ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Electrostatics 64 (2006) 550–554

www.elsevier.com/locate/elstat

A simplified model of electrocoalescence of

two close water droplets in oil
P. Attena,, L. Lundgaardb, G. Bergb
a
LEMD, CNRS & Univ. Joseph Fourier, BP 166, 38042 Grenoble, Cedex 9, France
b
SINTEF Energy Research, Sem Selandsvei 11, 7465-Trondheim, Norway
Available online 7 November 2005

Abstract

The conditions of electrocoalescence of close droplets of conducting liquid suspended in insulating oil under the action of an electric
field are investigated. Previous results are first recalled and discussed. A physical picture allows justifying the asymptotic laws obtained
for coalescence conditions of very close drops under a given potential difference. An extrapolation to the coalescence conditions of close
droplets subjected to a uniform electric field is proposed and shortly discussed.
r 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Electrocoalescence; Drop deformation; Instability

1. Introduction different processes involved in EC prevents the manufac-

Electrocoalescence (EC) is the phenomenon of coales-
cence of droplets suspended in an insulating liquid or in a
gas under the action of an electric field. This phenomenon
concerns mainly two different situations: water droplets in
electrified clouds and water emulsions in oil.
In the first case, the interaction between close water
drops is expected to trigger drop disintegration and to
contribute to the electrification of clouds whose summits
are warmer than 0 1C [1,2]. Then the derivation of the
criterion for the instability of a free drop-pair system is the
important point [2].
In the petroleum industry, eliminating salts and various
compounds is a very important stage which requires to
introduce fresh water and to emulsify it in order to increase
the exchanges between the two phases. The further
elimination of water by sedimentation is efficient only for
big enough droplets and electric fields have long been used
to increase the mean drop diameter by EC of small droplets
[3]. Compact electrocoalescers are being developed but the
lack of clear understanding and good description of the
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pierre.atten@grenoble.cnrs.fr (P. Atten).
turers to design very efficient equipment.
An investigation of the basic processes leading to EC of
droplets in a flowing water-in-oil emulsion led to propose a
clear picture with two stages in the process [4]. In the first
stage, the fluid motion plays the dominant role in bringing
two droplets in close proximity; in the second stage, the
coalescence which would not occur naturally in most cases
without applied field is promoted by the field induced
attraction force and deformation; the characteristic coales-
cence time decreases strongly with the field magnitude [5].
With this picture, modelling the evolution of a water-in-
oil emulsion in motion and subjected to an electric field
appears possible if the conditions of coalescence occurrence
are known and expressed in a simple way. Such numerical
models should be of help for the design of compact
electrocoalescers for oil dewatering.
The problem of EC of water droplets suspended in an
insulating medium has been examined theoretically and
experimentally during 1960s, but there was no clear
conclusion and law concerning the coalescence conditions
for close small drops subjected to a uniform field. We focus
here on this question of critical coalescence conditions with
the view of deriving some asymptotic laws for the critical
field or the critical droplet separation.

0304-3886/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.elstat.2005.10.009
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Atten et al. / Journal of Electrostatics 64 (2006) 550–554 551

2. First approach with ellipsoidal drop deformation 100000

The first approach (to our knowledge) of the instability

problem is the work of Latham and Roxburgh [1]. These 10000
authors were mainly interested in the disintegration of y = 42442x1.3023
pairs of water drops suspended in air as a possible source
R2 = 0.9988
of cloud electrification. They adapted the approach of
1000
Taylor in the problem of deformation and disintegration of

Ecrit (V/cm)
one drop by a uniform field [6]. Taylor showed that the
elongated drop has a shape close to the one of an ellipsoid
(this was confirmed in [2]) and looked for a stationary 100
solution by balancing the difference of capillary pressure at
poles and equator and the electrostatic pressure at the
poles. 10
One of the two basic assumptions of Latham and
Roxburgh was that the deformed drops have an ellipsoidal
shape. The second assumption concerned the field at the
1
facing poles of the two identical drops: they assumed that
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
the magnification S—due to the proximity of the other relative distance s0/R0
drop—of the field at the poles is the same as for two
identical spheres in a uniform field E0. They considered Fig. 1. Critical value of the applied uniform field as a function of the
three possible values for the radius of the equivalent sphere initial relative distance between the two undistorted drops (from [1]).
(in [1], the definition of the magnification factor S is not
strictly correct). By taking the numerical values from 1
Davis’ paper [7], they obtained numerical values for the
critical field Ecrit (for E 0 4E crit , there exists no static
solution) [1].
One interesting fact mentioned by these authors is that 0.1
the three estimates of the criterion become closer and closer
critical distance scrit/R0

y = 0.6335x1.0044
when the distance s0 between the undistorted drops
becomes much smaller than the drops radius R0; this arises R2 = 0.9998
because the deformation induced by the field becomes 0.01
smaller and smaller. An asymptotic behaviour can be
extracted from the numerical values given by Latham and
Roxburgh. By plotting the critical field values of Table 1 in
[1], one obtains the behaviour E crit / s1:30
0 (see Fig. 1). 0.001
It is also interesting to examine the value of the critical
distance between interfaces of the two deformed drops.
This distance scrit can be deduced from the critical value of
the semi-major axis acrit given in Table 1 of [1]. Fig. 2 shows 0.0001
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
that the critical distance between drops is a definite fraction
initial relative distance s0/R0
of the distance s0 between undistorted drops (this property
was not mentioned in [1]): Fig. 2. Critical distance between deformed drops as a function of s0 =R0
scrit s0 (derived from [1]).
ffi 0:63 . (1)
R0 R0
This implies that the potential difference DV between the
Such asymptotic laws can be derived easily by first two spheres takes the approximate asymptotic expression
extracting an approximate law for the field value at the
0:18
facing poles of two close conducting spheres in a uniform s
DV ffi 2:32E 0 R0 . (3)
field E0 colinear with the straight line passing through the R0
two centres. By examining the results obtained by Davis By assuming an ellipsoidal distortion of the drops as
[7], we can approximate the variation of Emax as a function sketched in Fig. 3, the difference in capillary pressure due
of the spheres distance s by the following expression, valid to the drop distortion takes the general expression obtained
in the interval 103 ps=R0 p101 : by Taylor [6]

0:82  
R0 T a4=3 b b3
E max ffi 2:32E 0 . (2) ppole  peq ffi 2  3 , (4)
s R0 b a a
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
552 P. Atten et al. / Journal of Electrostatics 64 (2006) 550–554

relative motion. He states that a stability analysis must be

b performed for a stationary solution. Although this is true
s a
strictly speaking, in the considered case the characteristic
time for fast deformation of the interfaces and puncture of
the film of insulating medium between the two drops is
many orders of magnitude lower than the typical time of
approach of the drops. Therefore we can consider that the
E0
system is in quasi-stationary conditions.
The most important aspect in Taylor’s approach is that
Fig. 3. Distorted drops aligned with the uniform electric field. he examines theoretically a configuration where the two
drops are anchored by two close coaxial rings (this
where T is the surface tension and a and b are the axial and corresponds to the conditions of his experimental investi-
equatorial semi-axes, respectively. The electrostatic pres- gations). The main advantage is that the deformation of
sure at the pole is ðe=2ÞE 2 where e is the permittivity of the the drops is well modelled with a distortion occurring only
suspending fluid; the field E can be approximated by E ¼ in the zone delineated by the rings, which, in practice,
DV =s where s is the distance between facing poles (Fig. 3). corresponds to the restricted zone where the close
By balancing the electrostatic and capillary terms and using interfaces experience a strong electrostatic pressure.
(3), we obtain the following relation between the applied The problem is further simplified from the electrical
field E0 and the axes ratio a=b: viewpoint by imposing a definite potential difference
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi between the two drops. Taylor assumed that (i) the two
   a2=3 0:82
E0 a 2=3 b b3 s0 drops are very close to each other (s0 =R0  1), (ii) the
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ffi 0:86 2  3 2þ 2
T b a a R0 b electric field between the drops can be approximated by
2eR0
E ¼ DV =z, z being the distance between the interfaces at
(5) the radial distance r from the system axis, (iii) the drops are
(s0 is the distance between undistorted spheres). The assumed to be spherical with an unperturbed radius R0
asymptotic behaviour when s0 =R0 ! 0 is easily deduced except in the zone of close proximity (the volume change
from (5) by expressing a and b in terms of the small induced by the distortion in this limited zone is neglected).
parameter s0 =R0 ; the critical field is With these assumptions and approximations, Taylor
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1:32 solves the linearised equilibrium equation for the surface in
T s0 the deformed zone. The most important results concern the
ðE 0 Þcrit ¼ 0:415 . (6)
2eR0 R0 asymptotic behaviour found for very small values of s0 =R0 ;
In (6) the exponent is very close to the one deduced from the critical separation between drops is


Fig. 1. The corresponding ratio of ellipsoid axes is s s0
a ffi 0:50 (9)
s0 R0 crit R0
ffi 1 þ 0:284 , (7)
b crit R0 and the critical voltage difference takes the value
which gives for the critical separation rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

 T
s s0 DV crit  0:38s0 , (10)
ffi 0:622 (8) eR0
R0 crit R0
which corresponds to a constant local field at the pole
a relation nearly identical to (1). which induces the drops instability:
The interesting observation here is that no static solution rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
T
exists when the deformation exceeds the magnitude which E inst  0:76 . (11)
makes the distance s between deformed drops equal to eR0
0.62s0. Taylor obtained these results from numerical integration
A similar behaviour was obtained by Taylor [8], but with of the linearised equilibrium equation and gave no physical
a different numerical factor (0.5 instead of ffi0.62). We picture illustrating these simple laws. Below is an attempt
show below that the difference arises from different to justify qualitatively relations (9) and (10).
assumptions concerning the shape of the deformed drops.
4. Simplified physical picture of the deformation in the
3. The approach of Taylor for an imposed potential strong field zone
difference
Let us consider two close conducting spheres of
The basic argument of Taylor to justify his model radius R0 with a potential difference DV. By denoting s
concerns the nonstationary character of the situation as the (small) distance between the spheres and by taking
considered by Latham and Roxburgh [1], due to the the following parabolic expression for the distance
attraction force between the drops and their subsequent z between the interfaces at the radial distance r from the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Atten et al. / Journal of Electrostatics 64 (2006) 550–554 553

2 drops axis: Using (14) we deduce the following relation between R

and R0:
r2
z¼sþ (12) 1 1 1 s0  s
R0  ¼ . (17)
R R0 a R0 s
the electrostatic pressure takes the expression

2 The capillary pressure increase at the poles due to the
1 DV 2 1 DV 2 r2 increased curvature is
pes ¼ e 2 ¼ e 2 1 þ . (13)

2 z 2 s R0 s
1 1 2T s0  s
Dpcap ¼ 2T  ¼ . (18)
As illustrated by Fig. 4, the distribution of electrostatic R R0 a R0 s
pressure has a profile characterised by a radius which scales
By balancing this term with the electrostatic pressure at
as (R0s)1/2. By defining the radius of action rdist of the
the poles (¼ ðDV Þ2 =½2es2 ), we obtain
electrostatic pressure by the requirement that pes has
decreased from its maximum value by a factor ða þ 1Þ2 , 4 T
ðDV Þ2 ¼ sðs0  sÞ. (19)
we obtain a eR0
pffiffiffipffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
rdist ¼ a R0 s, (14) The maximum of DV gives the critical conditions
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where a is a nondimensional constant. Physically rdist 1 T s0
DV crit ¼ pffiffiffi s0 ; scrit ¼ . (20)
characterises the zone where the electrostatic pressure a eR0 2
induces a deformation (outside this region the drop
We thus obtain a justification of the ‘‘empirical laws’’ (9)
deformation can be neglected). We see that when the
and (10) observed by Taylor. The relation (10) for the
distance s decreases, the deformation affects a region
critical potential difference is recovered by taking the value
whose typical size diminishes like s1/2.
a ¼ 6:9. With this value, the electrostatic pressure at rdist is
In order to determine a quasi-static solution, we
about 1.6% of the maximum pes value at the pole.
assume, consistently with Taylor, that the centres of the
The deformation is smooth in the sense that the radius of
spherical parts of the drops are immobile. We further
curvature is not strongly reduced at the pole; in critical
assume that the interface of each drop is not distorted
conditions we have
except in the deformation zone of radius rdist. In this zone,

the distance between the facing interfaces of the two drops 1 1 1
¼ 1þ , (21)
is denoted z0 in the undistorted case (DV ¼ 0) and z in the Rcrit R0 a
case for which the electrostatic pressure deforms the
which gives Rcrit  0:87R0 . Nevertheless it must be kept in
interfaces which are then characterised by a smaller radius
mind that this characterises the stationary solution. For
of curvature R:
DV 4DV crit we have a dynamical system and the interface
r2 r2 deformation will be much sharper.
z0 ¼ s0 þ ; z¼sþ . (15)
R0 R
By stating that z ¼ z0 at r ¼ rdist (i.e. at the border of the 5. Instability conditions in the case of an applied uniform
deformed region), we obtain field


1 1
s0  s ¼ r2dist  . (16) This is the most interesting case for the coalescence of
R R0
droplets pairs in practical situations, in particular for the
breaking of water-in-oil emulsions. In the asymptotic case
of very close droplets, the critical conditions are such that



the potential difference between the two uncharged drops
should be very close to the critical value given by (20). In
the case s0 =R0  1, the deformation of the drops is very
R0 R0
small and we can take the empirical asymptotic formula (3)
z z
valid for spheres, for the potential difference between the
drops induced by the uniform field E0. Substituting scrit and
Rcrit for s and R0 in (3), we obtain from (20)

0:82 rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
s0 T
ðE 0 Þcrit ffi A (22)
R0 eR0
s s with
Fig. 4. Two examples of two close identical drops of radius R0 with the

1 
1 0:18
2 1þa
zone where the electric field exceeds the fraction 1=ða þ 1Þ of the maximum A¼ pffiffiffi ffi 0:18 ða ¼ 6:9Þ. (23)
value DV/s. 2:32 a
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
554 P. Atten et al. / Journal of Electrostatics 64 (2006) 550–554
Relation (22) gives a dependence of the critical field on s0
with an exponent 0.82 of the power law clearly lower than
the one (1.32) obtained with the estimate (6). This
difference in power law illustrates the marked influence
of the assumed shape for the deformed droplets (the
hypothesis of an ellipsoidal shape leads to (6) whereas a
more realistic assumption of deformation restricted to the
zone of close proximity gives (22)).
From a practical viewpoint, (22) can be rewritten to give
the critical separation of (non deformed) droplets as a
function of the applied field E0:
" from the assumption that the induced potential difference

 rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi#1:22
s0 eR0
ffi B E0
R0 crit T
with B ¼ 1=A1:22 ffi 8:0. Formulae of the type of (24) might
be used as coalescence criteria in attempts to simulate
numerically the evolution of water-in-oil emulsions sub-
jected to an electric field.
The main question that arises is the validity of
expressions (22) and (24) for the critical conditions of
EC. The exponent 0.82 in (22) comes from the formula (3)
for DV; this exponent value is questionable because the
approximate formula (3) has been derived from results of
computations by Davis [7] which concern only spheres.
Relation (22) should give a good order of magnitude,
always in the case of very small separation. In any case,
further work is necessary in order to properly solve the EC
problem under an applied field.
6. Conclusions
The derived critical conditions have been determined here
from the existence domain of a static solution in the case of
an imposed potential difference between the two drops of
same radius. For close droplets, the elongation is very limited
up to the critical separation s0 =2 and the critical voltage is
proportional to the initial separation s0. The deformation of
the drops is smooth and restricted to the zone of facing
interfaces. When applying a uniform electric field, an
approximate expression of the critical field has been derived
between droplets is identical to the one relative to spheres.
(24) Above the critical voltage or field, the further distortion
of the drops surfaces might lead to more acute shape
during the stage immediately prior to contact and, then,
coalescence. The problem of the phenomena occurring
when the mean applied field exceeds the criterion has to be
investigated specifically.
References
[1] J. Latham, I.W. Roxburgh, Proc. R. Soc. A 295 (1966) 84–97.
[2] P.R. Brazier-Smith, Phys. Fluids 14 (1971) 1–6.
[3] L.C. Waterman, Chem. Eng. Progr. 61 (1965) 51.
[4] P. Atten, J. Electrostat. 30 (1993) 259–270.
[5] T.G. Owe Berg, G.C. Fernish, T.A. Gaukler, J. Atmos. Sci. 20 (1963)
153.
[6] G.I. Taylor, Proc. R. Soc. A 280 (1964) 383–397.
[7] M.H. Davis, Q. J. Mech. Appl. Math. 17 (1964) 499–511.
[8] G.I. Taylor, Proc. R. Soc. A 306 (1968) 422–434.