Chemical Engineering and Processing 48 (2009) 581–585

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering and Processing:

Process Intensification
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cep

Short communication

An expression for the power consumption of in-line rotor-stator devices

Adam J. Kowalski ∗
Unilever R&D, Port Sunlight Laboratory, Quarry Road East, Bebington, Wirral CH63 3JW, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Rotor-stator devices are increasingly important for process intensification applications but the under-
Received 17 August 2007 standing of their operation and scale-up is poor. Consequently a new expression is presented for the
Received in revised form 3 March 2008 calculation of the delivered power, which consists of three terms. Firstly a term reflecting the power
Accepted 4 April 2008
required to rotate the shaft in response to the resistance of the fluid. Secondly a term reflecting the con-
Available online 12 April 2008
vection of power away from the mixing chamber due to the flow of product. Thirdly, a term reflecting
losses. A constant is required for each term and the expression describes the power consumption over the
Keywords:
range 5–20 kW with a RMSE of 0.5 kW.
Power number
Power draw © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Power consumption
Process intensification
Rotor-stator device
High shear mixer

1. Introduction simple impellors and is characterised by a single power number

Atiemo-Obeng and Calabrese [1] make the following obser-
vation on the understanding of rotor-stator devices “The current
understanding of rotor-stator devices has almost no fundamental
basis. There are few theories by which to predict, or system-
atic experimental protocols by which to assess, the performance
of these mixers. In fact there are few archival publications on
rotor-stator processing”. High-speed rotor-stator devices have been
widely used in the process industries as a process intensification
tool to accelerate homogenisation, dispersion, milling, emulsifi-
cation, dissolution and mixing. The distinguishing feature is the
close proximity of a high-speed rotor to a stator where tip speeds
up to 50 m/s are possible, corresponding to shear rates of up to
100,000 s−1 and where local energy dissipation rates may be three
orders of magnitude higher than conventional stirred tanks [1].
In the simplest arrangement rotor-stator mixers are immersed
in batch vessels either as a top entry or bottom entry mixer.
However, the efficiency of the mixer drops off as the vessel size
becomes large (>5 tonne) and as the viscosity of the fluid increases
(>10,000 cP). The limitations are a consequence of the progressively
poorer bulk mixing in the main vessel although the operational
range can, in some instances, be improved by installing additional
agitation [2]. Determination of power draw is identical to that for
(P0 ) with power P = P0 N3 D5 where  is density (kg/m3 ), N is rotor
speed (rps) and D is the rotor diameter (m) [1,3–6].
As an in-line device, the rotor-stator can be used in a continu-
ous process or in a recycle loop around a holding vessel. The main
advantage of this arrangement is that for the same duty a much
smaller unit is required than for the equivalent batch mixer and
more viscous fluids (e.g. 1,000,000 cP) can be processed [2]. Power
draw is again described in the same terms as for a batch mixer
[7] although data is often presented in terms of the process vari-
ables [7,8]. This is perhaps because the correlation between mixing
and energy dissipation rate is not well characterised and shows a
dependence on rotor speed of N2.5 [9] rather than the N3 expected
from the traditional approach. Moreover it is observed that as flow
rate increases then power draw also increases [10] and this is not
expressly accounted for in the traditional stirred tank approach
outlined above.
Consequently the key insight in the expression presented here
has been to account for the effects of flow rate in convecting energy
away from the device. The expression was developed some years
ago but has, until now, been maintained as commercially confiden-
tial know-how. In another publication [11] we provide details of our
more recent work.

2. Experimental methods

∗ Tel.: +44 151 641 3668. The model is validated with data from a Siefer Trigonal mill
E-mail address: Adam.Kowalski@Unilever.com. (http://www.siefer-trigonal.de/) as a function of rotor speed, flow

0255-2701/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cep.2008.04.002
582 A.J. Kowalski / Chemical Engineering and Processing 48 (2009) 581–585
Fig. 1. Schematic of (a) Siefer Trigonal mill and (b) experimental arrangement.
rate and the grinding gap size. The mill (Fig. 1a) consists of two
disks of 0.22 m diameter, which are separated by a small gap
(100–400 ␮m) and where the upper disk rotates at rotation speed
of upto 5400 rpm. The arrangement is in fact similar to the paral-
lel plate geometry in rheometry. Material is fed into the mill at the
centre of the disk, which then flows radial outwards due to the cen-
trifugal force and the action of an external feed pump. To improve
the milling the faces of the disks have a series of radial grooves to
help prevent wall slip.
Two slurries were examined, namely a 60% wt calcite (Durcal
130 from Pluss–Staffer) slurry in water and a 50% wt soda ash (Brun-
ner Mond) slurry in a nonionic surfactant (Synperonic A3 from Ellis
and Everard). The experimental arrangement is shown in Fig. 1b and
consists of an agitated stirred tank for the preparation of the slurry
and a pump to deliver the slurry to the mill. Power is obtained from
the ammeter of the mill and flow rate is measured by a timed collec-
tion of material, which was then weighed. Viscosity was measured
on a Haake VT 550 at 25 ◦ C.
3. Power model
The full model is given by
P = PT + PF + PL
The left hand side of the equation is the power input to the
milling chamber. The right hand side of the equation is related
to the material properties and operating conditions and consists
of the power required to rotate the rotor against the liquid in the
gap (PT ), the additional power requirements from the flow of liquid
through the gap (PF ) and the power lost (PL : for example by vibra-
tion, noise, kinetic energy losses at the entrance and exit and finally
the accuracy of measurements).
3.1. Motor characteristics
Taking the left hand side of Eq. (1) first the delivered power can
be related to the electrical characteristics of the motor by [12–15]
P = PM = (PG − PA )
where  is the motor efficiency (typically 0.8), PG is the gross elec-
trical power, PA is the power losses as determined by running the
mill in air and PM is the motor power. The motor power can be
determined directly from the current measurement by
√
PM = 3 VI cos  (3)
where V is the line voltage (V), I the current (A), cos ϕ is the power
factor and the 30.5 comes from using a three-phase supply. Normally
cos ϕ varies with load but we will assume that the load is relatively
high and so cos ϕ will be fairly constant [12] with a value of about
0.8. The delivered power (P) and current (I) are therefore related
(Eqs. (2) and (3)) by the constant 460 W/A.
3.2. Power number
The first term on right hand side of Eq. (1) (PT ) is due to the
torque on the motor shaft in the absence of any flow. Following
the traditional approach [3–6,13,14] the Reynolds number (Re) and
power consumption for a batch process are
PT = P0 N 3 D5 (4)
(ND)h
Re = (5)

where P0 is the power number,  is the product density (kg/m3 ),
N is the rotation speed (rps), D is the rotor diameter (m), h is the
grinding gap (m) and  is the viscosity (Pa s). For the Trigonal mill
the rotation rate for the majority of the experiments described here
is 4000 rpm and a typical gap size is about 100 ␮m giving a Re num-
ber of 12 at the edge of the rotor which decreases to 0 at the centre.
Therefore, we assumed that the flow was laminar.
The power number curve for this mill is not available so we take
the approximation for laminar flow defined as [6]
k0
P0 = (6)
Re
where k0 is a constant to be determined in the subsequent fitting
of the model to the data. Substitution of Eqs. (5) and (6) into Eq. (4)
yields;
k0 N 2 D4 
PT = (7)
h
3.3. Flow rate term
The second term of the right hand side of Eq. (1) (PF ) describes
the relationship with flow rate. Physically it can be thought of as
a measure of the energy required to accelerate the fluid entering
(1) the gap of the Trigonal mill up to the tip velocity and which is then
convected away from the mill. Consequently power draw should
increase as the flow rate increases. Centrifugal acceleration of unit
mass is proportional to DN2 and the energy to D2 N2 [16]. Therefore
the power becomes;
PF = k1 D2 MN 2 (8)
where M is the mass flow rate (kg/s) and k1 is a proportionality
constant similar to the power number which is determined as part
of the fit. Substituting Eqs. (7) and (8) into Eq. (1) we obtain a rela-
tionship between the power consumed and the mill and materials
parameters as follows:
k0 N 2 D4 
P= + k1 MN 2 D2 + PL (9)
h
(2)
where k0 , k1 and PL are constants to be determined by the fitting
procedure and P is obtained from the measured current, Eqs. (2)
and (3).
 A.J. Kowalski / Chemical Engineering and Processing 48 (2009) 581–585
Fig. 2. Milling data for soda ash slurry showing the effect of flow rate on current
draw for various rotor speeds and milling gaps (see legend).
4. Results
Fig. 2 presents a sample of the data for the soda ash slurry
showing current draw as a function of flow rate for different rotor
speeds for a fixed milling gap of 100 ␮m. Fig. 3 presents the same
data in terms of MD2 N2 from the second term in Eq. (9) which
describes the effect of flow rate. A comparison of the two figures
shows that the second term of Eq. (9), introduced to account for
the effects of flow rate, provided an adequate description of flow
rate.
To complete the full model fit we need to estimate the vis-
cosity of the product as part of the PT term in Eq. (7). The
radial flow field due to the product flow through the mill results
in a range of shear rates, which are a minimum at the centre
and a maximum at the periphery. The shear rate will vary with
rotor speed and gap but for a rotation speed of 4000 rpm and
a gap of 100 ␮m a shear rate of order 106 s−1 is characteristic.
Unfortunately conventional rheometry is limited to a shear rate
of approximately 1000 s−1 . Although it must be recognised that
this is a fairly crude approximation, we will use the viscosities
measured at the limit of rheometric technique as a representa-
tive viscosity. Thus for the 50% soda ash slurry we use a value
of 0.16 Pa s and for the 60% calcite slurry a value of 0.094 Pa s.
We shall discuss shortly the consequences of these approxima-
tions.
The soda ash and calcite data are fitted separately by the
model with the constants k0 , k1 and PL obtained as part of the
fit. Figs. 4 and 5 present a comparison between the measured and
predicted powers and shows that the expression provides a good
description of power draw(see Fig.6 for fit parameters).
Fig. 3. Data of Fig. 1 as a function of the flow rate term of Eq. (8).
583
Fig. 4. Comparison of measured and predicted power consumption for soda ash
slurry.
5. Discussion
The similar values for k1 and PL for the two slurries are reassur-
ing as they indicate that they are characteristic of the rotor-stator
device rather than the fluids. However, the difference in the values
for k0 is of concern and moreover their magnitude is smaller than
we expected. Fig. 6 includes 95% confidence intervals for all three
constants which show that even for k0 that there is a significant
overlap in the confidence intervals indicating that the differences
are not statistically significant. This is in part due to the relatively
few data points available for the Durcal 130 resulting in broad con-
fidence intervals. Nevertheless, the value of k0 is still unexpectedly
low when typical values are of order 10 or 100 [4] or even up to
1000 [5]. The Siefer mill has some geometric similarities to a cone
and plate rheometer and purely for the sake of interest the value
of k0 was estimated for the latter. The data used was obtained dur-
ing calibration of a TA Instruments AR2000 rheometer with a 4-cm
diameter, 2◦ cone using 1000 cSt calibration grade silicone oil. The
value obtained for k0 of about 190 contrasts strongly with values
obtained for the Siefer mill which are of order 0.1 (Fig. 6) and sug-
gests that the value for the Siefer mill is probably too low. This is
thought to be a consequence of the viscosity values used for the two
slurries. Two main concerns have been identified which are set out
below:
• Viscosity can be sensitive to the size and shape of particles both
of which change as the slurry is milled. In addition for soda ash
there is the added complication that it is a porous particle and
so the phase volume reduces as the particles are milled. These
considerations suggest that using a single value for the unmilled
Fig. 5. Comparison of measured and predicted power consumption for calcite slurry.
584 A.J. Kowalski / Chemical Engineering and Processing 48 (2009) 581–585
Fig. 6. Results of regression analysis.
slurry is inappropriate and it should instead be determined for
each data point.
• The viscosities used in the model correspond to a shear rate,
which is not representative of the mill operation. Rheological
techniques typically only measure viscosities up to a shear rate
of 1000 s−1 [17]. Typically as shear rate increases viscosities drop
(shear thinning) and so the values used are too big. Furthermore
the temperature rise as a consequence of milling will further
reduce the viscosity. So, for example, for the calcite slurry in water
if we were to assume that in the extreme the slurry took on the
viscosity of water (i.e. 0.001 Pa s) we would expect the value of k0
to be proportionally increased and take a value of approximately
15 which is now consistent with values reported from stirred tank
studies.
The other source of error is in the definition of the motor char-
acteristics. In particular it is known that the power factor, efficiency
and losses vary with load but the form of these relationships is not
known for this mill. An indication of some of the contributions to
the power losses is obtained from the power drawn when running
in air of about 2–3 kW whereas the value of PL from the fit is higher
at about 6–7 W.
The comparison of measured with the calculated values of
power obtained from Eq. (9) and using the constants shown in Fig. 6
should result in a correlation of gradient 1 and an intercept pass-
ing through the origin. However, for both slurries the gradient of
the line is less than 1 with a non-zero intercept (Figs. 4 and 5).
Fig. 6 presents the standard error in the gradient and intercept
for the linear fit together with the resulting 95% confidence inter-
vals. The confidence intervals for the Durcal 130 are again large
due to the relatively few data points but nevertheless suggest
that the anticipated values of gradient and intercept are plausi-
ble. However, for the soda ash slurry the 95% confidence intervals
only just include a gradient of unity and a zero intercept. A pos-
sible cause for this is again due to the single viscosity value used
for the slurry. The first term in Eq. (9) is proportional to viscos-
ity and a poor description of viscosity will be reflected in the
value of k0 and in the calculation of the power draw. Future work
should start with simple Newtonian fluids where viscosity is well
known.
Finally we note that the power dependence on rotor speed N
varies from a squared term, where the flow term dominates, to a
cubic term in N, where the power number term dominates. Thus
the experimentally determined relationship mentioned earlier
 A.J. Kowalski / Chemical Engineering and Processing 48 (2009) 581–585
showing a dependence of N2.5 [9] can now be understood as
resulting from contributions from the two terms.
6. Conclusions
An expression for the delivered power for a rotor-stator device
including the effects of flow rate has been successfully developed.
This was based on the traditional power number approach used
for batch vessels but with the introduction of an additional term to
account for the effects of flow rate and required three experimen-
tally determined constants.
Two of the constants (k1 and PL ) are similar for the two slurries
indicating that they are, as expected, characteristic of the equip-
ment rather than the materials. The other constant (k0 ) is different
for the two slurries although the difference does not appear to be
statistically significant. It is however much smaller than expected
and it is suggested that this is a consequence of a poor description
of the slurry viscosity.
The correlation between predicted and measured power draw
is not exactly one to one. This thought to be due to assumptions
about the motor performance and again the poor description of the
slurry viscosity. Future work should start with Newtonian fluids.
Nevertheless the model accounts for the effects of flow rate in
an appropriate way and predicts the power over a range from 5 to
20 kW with a root mean square residual of about 0.5 kW.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to acknowledge Mr Geraint Roberts of
Unilever R&D for providing the raw data from the TA Instruments
AR2000 rheometer, which allowed for the extraction of k0 .
Appendix A. Nomenclature
cos ϕ power factor (0.8 approximately)
D rotor diameter (0.22 m approximately)
h rotor-stator gap (m)
I current (A)
k0 , k1 constants obtained from fitting procedure
M mass flow rate (kg/s)
N rotor rotation rate (rps)
PF power convected away from the milling chamber by the
flow
PG gross power dissipated in the product (W)
PL power losses obtained from fitting procedure (W)
585
PT power required to rotate rotor and overcome fluid resis-
tance (W)
PM the motor power (W)
P0 power number
V voltage (V)
Greek letters
 the efficiency of the motor (approximately 0.8)
 viscosity (approximately 0.16 Pa s for soda ash and
0.94 Pa s for Durcal 130)
 product density (kg/m3 )
References
[1] V.A. Atiemo-Obeng, R.V. Calabrese, Rotor-stator mixing devices, in: E.L. Paul,
V.A. Atiemo-Obeng, S.M. Kresta (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial Mixing, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2004 (chapter 8).
[2] D. Cohen, How to select rotor-stator mixers, Chem. Eng. 105 (1998) 76–79.
[3] L. Xie, C.D. Rielly, W. Eagles, G. Ozcan-Taskin, Dispersion of nano-particle clus-
ters using mixed flow and high shear impellers in stirred tanks, Chem. Eng. Res.
Des. 85 (2007) 676–684.
[4] L. Douchet, G. Ascanio, P.A. Tanguy, Hydrodynamics characterisation of rotor-
stator mixer with viscous fluids, Trans IChemE A, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 83 (2005)
1186–1195.
[5] K.J. Myers, M.F. Reeder, D. Ryan, Power draw of a high-shear homogeniser, Can.
J. Chem. Eng. 79 (2001) 94–99.
[6] M.F. Edwards, M.R. Baker, J.C. Godfrey, Mixing of liquids in stirred tanks, in: N.
Harnby, M.F. Edwards, A.W. Niewnow (Eds.), Mixing in the Process Industries,
2nd ed., Butterworth Heinemann Ltd., 1992 (chapter 8).
[7] J.R. Bourne, J. Garcia-Rosas, Rotor-stator mixers for rapid micromixing, Chem.
Eng. Res. Des. 64 (1986) 11–17.
[8] G.-W. Chu, Y.-H. Song, H.-J. Yang, J.-M. Chen, H. Chen, J.-F. Chen, Micromix-
ing efficiency of a novel rotor-stator reactor, Chem. Eng. J. 128 (2007)
191–196.
[9] J.R. Bourne, M. Studer, Fast reactions in rotor-stator mixers of different size,
Chem. Eng. Process. 31 (1992) 285–296.
[10] T.G. Sparks, D.E. Brown, A.J. Green, Assessing rotor/stator mixers for rapid chem-
ical reactions using overall power characteristics, in: Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Process Intensification for the Chemical Industry,
Paper 3.1.4, 1995.
[11] J. Bałdyga, A.J. Kowalski, M. Cooke, M. Jasińska, Investigations of micromixing
in the rotor-stator mixer, in: XIX Polish Conference of Chemical and Process
Engineering, September, Rzeszów, Poland, 2007.
[12] D.E. Brown, Impeller power input measurement in a production-scale fer-
menter, in: Paper N IChemE Symposium Series No. 64, 1981.
[13] D.A.R. Brown, P.N. Jones, J.C. Middleton, G. Papadopouleos, E.B. Arik, Experi-
mental methods, in: E.L. Paul, V.A. Atiemo-Obeng, S.M. Kresta (Eds.), Handbook
of Industrial Mixing, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2004 (chapter 4).
[14] M.R. Baker, Mixed flow hydrodynamics, in: N.P. Cheremisinoff (Ed.), Advances
in Engineering Fluid Mechanics Series, Gulf Publishing Company, 1996 (chapter
16).
[15] G. Ascanio, B. Castro, E. Galindo, Measurement of power consumption in stirred
vessels—a review, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 82 (2004) 1282–1290.
[16] S. Triton, Physical Fluid Mechanics, CUP, 1982.
[17] H.A. Barnes, Viscometry, in: A Handbook of Elementary Rheology, Institute of
Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics, Wales, UK, 2000 (chapter 7).