Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004) 2521 – 2534

www.elsevier.com/locate/ces

Floc rupture and turbulence: a framework for analysis

D.H. Bache∗
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G4 ONG, UK
Received 17 March 2003; received in revised form 25 November 2003; accepted 28 January 2004

Abstract

The paper focuses on the physical character of 3ocs. This is developed through analysis of the impact of hydrodynamic stress on 3oc
size. Theory is developed on the basis of an energy criterion which balances the turbulent kinetic energy against the energy expenditure
associated with rupture. For turbulence, the kinetic energy per unit volume is moulded by the velocity scale (
)1=4 and the d= ratio in
which
, ,  refer to the kinematic viscosity, the rate of energy dissipation per unit mass and the Kolmogorov length, respectively. The
distance scale, d, is equivalent to the maximum 3oc size. In its most rudimentary form, 3oc structure is based on the model S ˙ k’=d3
in which k is the number of bonds broken and ’ the potential energy expenditure per bond broken. With appropriate development, this
transforms to S = S0 (d=d0 )D−3 in which d0 is the primary particle size, D the fractal dimension, and S0 is a scaling factor controlling
the mechanical strength. From the energy criterion, analytical expressions are derived for d in the form d =
−m=2 in which
and m
are constants. Beside the proposal of models for S, a valuable advance is the development of rupture theory for the whole domain of
d=. Theory is examined using a number of published data sets in which there exists knowledge of parameters
, m and D. The paper
demonstrates how the model can be used as an analytical tool for dissecting the factors which control S0 . The theory establishes a
framework which can be developed further, and applies to 3ows containing fractal aggregates in both industry and the natural environment.
? 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Aggregates; Fractal; Hydrodynamics; Model; Strength; Turbulence

1. Introduction in which B is the volume average value of , the rate of

The size and strength of 3ocs represent facets of char-
acter which can in3uence the e?ciency of solid–liquid
separation processes. Aggregate sizes can stretch from
molecular dimensions to a few mm. The smallest sizes
are associated with the primary particles of diameter, d0 ,
whereas the largest sizes (dmax ) are determined by the bal-
ance of 3oc growth and rupture within the 3uid regime. In
@xed volume stirred reactors, many studies have demon-
strated that the upper cut-oA size (dmax ) complies with the
empirical dependence
dmax = CG −m ;
in which G is the velocity gradient and C and m (¿ 0) are
constants. Here, the velocity gradient is de@ned by

1=2
B
G= ; (2)


∗ Tel.: +44-141-548-3351; fax: +44-141-553-2066.
E-mail address: d.bache@strath.ac.uk (D.H. Bache).
energy dissipation per unit mass and
, the kinematic vis-
cosity. Various attempts have been made to de@ne C and m
through theory, the study by Parker et al. (1972) represent-
ing a good example. Parameter C is recognized as scaling
the strength, whereas parameter m scales the response to
turbulence. Early studies dealing with strength factors, e.g.,
Michaels and Bolger (1962) focussed on the rheological
properties of 3occulated suspensions—the 3oc properties
representing just one feature of a larger dynamic. Such mod-
els examined the rupture process in energy terms. Perhaps
the most sophisticated model of this type is that described
in van de Ven and Hunter (1977). A major disadvantage of
(1)
these studies, and indeed in others based on the concepts of
Rumpf (1962), is that they fail to recognize the fractal na-
ture of 3ocs—wherein the mass contained within the 3oc
(M ) is scaled by its size (say diameter d) in accord with
M ˙ dD ; (3)
in which D is the fractal dimension. The fractal charac-
ter is implicit in the size-density distribution—observations
showing that the eAective density (e ) generally complies

0009-2509/$ - see front matter ? 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ces.2004.01.055
2522 D.H. Bache / Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004) 2521 – 2534
the relationship
e = Ad−n ; (4)
in which e = f − w , the terms f and w referring to the
3oc density and density of water, respectively. Parameter A
is a coe?cient re3ecting the packing of the solids, and n a
coe?cient dependent on the fractal dimension.
n = 3 − D: (5)
Parameter D lies in the range 1–3, D = 1 being symptomatic
of solids formed in a chain or necklace structure, whereas
D = 3 depicts 3ocs of uniform density—a condition which
might approached in pelletization.
Tambo and Hozumi (1979) postulated that the strength of
a 3oc was tied to the net solids area at the plane of rupture—
the net solids area being estimated from the 3oc density. The
value of this approach lies not so much in the speci@cation
of the solids area at the plane of rupture, but rather in the
association between 3oc density and 3oc strength. As such,
it recognizes the fractal character of 3ocs.
An entirely diAerent mode of analysis was pursued in
Sonntag and Russel (1987a). They developed a theory of
rupture based on solid mechanics to describe the deforma-
tion and fragmentation of a porous 3oc treated as a fractal
object. The most important concept (insofar as this paper
is concerned) was the suggestion that the elastic properties
(shear and bulk modulus) might comply with a scaling of
the form
 =  0 r ; (6)
in which  refers to a strength modulus (units, Pa) with 0 as
a scaling parameter. Parameter  is the solids volume con-
centration within the 3oc and r, a coe?cient. In Sonntag and
Russel’s model, rupture was conceived as being associated
with stresses induced by 3uid movement in the outer layers
of the 3oc. Outer layers were regarded as being weaker than
the 3oc interior by virtue of possessing a lower local solids
concentration. Under conditions of external shear, the outer
layers ‘peel oA’ when a critical condition is exceeded, thus
reducing the overall size. In reality, 3ocs formed by random
collisions might be described as being ‘spatially clumpy’ i.e.
are not radially homogeneous (see Bache et al., 2000). In
turbulent 3ows, their mode of breakage is often associated
with large-scale deformations (see Hinze, 1955) as distinct
from the model described in Sonntag and Russel (1987a).
Further, 3ocs do not necessarily behave as permeable struc-
tures.
In turbulent 3ows, the nature of the forces acting on a 3oc
depends on its size relative to the Kolmogorov length scale,
the latter being de@ned by

3 1=4


= : (7)

In Eq. (7), the angular brackets denote the ensemble average
value of  at a location or within a sector in which 
has reasonable spatial uniformity. The Kolmogorov length
de@nes the smallest length scale of turbulent motion and is
location dependent. Drawing on the work of Kolmogorov
(1941), Levich (1962) described a framework for specifying
rupture at extremes which were implicit in the Kolmogorov
theory, i.e. d   and d  . When d  , inertial forces
associated with turbulent motion give rise to pressure diAer-
ences or normal forces across the 3oc whereas when d  
the force regime is dominated by viscous shear stresses. Data
shown in Table 1 focuses on the types of 3oc encountered
in the treatment of raw waters and it is evident that break-
age often occurs between the extremes described above.
Strict comparisons between studies are not straightforward
because dmax and  are speci@ed in diAerent ways. Apart
from speculative suggestions in Tomi and Bagster (1978),
Matsuo and Unno (1981) and Bache et al. (1999b), there
does not appear to have been any substantial development
of theory to cover breakage in the domain d ∼ .
The domain d= → 1 indicates that inertial and viscous
forces are of similar magnitude, implying that it becomes
di?cult to distinguish between them. The same problem ap-
plies to the mechanical properties of the solids, because the
tensile and shear properties (though connected) represent
diAerent facets of strength. A means of circumventing con-
ceptual di?culties of this type is to move away from the
force picture and to view the breakage process in energy
terms. Breakage involves the expenditure of work during
fragmentation, the description by van de Ven and Hunter
(1977) providing valuable insight into the factors involved.
Rupture can only take place if there is su?cient ‘locally
available’ kinetic energy to overcome the ‘energy barrier’
associated with binding.
The Kolmogorov description of the @ne structure of tur-
bulence (examined in Section 2) allows one to specify the
kinetic energy existing at diAerent length scales. For exam-
ple at the length scale or spacing, d, corresponding to the
3oc size, the term vd2 scales the turbulent kinetic energy per
unit mass and is regarded as ‘locally available’ kinetic en-
ergy. A model of the energy expenditure within the 3oc was
proposed in Bache et al. (1999b). In this formulation, it was
envisaged that a number of bonds (k) were stretched and
broken. To simplify the analysis, it was assumed that ’ units
of energy [irrespective of their origin] were associated with
each bond during the rupture process; thus the product k’
was regarded as a measure of the amount of potential energy
to be overcome. With these concepts, Bache et al. (1999b)
proposed a rupture criterion based on an energy balance of
the form
1 6k’
w vd2 ∼ : (8)
2 d3
The left-hand side of criterion (8) speci@es the locally avail-
able kinetic energy per unit volume. On the right-hand side,
the term d3 =6 refers to a 3oc volume, i.e., the domain within
which the energy expenditure (k’) takes place. It is empha-
sized that the criterion is speci@c to a particular size domain
 D.H. Bache / Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004) 2521 – 2534 2523

Table 1
Selected data sets and base data

Code Identi@ers Floc aid A D

a m=2
 (J) d=


TH set
ALT ratio
TH(a) 0.02 3.32 1.93 1.91E-05 0.33 (0.37–5) E-04 1.1–1.3
TH(b) 0.02 Polymer 3.32 1.93 9.92E-05 0.31 (1.2–8.4) E-04 4.7–5.2
TH(c) 0.1 10.4 1.60 1.91E-05 0.33 (0.37–27) E-04 1.1–1.3
TH(d) 0.03 [Silica] 4.57 1.85 2.78E-05 0.33 (0.37–224) E-04 1.4–2.1

BRMJ set
Water treatment works
N Neilston 2.15E+06 1.17 6.93E-05 0.31 (4.3–700) E-05 2.6–3.9
P Picketlaw 6.80E+05 1.21 8.75E-05 0.26 (4.3–700) E-05 2.8–3.1
S Southmoorhouse 5.85E+06 1.07 6.73E-05 0.29 ” 2.4–3.1
G Garshake 3.38E+06 1.10 2.42E-05 0.32 ” 0.9–1.5
O Overton Polymer 6.57E+06 1.14 9.59E-05 0.32 ” 3.7–6.3
M Muirdykes Polymer 2.23E+07 1.00 2.41E-04 0.22 ” 5.6–7.0
C Camphill Polymer 2.83E+06 1.18 4.81E-04 0.21 ” 9.5–13.3
B Burncrooks Polymer 2.17E+06 1.23 8.65E-05 0.38 ” 4.0–10.5
W Wybersley [High Ca] 7.47E+06 1.06 3.24E-05 0.40 ” 1.6–5.1
H Huntington Polymer 3.33E+06 1.15 1.06E-04 0.29 ” 3.8–5.1

BRMM set
Al-HA 4.17E+05 1.24 6.37E-05 0.22 (2.5–52.9) E-03 1.7–1.8

SR set
SR 0.218 2.48 2.13E-05 0.176 27–313 0.17–0.2
a Dimensions of
are consistent with Eq. (38) with d and  in SI units.

and therefore applies to the turbulent motions (eddies) on
this scale. It recognizes that the rupture process is governed
by eddies of similar size to the agglomerate (see Parker
et al., 1972). Larger eddy motions lead to advection, whereas
smaller eddies ‘nibble away’ at the surface—perhaps caus-
ing local erosion. The dimensions of criterion (8) are equiv-
alent to units of pressure. However, it is more appropriate to
interpret the criterion in energy terms, i.e., energy per unit
volume. Besides representing a rupture criterion, it will be
shown that it provides a convenient platform for describing
the behaviour of 3ocs in the domain d ∼ .
In this paper, the intention is to provide a framework for
specifying 3oc strength and their response to turbulence.
This involves @ve steps: to provide a description of the @ne
structure of turbulence; to develop a model of 3oc structure;
to bring these together using the energy criterion; to test the
e?cacy of the model and, to illustrate the use of the model
for analysing data.
that their statistics, e.g. (Su)2  must be universal, provided
these motions are de@ned in terms of relative velocity. The
statistics of the relative velocity are de@ned by structure
functions (see Herweijer, 1995)
Gp (l) = Su(l)p  = (u(x + l) − u(x))p ; (9)
where p represents the order of the structure function.
Kolmogorov’s @rst similarity hypothesis states that the rel-
ative velocity distributions are uniquely determined by

and  provided that the distance scale l is small compared
with the macroscale. Under these conditions, the structure
function must be of the form


p 
Gp (l) = vK !p (10)
l
in which !p (=l) is a universal function and vK is the
Kolmogorov velocity scale de@ned by

vK = (
)1=4 : (11)

The foregoing discussion will be con@ned to the second-

2. Turbulence description
Referring to criterion (8), an immediate task is to de@ne
vd2 , this being a property of the @ne structure of turbulence.
Kolmogorov hypothesized that the small-scale motions of
turbulence (de@ned by the velocity diAerence Su(l) over
the distance l) were uncorrelated with the large scale and
order structure function (p = 2), with the kinetic energy per
unit mass determined by the correspondence
vd2 ≡ Su(d)2 : (12)
In the domain l  , Kolmogorov’s second similarity cri-
terion requires that structure functions are determined by 
2524 D.H. Bache / Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004) 2521 – 2534

and l alone, i.e. 12

G2 (l) = C2 [l]2=3 : (13)

10 Eq. (18)
This can only be true if the universal function is de@ned by Eq. (15)

2=3
l 8 Eq. (17)
!2 = C 2 ; (14)

where C2 is a universal constant. Estimates of C2 show it to

β2
6
be in the range 1.0–2.0. In the domain l  , the universal
function has the form
4

2
 l
!2 = C2 (15)
 2
in which C2 is a universal constant (=1=15). This has the
implication that the corresponding structure function is de- 0
@ned by 0 5 10 15
 2 d/η
G2 (l) = C2 l: (16)


Fig. 1. Comparison of models of universal function !2 (d=).
From this brief resume, it is seen that G2 (l) is known at
the extremes of viscous and inertia dominated motion and
the quest is to identify a transition function for the interven- At x = 0, Eq. (20) shows q = 2, i.e. !2 ˙ (l=)2 as in
ing domain. This aspect has been tackled in diAerent ways Eq. (15). At l= = 1, q = 1:99 and at l= = 6:3 (the point of
by G.K. Batchelor. In Batchelor (1947), it was argued that in3ection), q = 1:6. Generally, Eq. (17) holds to within 5%
!2 (l=) must be an even function and could be represented of Eq. (15) for the range 0 ¡ l= ¡ 3:5, the former being
by a series approximation of the form regarded as a satisfactory approximation for practical pur-
poses within the stated range. Thus vd2 is de@ned by
l2 l4
!2 = a + b (17) 1 d2 d
2 4 vd2 ≈ (
)1=2 for the range 0 ¡ ¡ 3:5: (22)
15 2 
in which a ≡ C2 (=1=15) and b = −2:8 × 10−4 . Batche-
When using Eq. (18) to represent the universal function,
lor stated that the approximation shown by Eq. (17) holds
analysis leads to the following de@nitions of Q and q, i.e.
‘at least as far as the point of zero curvature’, this occurring
at l= = 6:3. d(ln !2 ) 4'x2
q= ≡2− with ' = (15C2 )−3=2
In a theoretical study on pressure variations in isotropic d(ln x) 3(1 + 'x2 )
turbulence, Batchelor (1951) employed the empirical ex- (23)
pression:
and
x2 =15 1 x2−q
!2 (x) = (18) Q= : (24)
[1 + (15C2 )−3=2 x2 ]2=3 15 (1 + 'x2 )2=3
to represent !2 , in which x = l= and C2 = 2:0. In contrast While the aspects described above form are extremely use-
to Eq. (17), Eq. (18) has no validity beyond behaving ap- ful for developing rupture theory, they represent just one
propriately at the limits x  1 and  1. Fig. 1 illustrates facet of the @ne structure of turbulence. For insight into
Eqs. (15), (17) and (18). In subsequent analysis, it is ad- other factors which are likely to aAect rupture, it is useful to
vantageous to represent the universal function in the form consider some of the associated turbulent structures. Turbu-
of a power law, i.e. lence is often envisaged as a hierarchy of irregular motions
containing vorticity on diAerent scales or eddy size. Fluid
!2 (x) = Qxq (19) elements are subject to continuous deformation, whereby
with Q(x) and q(x) as @tting coe?cients. In the case of any small spherical element is ultimately drawn into a thin
Eq. (17), parameters q and Q are de@ned by ribbon. Such deformation causes vortex stretching, a mech-
 anism which leads to the transfer of turbulent kinetic en-
d(ln !2 ) d(ln !2 ) d(ln x) 2a + 4bx2 ergy from larger to smaller eddies. Turbulence is also recog-
q= = = (20)
d(ln x) dx dx a + bx2 nized as being inhomogeneous, i.e. not uniformly distributed
and in space. In some regions of space the 3ow is rotational,
i.e. containing vorticity, whereas in other regions the 3uid
Q = ax2−q + bx4−q : (21) motion is irrotational. Within vortices, the turbulence can be
 D.H. Bache / Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004) 2521 – 2534 2525

very intense, with locally high values of energy dissipation through the relationship
and turbulence kinetic energy. It is necessary to recognize e
c= : (28)
that at any point in space,  changes with time and has a 1 − (w =s )
range of values re3ecting the non-uniformities.
For progress, it is useful to rede@ne Eq. (4) in the form
Although the Kolmogorov length is indicative of the scale
−n
at which the viscous dissipation of turbulent energy becomes d
e = A (s − w ) (29)
signi@cant, it must be recognized that viscous dissipation d0
coexists with vortex structures on a larger scale. Tennekes with
and Lumley (1994, p. 72) argued that the length scale (()
of the associated vortex motion must be proportional to . A = A (s − w )dn0 : (30)
Baldyga and Bourne (1984) estimated the value as (=12.
With these inclusions, Eq. (27) transforms to the well-known
The signi@cance of this particular size (or thereabout) is that
identity
the vorticity of eddies larger than 12 is increased by the
D
straining action and energy transfer from still larger eddies, d
n0 = A  (31)
whereas the vorticity of eddies smaller than 12 is pro- d0
gressively reduced by viscosity and the eddy will cease to
in which A is a packing coe?cient. From this base,
exist. Baldyga and Bourne (1984) suggested that eddies of
Eq. (25) can be written in the form
12–15  may be regarded as the smallest stable vortex size
D−3
and form an integral part of the @ne dissipating structure. d
S = S0 ; (32)
They also considered that this class of eddies plays a criti- d0
cal role in micromixing. This is because during stretching, where
the vortex volume increases as a result of sucking in sur-
rounding 3uid (a process termed as ‘engulfment’ in Baldyga 6!’A
S0 = : (33)
and Bourne, 1995). It is inevitable that 3ocs (often smaller d30
than 12  according to Table 1) will get transported into This represents a particular case (i.e. r = 1) of Eq. (6) in
the vortices by this process. Once there, they are subject which 0 ≡ S0 =A , the solids concentration being de@ned by
to stretching at a rate controlled by the factor (=
)1=2 .
D−3
They will also be under the in3uence of the kinetic energy n0 d 3 d
 = 3 0 = A : (34)
within the spinning vortex. Fluid accelerations and the asso- d d0
ciated dynamic forces are at their most intense in the domain In later analysis, use will be made of the model
d ∼  (see Levich, 1962).
r(D−3)
d
S = S0 (35)
d0
3. Structural model as a mean of representing the right-hand side of criterion
(8). The origins of Eq. (35) are described in Sonntag and
Here, the task is to de@ne the right-hand side of criterion Russel (1987a) and re3ect the general case  ˙ r (see
(8) which is represented by Eq. (6)). Within Eq. (35), S0 is regarded as a self-de@ned
6k’ scaling factor. Here it is emphasized that when r = 1; S0
S= : (25) is not de@ned by Eq. (33). Generally, it is di?cult to argue
d3
the form of Eq. (35) from the assumptions which underpin
This can be achieved in various ways. To permit compar-
Eq. (25).
isons with experimental data, a slightly circuitous route is
described. In Bache et al. (1999b) it was assumed that the
number of bonds broken was scaled by the number of par- 4. Interaction with turbulence
ticles within the 3oc (n0 ), i.e.
k = !n0 (26) 4.1. General model

with ! as a coe?cient of proportionality. If the 3oc is formed The interaction of a 3oc with locally de@ned turbulence
from primary particles of diameter d0 , and density s then rests on the interpretation of criterion (8). In accord with
a mass balance shows that n0 is de@ned by the framework described above, the most general case is
c d3 represented by the condition
n0 = (27)
q
r(D−3)
s d30 1 1=2 d  d
w (
) Q ∼ S0 : (36)
in which c is the volume average solids mass concentration 2  d0
within the 3oc. From a material balance within a 3oc, it In criterion (36), Eq. (19) has been used to de@ne !2 on
may be shown that c is linked to the eAective 3oc density the left-hand side of criterion (8) and Eq. (35) is employed
2526 D.H. Bache / Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004) 2521 – 2534
to de@ne the right-hand side. When cast in this form, the
criterion can be used throughout the entire range of d=
provided parameters Q and q are locally de@ned. When the
range of d= is not too large (e.g. as in @nal column of
Table 1) q and Q may be treated as quasi-constants within
the range because q and Q are only slowly varying func-
tions of d=. In the range 0 ¡ d= ¡ 3:5, Q = 1=15 and
q = 2. In the lower range 0 ¡ d= 6 6:3 parameters q and
Q are de@ned by Eqs. (20) and (21), respectively. In the
upper range, say d= ¿ 6:3 parameters q and Q may be
estimated using Eqs. (23) and (24), respectively. Strict in-
terpretation of (36) requires that it should be retained in the
form of a criterion based on the relative magnitudes of the
left- and right-hand sides. However for convenience of ex-
pression (rather than physical signi@cance), the symbol ‘∼’
is dropped and is treated as an equality. After manipulation
(36) transforms to
 1=(q+r(3−D))
d 2S0
3q=4−1=2
= : (37)
d0 Qw dq0 q=4+1=2
This behaves in the form
d=
m=2
with
 1=(q+r(3−D))
2S0
3q=4−1=2 dr(3−D)
0
= (39)
Qw
and
1 (2 + q)
m= : (40)
2 [q + r(3 − D)]
Parameter m stems from Eq. (1) and recognizes that  ˙ B
within mixing vessels (see Shinnar, 1961). It is of interest
to note that when r = 1 and D = 1; m = 0:5 for all q, i.e.
whatever the value of d=. The link between Eqs. (1) and
(38) can be obtained by de@ning
 = f;B
where f denotes a proportionality coe?cient dependent on
(column 5) was based on Eq. (42) using
the location within a mixing vessel and leads to
= Cfm=2
m=2 :
The value Eq. (39) is that if either Eq. (1) or Eq. (38) are
used as a mean of @tting data, parameter S0 can be evaluated
provided there is knowledge of the remaining parameters.
4.2. Viscous range 0 6 d= 6 3:5
and m
With the appropriate substitutions Eq. (37) is equivalent
to

1=(2+r(3−D))
d 30S0

= (43)
d0 w d20 
and

(r(3−D)−2)=(r(3−D)+2)
1=(2+r(3−D))
d d0 30S0 d20
= :
  w
2
(44)
Eq. (44) shows that the relationship between d and  is
non-linear except at the limiting condition r(3−D)=2. From
Eq. (40) it is evident that m lies in the range 0 6 m 6 1
when d= 6 3:5.
4.3. Inertial range d= ¿ 35
Here, the universal function (!2 ) corresponds to Eq. (14)
with q = 2=3 and Q ≡ C2 . This leads to
 3=(2+3r(3−D))
d 2S0
= : (45)
d0 C2 w d02=3 2=3
Eq. (40) indicates that m lies in the range 0 6 m 6 2.
5. Comparison with data
(38)
Here, the task is to both probe the e?cacy of the theory
and also use it for rationalizing data. Initial attention will
focus on Eq. (40) which provides a means of estimating
parameters m and r.
5.1. Foundation data
While there have been a multitude of studies in which m
has been measured, and others in which the fractal dimen-
sion has been determined, there are relatively few studies in
which both m and D have been assessed for the same suspen-
sion. Table 1 provides a summary of such information for
cases of 3oc rupture in turbulent 3ow. Information is drawn
from: Tambo and Hozumi (1979) (‘TH’ set); Bache et al.
(2000) (‘BRMJ’ set) and Bache et al. (1999b) (‘BRMM’
(41) set). Table 1 also includes data from Sonntag and Russel
(1987a) (‘SR’ set) which was obtained in laminar 3ow con-
ditions. Parameter
cited C values, the evaluation of f being detailed in Section
(42) 5.2. Apart from the SR set, coe?cient A was calculated us-
ing Eq. (30) with parameters A and D obtained from settling
velocity data. The speci@cation of s and d0 in the remain-
ing sets is complicated by the fact that the 3oc solids are
formed from a mixture of materials gained from the original
suspension and also from the coagulant. In nearly all cases,
the coagulant was aluminium sulphate. Parameters
were gained via Eq. (38), the d= values specifying the
associated range of conditions. These depend on the speci@-
cation of  which will be discussed for the individual sets.
The TH set refers to a clay suspension coagulated with
alum. For this type of 3oc, the clays represent the largest
component of the solids mass (indicated by the ALT ratio
 D.H. Bache / Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004) 2521 – 2534
where ALT = aluminium ion concentration/suspended par-
ticle concentration). In this type of suspension, strength is
likely to stem from the bonding between the clays (see Bache
et al., 1999a). For both reasons, the clay particles represent
the critical solids component in terms of parameter de@ni-
tion. Tambo and Watanabe (1979) cite s = 2650 kg=m3 ,
d0 =3:5 m for an equivalent suspension. No particular def-
inition was attached to dmax .
The BRMJ set refers to 3ocs sampled from the 3occulators
of a series of water works receiving low-turbidity coloured
waters. Water quality and coagulation data are summarized
in Bache et al. (2000). Most of the waters were coagulated
with aluminium sulphate. For alumino-humic 3ocs, data in
Hossain and Bache (1991) suggests the solids concentration
(a mixture of humic material and coagulation products)
was adequately represented by s = 2000 kg=m3 . Amor-
phous aluminium hydroxide accounts for the largest number
of particles within the 3oc (Bache and Papavasilopoulos,
2003) and these are regarded as the critical particles. Ac-
cording to Hsu and Bates (1964) the amorphous hydroxide
has particle sizes in the range 5–25 nm. de Hek et al.
(1978) made use of the value 300 m2 =g as a rough esti-
mate of the speci@c area of the precipitate, though other
estimates (see Masschelein, 1992) show that it may be
less. With a density of 2500 kg=m3 , this translates to an
equivalent spherical particle of diameter 8 nm. This size
is consistent with the @ndings of Hsu and Bates and is se-
lected to represent d0 for the alumino-humic 3ocs. In the
case of ferric hydroxide precipitate (applying to Wybers-
ley) the literature suggests that its foundation particle size
and speci@c surface area is fairly similar to the aluminium
hydroxide (see Cornelissen et al., 1997; Masschelein,
1992). In the absence of more speci@c information, d0 and
s were set at the same values as in alumino-humic 3ocs.
The HA set refers to a humic acid suspension coagulated
with aluminium sulphate. This is treated as identical to the
BRJM set with respect to the speci@cation of s and d0 . In
these sets dmax was set as the 95 percentile in the volume
size distribution.
The SR set refers to polystyrene lattices of 0:14 m di-
ameter suspended in a glycerol solution in which the ionic
strength was altered using sodium chloride to induce coag-
ulation. The evaluation D and A was gained a small-angle
light scattering technique which provided information on the
n0 -size dependence which was @tted by a function equiva-
lent to Eq. (31).
5.2. Speci2cation of 
The framework outlined above demands knowledge of 
at the location of rupture. The fundamental di?culty is that
 varies with time and space due to the creation, decay and
transport of turbulence.
Data associated with the TH and BRMJ sets were obtained
from mixers stirred by rotating blades (of diAering design).
2527
In such vessels the = B ratio can be high (e.g. ∼ 10) very
close to the impellor and low (e.g. ∼ 0:2) elsewhere (see
Okamoto et al., 1981). Generally, the spatial distribution of
= B is fairly complex in such mixers, higher ratios being
associated with the vortex stream shed from the impellor.
Analysis in Tambo and Hozumi (1979) indicated that the
eAective value of  (in terms of the observed maximum
3oc size) was that associated with the 3occulation zone of
a mixer, i.e. where = B was low (f ¡ 1). For the mixer,
used in their studies, they estimated that the eAective of 
was speci@ed by f ≈ 0:15.
Data associated with the BRMJ set was obtained using a
standard 2L (115 × 115 × 150 mm) square ‘jar test’ beaker
with a 76 × 25 mm 3at blade impeller, as described by
Hudsen and Wagner (1981). The spatial distribution of 
for this system was reported in Stanley and Smith (1995).
Their data showed evidence of the spatial distribution of 
being relatively insensitive to the stirring speed—a feature
which was consistent with the @ndings of Okamoto et al.
(1981). Given this information, a simple approach for es-
timating  is to adopt the two-zone model described in
Okamoto et al. (1981); this considered that  is locally
homogeneous within an inner zone of volume Vi (around
the stirrer) in which  ≡ i and is also homogeneous in
an outer zone of volume Vo in which  ≡ 0 . An energy
balance within the vessel takes the form
w Vi i + w Vo 0 = w V B (46)
with
Vi + Vo = V; (47)
where which V the total volume of the 3uid. By carrying
out analysis of data shown in Figs. 10 and 11 of Stanley
and Smith (1995), the following estimates were obtained:
i = B ≈ 4:5, 0 = B ≈ 0:5 and Vi =V ≈ 1=8. Using similar logic
to that applied in the TH set, the eAective value of  for
the BRMJ set was based on the identity  = 0 , i.e. f = 0:5.
Data associated with the BRMM set were obtained us-
ing an oscillatory multigrid mixer whose turbulent charac-
ter is described in Bache and Rasool (2001). In this mixer
the turbulence is fairly homogeneous in terms of its spatial
distribution. On this basis  ≈ , B i.e. f ≈ 1.
Flocs in the SR set were subjected to a uniform shear @eld
within a Couette device with the shear rate ranging from
1750 to 6000 s−1 . With the shear rate interpreted as G; 
was calculated using Eq. (2) with
≈ 8:7 × 10−6 m2 =s
(corresponding to a glycerol solution of dynamic viscosity
0:01 Ns=m2 and 3uid density 1150 kg=m3 ).
5.3. Speci2cation of m and S0
The evaluation of m via Eq. (40) requires knowledge of q
and D. Table 1 shows the range of d= associated with the
rupture data. With this information, q was calculated using
either Eq. (20) or (23) with d= at the mid-point of the
cited range. This leads to the data shown in column 4 of
2528 D.H. Bache / Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004) 2521 – 2534

Table 2
Deduced parameters corresponding to data shown in Table 1. Data in columns 6 and 7 de@ne the inter-quartile range

Code q m=2 m=2 r S0 !’ 

(measured) (theory) (J=m3 ) (J)

Aluminium–clay (no polymer)

TH(a) 1.99 0.33 0.33 1.01 0.08–0.10 (0.5–0.7) E-18 0.015–0.037
TH(c) 1.99 0.33 0.29 0.77 0.46–0.54 (1.0–1.2) E-18 0.008–0.018
TH(d) 1.97 0.33 0.32 0.86 0.39–0.49 (1.9–2.4) E-18 0.008–0.043

Aluminium–clay (with polymer)

TH(b) 1.77 0.31 0.33 1.23 6.2–8.1 (42–55) E-18 0.005–0.009

Alumino-humic (no polymer)

N 1.91 0.31 0.26 0.71 (4.3–11.0) E+06 (5.3–13.8) E-25 0.0007–0.016
P 1.92 0.26 0.26 1.03 (2.5–6.5) E+06 (9.8–39.0) E-25 0.0003–0.007
S 1.94 0.29 0.25 0.79 (2.9–11.9) E+06 (1.3–5.4) E-25 0.0014–0.014
G 1.99 0.32 0.25 0.62 (0.3–1.1) E+06 (0.2–0.8) E-25 0.002–0.033
W 1.90 0.40 0.25 0.26 (6.5–51.4) E+06 (2.3–18.5) E-25 0.0005–0.021

Al-HA 1.97 0.22 0.27 1.44 (0.3–0.8) E+06 (1.7–5.3) E-25 0.003–0.044

Alumino-humic (with polymer)

O 1.77 0.32 0.26 0.63 (2.0–7.0) E+07 (8.7–28) E-25 0.0007–0.056
M 1.60 0.22 0.25 1.25 (56–106) E+07 (68–128) E-25 0.0004–0.007
C 1.41 0.21 0.26 1.51 (43–91) E+07 (405–861) E-25 0.0002–0.004
B 1.68 0.38 0.27 0.42 (2.0–11) E+07 (19–137) E-25 0.0002–0.03
H 1.82 0.29 0.26 0.80 (2.0–5.0) E+07 (15–37) E-25 0.0005–0.016

SR 2.00 0.176 7.0 1.96E+05 0.033–0.041

Table 2; this assumes that the 3ocs are represented by in the form
Eq. (32), i.e. with r = 1 in Eq. (40). The agreement be-

r(D−3)
1  d
tween columns 3 and 4 in Table 2 is particularly good for w (
)1=2 !2 = S0 : (49)
2 d d0
the TH set. In the remaining data there is a tendency for
the theory to underestimate the experimental value of m=2. Eq. (49) was applied to the base data in the TH, BRMJ,
For all the data (including the TH set) this represents an BRMM and the HA sets using the value r = 1 ( i.e. S0 ≡
average discrepancy of −0:04. A possible explanation of S0 ), with !2 speci@ed using Eqs. (17) and (18). Deductions
the diAerence lies in the impact of the potential dependence are shown in Table 2. It is apparent that there are major
on r. Parameter r was evaluated using Eq. (40) with m=2 diAerences in the values of S0 , particularly between the sets
speci@ed by the experimental value (column 3), the remain- —an aspect which will be discussed later.
ing parameters being known. For the sets in which the 3ow
was turbulent (i.e. excluding the SR set), statistical analy- 5.4. Yeung–Pelton set
sis yields r = 0:89 ± 0:20 (s.e.; p = 0:025). Thus, within
the limits of experimental scatter, it is seen that this group Yeung and Pelton (1996) used a micromechanical tech-
complies with the structural pattern characterized by r = 1. nique to pull apart single 3ocs in order to measure their
There are two routes for evaluating S0 or S0 , depending strength. Flocs were formed by aggregating aqueous precip-
on the form of the data. If the d −  interdependence is itated calcium carbonate (PCC) sols with two water-soluble
expressed in the form of Eq. (38) such that the coe?cients polymers. These were labelled as “A 3ocs” and “B 3ocs”

and m are known, then replacement of d in Eq. (36) using according to the polymer which was in use. The PCC par-
Eq. (38) leads to ticles were cited as having an average size of 1:34 m, this
being regarded as the d0 value. The “A” and “B” 3ocs were
r(D−3) q+r(3−D) estimated to have fractal index values of 1.8 and 2.4, respec-
1 Qw d0
1=2+q=4−mq=2−mr(3−D)=2 tively. Plots of the rupture forces as a function of size are
S0 = 3q=4−1=2
: (48)
2
shown in Fig. 2. It is seen that there is no obvious correlation
between size of a 3oc and the associated rupture force (f0 ).
S0 can only be independent of  if its index value =0 Boller and Blaser (1998) transformed the rupture forces into
(i.e. when Eq. (40) is valid). When the individual d −  the equivalent tensile strength () by dividing the rupture
pairings are known, S0 can be calculated from the criterion force by the cross-sectional area—the corresponding plots
 D.H. Bache / Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004) 2521 – 2534 2529

1000 1000

Series A Series B
Force (nN)

100 100

10 10
1 10 100 1 10 100

d (µm) d (µm)

Fig. 2. Rupture forces for individual 3ocs. Series A and B refer to diAerent polymers used as a 3oc aid (data extracted from Yeung and Pelton, 1996).

10000 Table 3
Fitting coe?cients associated with Eq. (50) for trends shown in Fig. 3

Identi@er 0 (Pa) /

A 3ocs 2.27E+04 1.78

B 3ocs 8.69E+04 2.09

1000
Strength (N m-2)

di?culties concerning the impact of 3oc water on the fractal

properties of the divided 3oc; these cannot be the same as
the parent 3oc. Hence, the Yeung–Pelton estimates of D are
regarded as being unreliable and cannot be usefully exploited
100
for estimating r. Aside from these aspects, the value / ≈
2 shown in Table 3 is of considerable interest, because it
Series A shows that the rupture force f0 ˙ d2 ˙ 0 , i.e. this has
Series B no dependence (or at best a weak dependence) on size and
explains the lack of correlation in Fig. 2.
10
1 10 100 5.5. SR set
d (µm)
In the case of the SR set, the value S0 = 1:96 × 105 N=m3
Fig. 3. Floc tensile strength calculated from data shown in Fig. 2. shown in Table 2 which is close to the value 1:02×105 N=m2
cited in Sonntag and Russel (1987a). This is surprising given
the fundamental diAerences between the base models.
being shown in Fig. 3. The individual trends were @tted by
the empirical function

−/ 6. Discussion
d
 = 0 (50)
d0
6.1. Framework
in which 0 is a tensile strength scaling factor and / a @tted
constant. Table 3 shows the @tted coe?cients. A compari- The framework which has been developed emanates from
son of Eq. (50) with the form of Eq. (35) suggests that / ≡ criterion (8). Its value must be judged by its capacity to rep-
r(3 − D), providing a possible route for estimating r. How- resent the 3oc rupture–turbulence interaction. At @rst sight
ever, the analytical approach adopted by Yeung and Pelton it seems to have been successful, but there are many aspects
for estimating D fails to recognize the contradictory scaling which require fuller comment. At the outset, it is worth em-
demands posed by the scaling of the 3oc volume and the phasizing that the current state of the art is such that neither
conservation of the 3oc solids. Tied to this are conceptual the left-hand side of the criterion (the turbulence impact)
2530 D.H. Bache / Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004) 2521 – 2534
nor the right-hand side of the criterion (the structural model)
have been adequately de@ned. In terms of turbulence de-
scription, one faces the major gap in breakage theory arising
from the l= restrictions imposed in Kolmogorov (1941).
In terms of modelling energy exchange (or strength) of a
fractal object there has been little useful progress apart from
the educated guess (Eq. (35)) by Sonntag and Russel and
the preliminary analysis reported in Bache et al. (1999b).
By casting the rupture criterion in energy terms (rather than
using a force balance approach), the physical basis—par-
ticularly the turbulence description—has been placed on
a much @rmer footing. The energy approach circumvents
some of the di?culties which exist in the force descrip-
tion, but also introduces conceptual problems concerning
the description of the energy expenditure. In physical terms,
the criterion represents a ‘balance’ of kinetic and potential
energy. Each of these components are scale-dependent, the
ratio d= exerting a control on the accessible turbulent
kinetic energy (TKE) and the ratio d=d0 controlling the
potential energy associated with rupture. As the size scale
reduces, the accessible TKE diminishes. In contrast, the
potential energy demand per unit volume increases as the 3oc
gets smaller, largely because of the solids volume concen-
tration increases. The criterion thus de@nes the length scale
at which these energy components have similar magnitude.
It is the dimensions of the criterion, i.e. energy per unit vol-
ume, together with the recognition that the energy expendi-
ture occurs within a con@ned volume that provides the basic
ingredients of the modelling scheme.
Unlike Sonntag and Russel’s vision of rupture (i.e. based
on the impact of localized ‘in@nitesimal deformations’ near
the 3oc surface), criterion (8) treats rupture on a holistic ba-
sis, i.e. aAecting the 3oc as a whole. This is consistent with
observation. For example, Hinze (1955) refers to ‘bulgy de-
(in Eqs. (1)
formations’ (caused by pressure diAerences across the 3oc)
as being major feature of rupture in turbulent 3ow. Pho-
tographs in Blaser (2000) illustrate the deformation of an
entire 3oc in an extension 3ow. Also, in Section 2, atten-
tion was drawn to smallest stable vortex size (12–15).
.
For the cases of turbulent 3ow (i.e. excluding the SR set),
Table 1 indicates that the limiting 3oc size is characterized
by d= ratios fall into the range 1–12; this implies that
such 3ocs will often be smaller than the stable vortex. If
3ocs are engulfed by this vortex (see Baldyga and Bourne,
1995), they will be subjected to a strain @eld which envelops
the 3oc. The central point of these observations is that the
3oc is subjected to a hydrodynamic environment which is
likely to aAect the 3oc as a whole.
A valuable development in the analysis has been the
exploitation of the universal functions (!2 ) reported in
Batchelor (1947, 1951). These help to bridge ‘the gap’ in
breakage theory. Analysis of Eq. (17) shows that Eq. (15)
can be used over much greater spacings than previously ac-
cepted (i.e. l  ) and can be used up to the limit l= =
3:5 with only a 5% loss in accuracy. This is of considerable
practical value when examining particle kinetics in this
domain. Although Eq. (18) is empirical, it more or less re-
produces the behaviour of the theoretically based Eq. (17)
up to l= ≈ 5 (see Fig. 1) and is useful for interpolation
when l= is larger. The principal advantage of using Eq.
(19) to estimate !2 , is that it allows the recovery of the d
– relationship in the form of Eq. (38). The manner in
which Eq. (19) has been used, i.e. with q and Q treated
as quasi-constants is only satisfactory when it is applied
to small or particular ranges of d=. In other circum-
stances, Eqs. (17) or (18) should be incorporated into the
left-hand side of the criterion, which can then be solved
numerically.
Within the analysis, two forms of structural model have
been introduced. The @rst (Eq. (32)) is the energy-based
form shown S = S0 (d=d0 )D−3 and the second (Eq. (35)),
the model S = S0 (d=d0 )r(D−3) suggested by Sonntag and
Russel which stemmed from the assumption that strength
was scaled by the solids volume concentration. Super@cially
these models are similar, Eq. (32) appearing as a particular
case of Eq. (35) when r = 1 and S0 ≡ S0 . However, the con-
cepts leading to their development are very diAerent. Both
recognize the link between strength and the solids volume
concentration. Before getting involved in the detail of the
structural model, it is useful to comment on the general for-
mat of Eqs. (32) and (35). Each are in the form of a scaling
factor, viz. S0 or S0 and size-dependent term. The strength
scale terms (S0 and S0 ) transport information about the way
in which the solids are bound, whereas the size-dependent
term shows that strength diminishes with increasing 3oc
size when r ¿ 0 and (D − 3) ¡ 0. This form of dependence
is illustrated in Fig. 3. It is also implicit in the d– de-
pendence—whereby the size scale reduces with increasing
shear. There is a considerable body of experimental evidence
which demonstrates that the parameters C and
and (38), respectively) behave as constants when 3ocs are
sheared. In the context of the structural models (Eqs. (32)
and (35)), this shows that if d ˙ −m=2 and that m is cor-
rectly predicted by Eq. (40), then the terms S0 and S0 must
be independent of shear, i.e. re3ecting the constancy of
The comparison between columns 3 and 4 in Table 2 shows
that the theoretical estimates of m are reasonably correct for
the TH, BRMJ and the BRMM sets; this assumes that r = 1
after making allowance for experimental variation. If S0 be-
haves as a quasi-constant during shear, it implies that the
energy factor !’ (see Eq. (33)) must also be independent
of shear. This seems unreasonable, because it indicates that
the energy expenditure within the 3oc is independent of the
3ow patterns enveloping the 3oc. For example, in the van de
Ven and Hunter (1977) model, it was considered that much
of the energy dissipation during rupture was associated with
the relative movement of the primary particles during dis-
tortion, this being driven by the external shear @eld. Thus,
there is a need to include an additional factor to re3ect the
elastic or dynamic properties of a 3oc. It is here that parame-
ter r introduced by Sonntag and Russel via Eq. (6) has some
advantage. The form of Eq. (35) was an educated guess by
 D.H. Bache / Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004) 2521 – 2534
Sonntag and Russel, parameter r controlling the dependence
on the solids concentration. If one sets aside this particular
association, and instead, regards r as a parameter dependent
on the deformation process, it has the considerable bene@t
(in modelling terms) of disentangling S0 from . In the
context of the SR set, the existence of parameter r enabled
a match to be made between the theoretical prediction of m
(through Eq. (40)) and the measured value. It is worth em-
phasizing that if one had used the model S = S0 (d=d0 )D−3
corresponding to the case r = 1, the observed value of m
cannot be predicted by Eq. (40) for the particular values of
D and q. At the viscous limit, values of r ¿ 1 are indicated
by shear behaviour in which m ¡ 0:5.
The signi@cant advantage of Eq. (25) (in the form shown
by Eqs. (32) and (33)) is that it provides insight into the
factors which control S0 . However, Eq. (32) is restricted to
3ocs whose breakage behaviour is consistent with r ≈ 1,
i.e. in which their strength is directly proportional to the
solids volume concentration. The term !’ represents the
energy scale associated with the solids during rupture. Its
most important features are: (i) it is independent of the size
of the 3oc and (ii), it is essentially invariant during shear.
At this point in time, it is not possible to disentangle the
component terms (! and ’) and they should be regarded as
a single term !’. Within the 3oc, !’ is a volume average
parameter. In statistical terms it re3ects the array of rupture
patterns which have taken place and their associated energy
expenditure.
In Table 1, it will be noticed that A ∼ 106 within the
BRMJ and BRMM sets. This contrasts with small clusters
(10–100 particles), which are characterized by a ‘prefac-
tor’ (≡ A ; the term ahead of (d=d0 )D in Eq. (31)) with a
value close to unity (e.g. Sorensen and Roberts, 1997). This
has arisen because the fundamental building block was in-
terpreted as the primary particle, and is also a consequence
of the very large numbers of primary particles in the 3oc.
In turbulent 3ow, studies such as Francois and van Haute
(1984) and Klimpel and Hogg (1986) and Gorczyca and
Ganczarczyk (1999) all show evidence of a multi-level 3oc
structure in which the primary particles form a cluster and
the clusters combine to form larger aggregates and so on. A
consequence is that the fractal dimension can vary with size
and indeed with time during 3occulation (see Chakraborti
et al., 2003). Aggregates formed by Brownian motion tend
to have a fractal index of ∼ 1:8 to ∼ 2:1 (Bushell et al.,
2002), whereas in the case of the larger alumino humic
3ocs (with d ¿ 50 m) (see Table 1), these have a lower
fractal index (D ∼ 1:15). Following completion of the
Brownian phase of growth, one might regard clusters of
1 m as representing the basic building block, i.e. ≡ d0 .
However, this would still yield values of A  1. When
dealing with very large clusters, this suggests that the pref-
actor must be interpreted in a diAerent way from that pre-
vailing for small clusters. This aspect, together with the
multilevel structure needs to be considered in the modelling
rationale.
2531
6.2. Applications
The thrust of this section is to illustrate the use of the
framework for diagnosing 3oc character and representing its
attributes quantitatively. However, before getting immersed
in the detail of Tables 2 and 4, attention should be drawn to
some of the problems which arise when comparing strength
data from diAerent studies, the key issue being the speci@-
cation of the dmax – pairing. With such information, the
strength estimate is derived from the evaluation of the ex-
pression S = w (
)1=2 !2 (d=). The issues of concern
are illustrated at the viscous limit, where S ˙ d2 or S ˙
fdB 2 . Two di?culties arise. First, there is uncertainty over
the eAective value of f(== ) B associated with the maxi-
mum 3oc size. For example in the TH set f = 0:15, which
compares with f = 0:5 in the BRJM set, and f ≈ 1:0 in the
BRMM set. While each were judged to be correct, there is
almost a 7-fold diAerence between the extremes. At best, the
value of f is an educated guess. Second, the dmax – pairing
depends on the choice of dmax . In the BRMJ and BRMM sets
dmax was speci@ed by dV95 (the 95th percentile in the volume
size distribution). Had dmax been based on the dL95 (the 95th
percentile in the length size distribution), then the dmax –
association would be diAerent. Noting that dV95 =dL95 ≈ 1:5
in these sets, it is evident that the choice in3uences the com-
putational dependence S ˙ d2 . When the uncertainties over
the de@nition of f and dmax are combined, it is not di?cult to
yield estimates of strength which might diAer by an order of
magnitude.
A key feature of the TH, BRMJ and BRMM sets it that
they are characterized by the condition r ≈ 1, implying
Eqs. (32) and (33) may be applied to this group. Table 2
shows the inter-quartile range of S0 for the individual sets.
It is evident that the S0 values for the TH set diAer greatly
from the others. Aside from diAerences in the raw water
quality, it must be recognized that the magnitude of pa-
rameters S0 and A are each associated with a particular
choice of d0 NB in the TH set d0 is almost 1000 times
greater than the d0 value employed in the BRMJ and the
BRMM sets. In many respects the precise choice of d0 is of
little consequence provided that the parameters S0 , A and
d0 are mutually consistent. Beyond this, it evident that S0
tends to be larger for the sets associated with polymer use.
Eq. (33) shows that S0 ˙ A !’. Although there is a ten-
dency for A to be larger when a polymer is present (see data
in Table 1), this only partially explains the enhancement
of S0 by the polymer. Rather, S0 appears to be dominated
by the !’ behaviour. With knowledge of S0 , !’ is readily
calculated using Eq. (33). A summary of the inter-quartile
range for the individual sets is shown in Table 2. If one
focuses on the TH set for the cases in which there was no
polymer addition, the !’ values are fairly similar. Similar
features (but with greater scatter) are also evident within
the BRMJ set when grouped according to polymer use. On
this basis, all individual estimates of S0 and !’ arising from
d– pairings were amalgamated according to water type
2532 D.H. Bache / Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004) 2521 – 2534
Table 4
Estimates of strength scale and energy scale factor (expressed as inter-quartile range) in terms of 3oc type and conditioning practice for the groupings
shown in Table 2
Floc type S0 (N=m2 )
Without polymer
Al - HA (0.27–0.82) E+06
Alumino-humic (2.3–11.5) E+06
Aluminium–kaolin 0.10–0.50
and polymer use, this leading to the summary shown in
Table 4.
As noted above, care must be exercised when comparing
data sets gained from diAerent mixers. However, the situa-
tion is much better when examining the eAect of the polymer
within the TH and BRJM sets. This is because one is deal-
ing with consistent errors—these having only a marginal
in3uence on ratios such as !’ (with polymer): !’ (without
polymer). Focusing on the alumino-humic 3ocs, it is evi-
dent that the energy factor is enhanced by about a factor of
10 when a polymer is present. The same feature exists in the
aluminium–kaolin set, but with a greater enhancement of
!’. These show that the dominant in3uence of the polymer
(beyond the in3uence on A ) is to increase the energy factor
associated with rupture—perhaps symptomatic of stronger
bonding. The comparison of the relative values of S0 and !’
between the Al-HA set and the alumino-humic set are of in-
terest. The S0 values of the alumino-humic 3ocs is roughly
an order of magnitude larger than that for the Al-HA set,
whereas the !’ values are similar. This aspect is explained
by the impact A since S0 ˙ A ; Table 1 shows that A is
about a factor of 10 lower in the Al-HA set compared with
the average for the BRJM set. The similarity of !’ is of con-
siderable interest. This might be expected because both types
of 3oc are humic in character and their strength is probably
dominated by the hydroxides gained from the coagulant (see
Bache and Papavasilopoulos, 2003). But of greater interest
is the fact that the estimate has been gained from 3occula-
tors of diAering design (see Section 5.2). It suggests that the
estimate of !’ may be reliable in absolute terms. It is evi-
dent that the !’ values for the alum–kaolin 3ocs are several
orders of magnitude greater than the alumino-humic 3ocs,
pointing to a existence of a stronger bonding mechanism.
This might be attributed due to relatively strong linkages
between the kaolin particles based on electrostatic bridges
compared with weaker van de Waals forces acting on the
hydroxide particles within the alumino-humic 3oc (Bache
et al., 1999a). However, one must also take account of the
numbers of bonds broken together with other factors which
aAect the energy expenditure. Nevertheless, it appears that
!’ is sensitive to the water type and polymer conditioning
and could serve as a parameter for representing diAerent wa-
ter types and coagulation practices. However it must be em-
phasized that at the present stage of development, this form
of analysis can only be applied to 3ocs characterized by r=1.
!’ (J)
With polymer Without polymer With polymer
(1.7–5.3) E-25
(30–558) E+06 (1.6–14.1) E-25 (19–136) E-25
6.2–8.1 (7–20) E-19 (420–550) E-19
A diAerent set of issues is posed by the SR set which is
characterized by r = 4:5 (according to Sonntag and Russel,
1987a) or by r = 7:0 when Eq. (40) is applied to the SR set.
In spite of these diAerences, the estimates of the strength
scale (S0 ) were similar. It is not immediately clear what as-
pect of 3oc structure is responsible for the diAering values
of r between the SR and the other sets, though it is prob-
ably linked to the combined in3uences of the solids vol-
ume concentration and the fractal dimension. Backtracking,
it should be recalled that parameter r emanates from the be-
haviour of the elastic properties in the form of Eq. (6). A
model by van den Tempel (1961) related the elastic modu-
lus to the inter-particle potential arising from van der Waals
attractions and predicted a linear dependence on the volume
fraction. The essential feature of this model and develop-
ments such as Papenhuijzen (1972) is that stress is carried
by chains of particles, a scheme which might apply to cases
in which both  and D are low (depicting a relatively open
network of linear structures) NB in the BRMJ set the median
value of  ∼ 0:005 and D ≈ 1:1. In contrast, 3ocs in the
SR set were characterized by higher  values (∼ 0:04) and
D = 2:5; indicating a denser network with greater opportuni-
ties for cross-linking between particles and particle chains.
Mall and Russell’s (1987) theoretical analysis of an elastic
network of this type showed that the characteristic elastic
properties had a much greater sensitivity to the solids vol-
ume concentration than that predicted in the van den Tem-
pel model. Indeed, this type of dependence was reported in
Sonntag and Russel (1987b) whose measurements on net-
works of polystyene latices (similar to those used in the
SR set) showed a shear modulus ˙ r with r in the range
2.5–4.4.
The strength scale allows one to estimate the response of
the 3oc dimension to a speci@c level shear, e.g. encountered
during @ltration. Here, the relevant scaling is described by
Eq. (37). Aside from the subtleties of the d= ratio (af-
fecting Q and q), the impact of the strength scale is seen
in the dependence d ˙ S01=(q+r(3−D)) . At the viscous limit
(q = 2) with r = 1 and D = 1, this behaves as d ˙ S01=4 .
Thus if S0 were to increase by a factor of 16 with other
parameters remaining identical (approximately representing
the behaviour of alumino-humic 3ocs in response to polymer
conditioning), the maximum 3oc size will double—a factor
which is likely to have a signi@cant impact on the dynam-
ics of solid–liquid separation. Knowledge of S0 also permits
 D.H. Bache / Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004) 2521 – 2534
the direct calculation of strength. For example: a 200 m
alumino-humic 3oc without polymer conditioning is ade-
quately represented by the set S0 = (2:3–11:5) × 106 N=m2 ,
d=d0 = 25 000 and D = 1:1. Substitution into Eq. (32) shows
the strength (S) represented by the inter-quartile range (0.01
–0.05) N=m2 . These values are speci@c to the cited 3oc
size and 3oc type and are generally much lower than the
strength of 3ocs of comparable size reported in the liter-
ature. For example Blaser (2000) cites the strength range
0:16 ± 0:06 N=m2 (adjusted to match cross-sectional area
of sphere) for ferric–latex 3ocs with diameters in the size
range 80–800 m.
Overall, it appears that the framework described in the pa-
per provides a reasonable description of the limiting 3oc size
in turbulent 3ow. Some useful progress has been made on
the speci@cation of strength for 3ocs of simple fractal struc-
ture. The analytical scheme has many shortcomings, such
as being con@ned to ideal suspensions with a monosized
primary particles. It does not address the subtle changes of
fractal structure with size. Neither does it attempt to exam-
ine the rupture process in statistical terms. Nevertheless, it
provides a straightforward and physical-based modelling ap-
proach which can be developed much further. It is relevant
to a broad range of applications in industry and applies to
many situations encountered in the natural environment.
7. Conclusions
A analytical framework stemming from an energy-based
criterion describes the limiting 3oc size in a turbulent 3ow.
Floc strength appears to comply with the model S =
S0 (d=d0 )r(D−3) in which S0 behaves as a scaling factor which
is independent of the strain rate.
Universal functions are identi@ed for describing the
second-order structure function G2 (l) throughout the l=
domain.
It is shown that the turbulent kinetic energy term vd2
referring to the distance scale d is adequately de@ned by
the function vd2 = (1=15)(
)1=2 (d=)2 over the range
0 ¡ d= ¡ 3:5.
It is demonstrated that a 3oc aid increases the magni-
tude of the potential energy to be overcome during rupture
through its in3uence on the energy scaling factor !’.
References
Bache, D.H., Papavasilopoulos, E.N., 2003. Dewatering of alumino-humic
sludge: impacts of hydroxide. Water Research 37, 3289–3298.
Bache, D.H., Rasool, E., 2001. Characteristics of turbulence in a multigrid
mixer. Chemical Engineering Journal 83, 67–78.
Bache, D.H., Johnson, C., Papavasilopoulos, E.N., Rasool, E., McGilligan,
F.J., 1999a. Sweep coagulation: structures, mechanisms and practice.
Journal of Water SRT-Aqua 48 (5), 201–210.
Bache, D.H., Rasool, E., MoAat, D., McGilligan, F.J., 1999b. On the
strength and character of alumino-humic 3ocs. Water Science and
Technology 40 (9), 81–88.
2533
Bache, D.H., Rasool, E., MoAat, D., Johnson, M., 2000. Floc
characterisation at full scale: the case of humic waters. In: Hahn, H.H.,
HoAmann, E., Odegaard, H. (Eds.), Chemical Water and Wastewater
Treatment VI. Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 66–76.
Baldyga, J., Bourne, J.R., 1984. A 3uid mechanical approach to turbulent
mixing and chemical reaction. Part II. Micromixing in the light of
turbulence theory. Chemical Engineering Communications 28, 243–
258.
Baldyga, J., Bourne, J.R., 1995. Interpretation of turbulent mixing using
fractals and multifractals. Chemical Engineering Science 50 (3),
381–400.
Batchelor, G.K., 1947. KolmogoroA’s theory of locally isotropic
turbulence. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 43,
533–559.
Batchelor, G.K., 1951. Pressure 3uctuations in isotropic turbulence.
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 47, 359–374.
Blaser, S., 2000. Break-up of 3ocs in contraction and swirling 3ows.
Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects
166, 215–223.
Boller, M., Blaser, S., 1998. Particles under stress. Water Science and
Technology 39 (10), 9–29.
Bushell, G.C., Yan, Y.D., Wood@eld, D., Raper, J., Amal, R., 2002.
On the techniques for the measurement of the fractal dimension of
aggregates. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science 95, 1–50.
Chakraborti, R.K., Gardner, K.H., Atkison, J.F., van Benschoten, J.E.,
2003. Changes in fractal dimensions during aggregation. Water
Research 37 (4), 873–883.
Cornelissen, A., Burnett, M.G., McCall, R.D., Goddard, D.T., 1997. The
structure of hydrous 3ocs prepared by batch and continuous 3ow water
treatment systems and obtained by optical, electron and atomic force
microscopy. Water Science and Technology 36 (4), 41–48.
de Hek, H., Stol, R.J., de Bruyn, P.L., 1978. Hydrolysis-precipitation
studies of aluminium (III) solutions. 3. The role of the sulphate ion.
Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 64, 72–89.
Francois, R., van Haute, A., 1984. Floc strength measurements giving
experimental support for a four level hydroxide 3oc structure. In:
Pawlowski, L., Verdier, A., Lacy, W. (Eds.), Studies in Environmental
Science 23—Chemistry for Protection of the Environment. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, pp. 221–234.
Gorczyca, B., Ganczarczyk, J., 1999. Structure and porosity of alum
coagulation 3ocs. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada 34 (4),
653–666.
Herweijer, J.A., 1995. The Small-Scale Structure of Turbulence.
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Eindhoven. ISBN 90-386-0137-9.
Hinze, J.O., 1955. Fundamentals of the hydrodynamic mechanism of
splitting in dispersion processes. A.I.Ch.E. Journal 1 (3), 289–293.
Hossain, M.D., Bache, D.H., 1991. Composition of alum 3ocs derived
from a coloured low-turbidity water. Journal of Water SRT-Aqua 40,
298–303.
Hsu, P.H., Bates, T.F., 1964. Formation of X-ray amorphous and
crystalline aluminium hydroxides. Minerological Magazine 33, 749–
768.
Hudsen, H.E., Wagner, E.G., 1981. Conduct and use of jar tests. Journal
of AWWA 73 (4), 218–224.
Klimpel, R.C., Hogg, R., 1986. EAects of 3occulation conditions on
agglomerate structure. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 113,
121–131.
Kolmogorov, A.N., 1941. The local structure of turbulence in
incompressible viscous 3ow for very large Reynolds numbers.
Computer Repdus de l’Academie des Sciences U.R.S.S. 30, 309.
Levich, V.G., 1962. Physicochemical Hydrodynamics. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood CliAs, NJ.
Mall, S., Russel, W.B., 1987. EAective medium approximation for an
elastic network model of 3occulated suspensions. Journal of Rheology
31 (8), 651–681.
Masschelein, W.J., 1992. Unit Processes in Drinking Water Treatment.
Marcel Dekker, New York.
2534 D.H. Bache / Chemical Engineering Science 59 (2004) 2521 – 2534
Matsuo, T., Unno, H., 1981. Forces acting on 3oc and strength of 3oc.
Proceedings of ASCE, Journal of Environmental Engineering Division
107 (EE3), 527–545.
Michaels, A.S., Bolger, J.C., 1962. The plastic 3ow of behaviour of
3occulated kaolin suspensions. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry
Fundamentals 1, 153–162.
Okamoto, Y., Nishikawa, M., Hashimoto, K., 1981. Energy dissipation rate
distribution in mixing vessels and its eAects on liquid–liquid dispersion
and solid–liquid mass transfer. International Chemical Engineering 21
(1), 88–94.
Papenhuijzen, J.M.P., 1972. The role of particle interactions in the
rheology of dispersed systems. Rheological Acta 11, 73–88.
Parker, D.S., Kaufman, W.J., Jenkins, J., 1972. Floc breakup in turbulent
3occulation processes. Proc ASCE. Journal of the Sanitary Engineering
Division 98 (SA1), 79–99.
Rumpf, H., 1962. The strength of granules and agglomerates. In: Knepper,
W.A. (Ed.), Agglomeration. Interscience, New York, pp. 379–418.
Shinnar, R., 1961. On the behaviour of liquid dispersions in mixing
vessels. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 10, 259–275.
Sonntag, R.C., Russel, W.B., 1987a. Structure and breakup of 3ocs
subjected to 3uid stresses. II. Theory. Journal of Colloid and Interface
Science 115 (2), 378–389.
Sonntag, R.C., Russel, W.B., 1987b. Elastic properties of 3occulated
networks. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 116 (2), 485–489.
Sorensen, C.M., Roberts, G.C., 1997. The prefactor of fractal aggregates.
Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 186, 447–452.
Stanley, S.J., Smith, D.W., 1995. Measurement of turbulent 3ow in
standard jar test apparatus. Journal of Environmental Engineering 121
(12), 902–909.
Tambo, N., Hozumi, H., 1979. Physical characteristics of 3ocs—II.
Strength of 3oc. Water Research 13, 421–427.
Tambo, N., Watanabe, Y., 1979. Physical characteristics of 3ocs—I.
The 3oc density function and aluminium 3oc. Water Research 13,
409–419.
Tennekes, H., Lumley, J.L., 1994. A First Course in Turbulence. MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Tomi, D.T., Bagster, D.F., 1978. The behaviour of aggregates in stirred
vessels. Part I—Theoretical considerations on the eAects of agitation.
Transactions of the Institute of Chemical Engineers 56, 1–8.
van den Tempel, M., 1961. Mechanical properties of plastic disperse
systems at very small deformations. Journal of Colloid and Science
16, 284–296.
van de Ven, T.G.M., Hunter, R.J., 1977. The energy dissipation of shear
coagulated sols. Rheological Acta 16, 534–543.
Yeung, A.K.C., Pelton, R., 1996. Micromechanics: A new approach for
studying the strength and breakup of 3ocs. Journal of Colloid and
Interface Science 184 (2), 579–585.