective viscosity problem and
the estimations by EM-III and IV agree well with the rigorous
calculations by Mo and Sangani [7]. It is found that the volume
exclusion effect due to the presence of the test particle at origin
becomes significant in the sedimentation process. It means that
EM-IV model properly reflects the multiparticle interaction which
is largely dependent on the distribution of particles. Therefore it is
seen that EM-IV model is the most suitable for estimating the
sedimentation velocity.
Comparison is also made with previous empirical results. Fig. 6
compares the estimations by EM-IV and the rigorous calculations
with the experimental results by Cheung et al. [20] and Hoyos et al.
[21]. Cheung et al. [20] measured the sedimentation velocities of
polystyrene beads settling in a viscous fluid using NMRI (nuclear
magnetic resonance imaging) method. The particles were of three
mean diameters (274, 655, and 488 mm). The experiment was
separately performed for each size of the particles. The authors
collected the data for each size of the particles in Fig. 2 of their
paper. Hoyos et al. [21] also provided the experimental data for the
sedimentation velocity of glass beads of about 80 mm in diameter
Fig. 5. Normalized hindered settling velocity U/U0 as a function of f.
 S. Koo / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 15 (2009) 45–49
Fig. 6. Comparison with the experimental results [20,21].
in a viscous fluid using an acoustic technique. Their results for the
monodisperse suspensions were given in ‘Fig. 5’ in their paper.
These two sets of the experimental data correspond to the case of
non-colloidal monodisperse suspensions. As shown in Fig. 6, these
experimental results are in good agreement with the predictions
by EM-IV model. The experimental results yield slightly higher
values for the sedimentation velocity at high f. This can happen
because it is more likely to form clusters as f increases. However, it
seems that the gap between the experimental results and the
theoretical predictions is not significant. Conclusively theoretical
predictions of the sedimentation velocity by EM-IV model agree
very well with the experimental observations as well as rigorous
calculation results.
Empirical correlations are well represented in the form of
Richardson and Zaki’s correlation [22]:
U n
¼ ð1  fÞ
U0
The exponent n is reported to be between 4.65 and 5.1 [23]. Since n
varies with each set of the experiment and the expression for the
monodisperse suspensions is also used for further studies, it is
needed to determine n on the theoretical basis. Hence we may need
to express the estimations by EM-IV model in the Richardson and
Zaki’s form. Fig. 6 shows the fit in Richardson and Zaki form with
the exponent n = 5.5. It is clearly seen that this fit is in excellent
agreement with the predictions by EM-IV. Finally we see that the
49
hindered settling velocity of monodisperse suspensions is given by
U 5:5
¼ ð1  fÞ (18)
U0
4. Summary
A variety of effective-medium models have been developed and
utilized for estimating the transport properties in many multi-
phase systems. Among these, the present study employs four
effective-medium models (EM-I, II, III, IV) for predicting hindered
settling velocity of particles through a viscous fluid. These models
vary with the choice for the effective-medium region. As a simple
approximation, EM-I model considers whole space except the test
particle at origin as the effective-medium. And EM-II models takes
the region beyond the distance R = af1/3 from the origin. Here the
test particle at origin is surrounded by a clear fluid up to the
distance R keeping the concentration of the test particle within the
region less than R same as that for overall suspension. EM-III model
is based on the direct calculation of radial distribution function,
which requires complicated calculations. In EM-IV model, the
volume exclusion effect due to the presence of the test particle at
origin is considered. These four models are used for the calculation
of the effective viscosity of the suspension first, and then the
sedimentation velocity. It is found that EM-IV model is the most
suitable for predicting both the effective viscosity and the
sedimentation velocity in the aspects of simplicity and accuracy.
The estimations by EM-IV model also are in good agreement with
rigorous calculations and experimental results for the sedimenta-
tion velocity. Finally the hindered settling velocity of the
suspension is, in Richardson–Zaki form, given by U/U0 = (1  f)5.5.
References
[1] G.K. Batchelor, J. Fluid Mech. 52 (1972) 245.
[2] (a) A.B. Glendinning, W.B. Russel, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 89 (1982) 124;
(b) S.H. Yoon, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 13 (2007) 345.
[3] (a) R.H. Davis, A. Acrivos, Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 17 (1985) 91;
(b) S.H. Yoon, X.S. Chai, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 13 (2007) 237.
[4] (a) J.F. Brady, L. Durlofsky, Phys. Fluids 31 (1988) 717;
(b) X.S. Chai, S.H. Yoon, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 13 (2007) 244.
[5] (a) J.F. Brady, G. Bossis, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 20 (1988) 111;
(b) I. Bica, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 13 (2007) 299.
[6] A.C. Ladd, J. Chem. Phys. 93 (1990) 3484.
[7] G. Mo, A.S. Sangani, Phys. Fluids 6 (1994) 1637.
[8] B.U. Felderhof, Physica A 348 (2005) 16.
[9] H.-Q. Nguyen, A.J.C. Ladd, J. Fluid Mech. 525 (2005) 73.
[10] M.S. Chun, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 11 (2005) 368.
[11] T.L. Dodd, D.A. Hammer, A.S. Sangani, D.L. Koch, J. Fluid Mech. 293 (1995) 147.
[12] A.S. Sangani, G. Mo, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 45 (1997) 2001.
(17)
[13] S. Koo, A.S. Sangani, J. Fluid Mech. 484 (2003) 255.
[14] R. Hill, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 13 (1965) 213.
[15] Z. Hashin, J. Appl. Mech. 50 (1983) 481.
[16] A. Acrivos, E.Y. Chang, Phys. Fluids 29 (1986) 3.
[17] J.K. Percus, G.J. Yevick, Phys. Rev. 110 (1958) 1.
[18] L.G. Leal, Laminar Flow and Convective Transport Processes: Scaling Principles
and Asymptotic Analysis, Butterworth–Heinemann, Boston, 1992.
[19] K.H. Song, S. Koo, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 12 (2006) 368.
[20] M.K. Cheung, R.L. Powell, M.J. McCarthy, AIChE J. 42 (1996) 271.
[21] M. Hoyos, J.C. Bacri, J. Martin, D. Salin, Phys. Fluids 6 (1994) 3809.
[22] J.F. Richadson, W.N. Zaki, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 32 (1954) 35.
[23] E. Barnea, J. Mizrahi, Chem. Eng. J. 5 (1973) 171.