S.
G r i f f i t h s
The Effect of Agitator I m p e l l e r Design on M a x i m u m Shear Stress,
and the Resulting Impact on the Flocculation Process
S Griffiths*
Abstract
Although it is extensively researched, flocculation in the
water-treatment industry lacks a design procedure to
assess accurately the performance of the different types
of agitator impeller which are available. New high-
efficiency, hydrofoil-type impellers offer substantial
potential for flocculation duties in many areas, provided
that they arc applied correctly. This paper highlights the
importance of the 'velocity gradient' and the distribution
of shear within the agitation system. The objective of the
paper is to help engineers to evaluate different types of
proprietary impeller designs, using various techniques to
examine the shear distribution applied to the system.
Key words: Bulk fluid velocity; flocculation; head; hydro-
foil; shear.
Introduction
The flocculation process, which follows the flash mixing
of coagulants into the water stream, involves gentle
agitation of the process water to allow floc aggregates to
form from particulates within the water. These aggre-
gates are then removed in a downstream process, typically
by either flotation or sedimentation. Traditionally, a
picket fence or gate-type impeller has been used to gently
stir the process stream. This 'shearing' has the effect of
increasing the rate of collision between particles -
thereby promoting floc growth.
In the design specification for impellers, Camp and
Stein(') introduced the concept of 'velocity gradient', or
vessel average shear rate, using the following relationship:
G = G n,'
where G = velocity gradient (SKI)
P =power(W)
V = volume (m3)
p viscosity (Ns/m2)
Equation 1 has been used widely by the water
industry and is still regarded as the best and easiest
method for specifying an agitation system. Unfortu-
nately it has one major drawback because it assumes that
the shear is applied evenly throughout the tank or mixing
basin. Any agitation process will have areas of high shear
near to the impellers and low shear away from the
impellers. Therefore, although for a particular agitation
system the vessel average shear may be the same as for any
*Applications Engineer, Chemical Plant and Engineering Pty Ltd, Coolaroo,
Victoria. Australia.
324
other, the local maximum shear (G local) may be
substantially different. In practice, this has meant that
the industry has tended to request a particular type of
impeller system, usually the picket fence, with not only
the velocity gradient but also a maximum tip speed. As
this type of impeller relies on a vertical blade, the specifi-
cation of the velocity gradient and the maximum tip
speed defines both the maximum local, as well as the
vesscl average shear rates.
Flow-inducing impellers such as pitched-blade
turbines and hydrofoils have advantages for any industry
which is striving for improved efficiency. This type of
impeller cannot be specified on the same tip speeds as a
picket fence because of the pitch of the blades, and can
run at much higher speeds while producing similar or
better shear distribution within the basin.
More extensive flocculation equations have been
developed by researchers such as Argaman and
K a ~ f m a n ( ~to
9 ~try
) to take the distribution of shear into
account, and they have produced equations such as:
which relates the number of contacts of primary particles
with various factors such as radius of floc particles,
number concentrations, etc. To this they introduced the
break-up factor:
dn, - .___-
BRF2nFu2
- - (3)
dt r12
In recent textbooks, equations 2 and 3 have now
been simplified to:
_nl"_ - 1 + KAGT' (4)
1 + KBG2T1
Equation 4 relates the number concentration of
particles at the start, and any subsequent point in the
flocculation process. It uses well-known constants such
as G factors and tank retention periods, but introduces
KA (the aggregation constant which can be calculated)
and KB (which includes a paddle performance
coefficient). Unfortunately, this is likely to vary with the
type and manufacturer of an impeller, and with the
diameter and speed, and therefore would be difficult to
predict and use in practice.
Floc Structure
A significant amount of research has been carried out into
the nature of floc structure. For example, Michaels and
Nomenclature is shown at end of paper
0 J , C I W E M , 1 9 9 6 , 10, October
 The Effect of Agitator Impeller Design on Maximum Shear Stress, and the Resulting Impact on the Flocculation Process
B01ger(~~~)derived a multi-layer floc model from their
observed data. Other evidence for multi-level floc
structure is found in the floc density - floc diameter
relati~nship(~f').However, there appears to be some con-
fusion between the researchers as to the exact definition
of some of the levels of the structure. Van de Ven and
Hunter(') defined a four-level structure as follows:
(i) Primary particles;
(ii) Flocculi formed from a collection of primary
particles;
(iii) Flocs formed from close-packed flocculi; and
(iv) Floc aggregates.
However, other researchers consider that the floc is an
aggregation of primary particles and therefore combine
(iii) and (iv). For simplicity, this model will be used. Each
floc will be defined as an aggregate of primary particles
bound together by intermolecular forces and encom-
passing a substantial proportion of fluid within its
framework.
Floc Break-up
Firth and Hunter@)used a Bingham model to describe
the flow of an electrically charged sol. Three parameters
are of importance, as shown in Fig. 1. zB,the Bingham
yield value, occurs where the flow curve becomes linear
at a value of Go.It was found that this theoretical model
fitted the elastic floc rather than a single particle or a hard
non-deformable floc model, and the significance of this
theory to mixing will be discussed later.
00
Shear rate
Fig. 1. Shear stress vs shear rate for a coagulatedsol
It is generally accepted by researcher~(~3~)
that floc
break-up occurs by one or a combination of the following
mechanisms:
(a) Surface erosion of primary particles; and/or
(b) Fracture of floc to form smaller aggregates.
The simultaneous processes of floc aggregation and
break-up will finally result in a stable floc size where the
rate of aggregation equals the rate of break-up. This can
be expressed using the following equation:
0 J CIWEM,1996, 10, October
where d, is the stable floc size,
C, is the coefficient related to floc strength,
and
L is the exponent dependent upon the floc
break-up made and size regime of eddies
which can cause disruption.
To help with the visualization of floc break-up, the
yield stress limit (T~)should be remembered. As
discussed earlier, the bonds holding the flocs together are
elastic and, as such, will break when the yield values are
exceeded. Francois and Van Haute(lo)reworked data from
Tomi and Bagster(") to show a relationship between floc
diameter and largest stress within the bonds (Fig. 2).
Dimensions (mm)
- U- Spherical aggregate -x- Length of chain
Fig. 2. Diameter of spherical aggregates and length
of chain vs maximum tension in elastic link between
nodes
This shows that the larger the floc, the higher the stress
in the bonds. It therefore follows that to reach the yield
value for the bond, larger flocs will require less shear
input than smaller flocs, which is consistent with
expectations. This also proves the theory behind tapered
flocculation in the sedimentation process, when the
growth of large flocs is an advantage. Higher shear
stresses are important for floc build-up in their early
stages of development to cause the collisions of the
flocculi. T h e effect of slowly tapering down so that yield
stresses are not exceeded as the flocs grow will result in a
larger final floc size which is more easily settled. This
theory of a yield stress can be simplified into the form of
an equation:
Mixing Theory
When sizing the impellers, manufacturers must consider
at least three dimensionless groups, i.e.
D2Np
N R E =- - - Reynolds number (7)
P
NP = - - P - Power number (8)
pN3D5
N, = = Flow or pumping number (9)
ND3
325
S. Griffiths

T h e Reynolds number (equation 7) must be
considered to evaluate the flow regime of the impeller, i.e.
laminar, transitional, or turbulent. If it is turbulent, N P
and NQare constants for a given impeller in a given tank.
It should be noted that for agitation of water in full and
pilot-scale tanks the viscosity (m) is low while D is high,
hence keeping the Reynolds number high within the
turbulent regime. Bearing this in mind, N P and N Q c a n
be regarded as constants, depending upon the type of
impeller. Small laboratory-scale test units would have to
be assessed individually, as the small size of the impellers
often pushes the flow regime into transitional and even
laminar flow regime.
The impeller power number (equation 8), Np, is
used to calculate the theoretical power consumption of an
impeller of a particular size and speed (not including
gearbox losses, motor losses, etc). This is required for
correct motor and gearbox sizing and is also used to check
the vessel average shear rate or velocity gradient. T h e
flow number (equation 9) is used to calculate the
pumping capacity of the impellers and hence the bulk
fluid velocity (BFV) in the tank(”). This is important to
prevent by-passing or stagnant zones forming in the tank.
The BFV is defined as the flow produced by the impeller
divided by the cross-sectional equivalent area of the tank
(A’). The equivalent area of a tank is that of a perfect
square tank, i.e. when the diameter of the vessel equals
the fluid depth, and this is defined by the following
equations:
v2 JI 113
A‘ = __ (10)
4
dissipation rates will be produced, and hence scales of
mixing, depending on the particular position of the fluid
in relation to the impeller.
T h e theory of macromixing and micromixing has,
in some cases, been applied to the flocculation process(16).
However, a floc consists of an aggregate of primary
particles bound together by intermolecular forces and
encompassing a substantial fraction of fluid within its
framework. In other words when a floc has grown, unlike
other more solid particles, it will still be affected by both
micro and macromixing.
Traditionally, flocculator agitators have been of the
gate or picket-fence types. When installed in a tank they
produce a high tangential velocity (macroscale flow
circulating around the impeller shaft), and microflow
concentrated in alternating vortices at the back of the
impeller blades. By controlling the rotational speed of the
impeller, the process can be optimized by altering the
proportions of micro and macromixing in relation to each
other (as bulk macroflow varies with rotational speed, and
local shear with rotational speed squared for a given
agitation system). T h e success of the picket-fence
impeller can be attributed to this controlability. Although
the flow patterns leave a lot to be desired in terms of
mixing efficiency, bulk flow within the vessel is never
lost. A turbine or hydrofoil impeller, such as the RTF4
(Fig. 3), must achieve a minimum agitator speed in order
to maintain the entire contents of the tank in motion. The
successful application of hydrofoils, or any other axial-
flow type of impeller to the flocculation process, will

BFV= -
Q
A’

At this stage it is appropriate to introduce the

subject of macromixing and micromixing as being
important parameters for the flocculation process.
Macromixing can be thought of as the bulk movement of
fluid, i .e. large-scale turbulence, and micromixing is
movement on a small (often thought of as molecular)
scale(13J4).Every impeller produces a combination of
these two types of mixing in different proportions. Zones
around the impeller are the predominant area for
micromixing, as this is where most energy is transferred
to the fluid. However, it is not often explained what these
factors are in terms of parameters which are used in the
water industry.
Most researchers investigating mixing type^('^,'^,'^)
have shown that there is a specific dividing line between
(a) Impeller
microscale and macroscale mixing, which occurs at a
certain size of velocity fluctuation. T h e ultimate size
limit for a given duty can be related to the Kolmogoroff
microscale of turbulence, which can (in turn) be related
to constants associated with the physical properties of the
water and the energy dissipation rate at that particular
point within the fluid. In the water industry energy
dissipation is often measured using the velocity gradient.
However, it should be noted that the velocity gradient @) Blade
calculated with Camp and Stein’s equation (1) is the
vessel average value - not that which occurs locally. Fig, 3. Characteristically shaped RTF4 impeller and
Therefore, in any agitation system a range of energy blade

326 0 J.CIWEM,1996, 10, October

 The Effect of Agitator Impeller Design on Maximum Shear Stress, and the Resulting Impact on the Flocculation Process
therefore depend upon them being able to maintain at
least a minimum macroscale flow while keeping shear to
an acceptable level. This makes the initial design of the
impeller size and speed very important.
In order to investigate the agitation system more
fully, it is necessary to examine not just the vessel average
shear ( G factor or velocity gradient) but also to obtain an
indication of the maximum shear and to check the bulk
fluid velocity within the vessel.
In a recent paper, Geisler et UP')examined the local
shear stress and derived the equation:
This relates the maximum turbulent shear stress
occurring within the fluid with the tip speed and power
number of the impeller. It is well known that there is a
relationship between floc break-up and tip speed, but the
power number relationship is less well known. As an
overall explanation it can be said that the maximum shear
stress will develop at the point in the fluid where the
highest velocity is'applied. In general, this will occur at
the point at which the impeller blade is travelling at its
maximum speed, which is at its tip. T h e amount of power
applied is a function of the blade angle and geometry, and
is usually represented by the power number. Therefore
the power applied at a single point on the impeller blade
(and therefore the local velocity gradient) will be a
function of the power number and impeller speed (as
described above). It should be noted that hydrofoils have
a variable angle along the impeller blade, with a small
angle to the plane of rotation at the impeller tip. This
would mean that the point at which most power is applied
may be at a position other than at the tip of the blade.
However, the correlation (which is stated above) will
provide a conservative answer in this case, and therefore
would still be a reasonable method of comparison.
Remembering how the elastic floc model has been
proven, and knowing that for this to be true the bonds
must have a maximum yield stress, equation 12 can be
used not only to compare dissimilar agitators, but
potentially to predict floc size - although this will be an
area for future work. Also, interestingly, equation 12 can
be combined with equations 8 and 9, to show that a set
value of t M A X can be achieved with different power
inputs, and bulk fluid velocities, with a change only in the
size or type of impeller. This may mean that (a) there are
potential savings in power to be achieved, (b) shorter
residence time tanks could be used, or (c) removal
efficiency could be increased simply by changing the type
or size of impeller on the flocculator. For instance, using
a large, lower power number impeller at an increased tip
speed would be likely to improve the collision rate while
maintaining the rate of the floc break-up, thus giving an
overall improvement in performance.
Equation 12 is also a useful method for the
comparison of agitation systems. If the system has
existing picket-fence agitators operating at known tip
speeds, and the impeller power number is known or can
be obtained from the manufacturer, a comparison can be
made using relationship:
0 J CIWEM,1996, 10, October
Table 1 shows an exampIe of this comparison technique.
T h e value of N,8/9,VT1: is first calculated for the picket
fence, and this value is used to calculate the maximum tip
speeds of other impellers. This gives an indication of the
required design parameters to maintain a constant tMAX
and hence a constant rate of floc break-up.
Table 1. Comparison of V,, of various impellers
using equation 13
Impeller
Picket fence
Pitched blade turbine
Typical hydrofoil 0.35
RTF4 0.15
As is shown, the initial tMAX values for the picket-
fence impeller enables the maximum allowable tip speed
for the other types of impeller to be specified, which will
prevent the flocs from being excessively sheared by the
action of the impeller blades. Unfortunately, this does not
specify the agitation system. As mentioned earlier, for
pumping impellers (such as pitched-blade turbine and
hydrofoils), flow must be considered. A minimum value
of bulk fluid velocity should be observed or batch control
will be lost. Using the flow number (equation 9) and
substituting values for the particular impellers NB it can
be shown that hydrofoils produce an equal bulk fluid
velocity with a smaller tMm than pitched-blade turbines.
Therefore a hydrofoil impeller would be a better choice
for a flocculation duty than other flow types of impeller.
Also, a small increase in impeller diameter will have a
large effect on the flow produced ( Q a D3).As the tip
speed for these impellers is comparatively limited when
compared with normal non-shear sensitive duties, large
diameters are required to obtain the minimum bulk fluid
velocities required. Fig. 4 illustrates this point by
showing that a given flowrate can be obtained with a
smaller tMAX using larger impellers.
An alternative and simpler method of comparing
the local shear produced by an impeller is to evaluate the
head produced by the agitation system. This can be
achieved utilizing the same equations which are
commonly used to calculate the performance of pumps.
The head difference can be thought of as the difference
in pressure between the upper and lower sides of a flow-
producing impeller. T h e difference in pressure will cause
the fluid to flow at a certain velocity, and the differences
in velocity caused by the variation in actual speed at
points across the impeller diameter will give a velocity
gradient at the impeller; this will be the highest found
locally within the agitation system. T h e equation which
is used for this calculation method can be derived from
the simple relationship:
P = QpgAH (14)
Substituting the power number and flow number
(equations 8 and 9) into P and Qrespectively, and then
simplifying, gives the equation:
327
S. Griffiths

Chemical Plant and Engineering - RTF4 impeller

asis : 3 x 3 x 3 m tank

,,
,
,,
,
,
,

-3’
.c

J
I

1 --

Bulk fluid velocity

-u-D/T = 0.5 -x-D/T = 0.35
Fig. 4. Maximum shear stress vs bulk fluid velocity for various impeller sizes in a given tank

older type of hydrofoil impeller(’@. T h e researchers

Equation 15 can also be used to compare various im-
pellers in order to evaluate their potential performance.
Again, it is possible to look at the results from Table 1 but
use impeller head to estimate the required tip speeds of
the flow-inducing impellers. It should be noted that the
picket-fence impeller has been removed from Table 2 due
to the difficulties in predicting an accurate flow number.
From a comparison of Tables 1 and 2 using the different
calculation methods, it can be seen that the results for the
required maximum tip speeds are similar. Therefore
either method could be used, depending upon the
available data or the personal preference of the user.
Table 2. Comparison of V,, of various impellers
using equation 15
Impeller
Typical hydrofoil
RTF4
published data which can be used to validate the above
theories. Re-examining the given data using the
maximum shear stress technique gives the results shown
in Table 3.
The conclusion of the paper comparing paddles
with pitched-blade turbines(’) was that they operated
adequately at a lower speed, but seemed to shear the flocs
at a higher speed. This would be expected from the above
data on the maximum shear stress. Note that using the
standard velocity gradient design procedure it would
have been predicted that the turbine should have been
run at even higher speeds to obtain an equal G value. T h e
comparisons with the hydrofoil type impeller show that
operational values found by trial and error could have
been predicted almost exactly using the maximum shear
technique. Again, there would have been similar
problems to that for the turbine if predictions had been
based on the velocity gradient.
Table 3. Review ofpublished research showing how
equation 13 could have been used to predict
hydrofoil operating speed
Impeller Speed aG
(revhin)

P r a c t i c a l Experience Picket fence 0.5-1.5

1 .o-1.5(Op.)
Studies have previously been carried out into the use of Pitched turbine 3-1 2
flow-type impellers compared with existing flocculator Hydrofoil 3.5-1 1
paddles, notably using pitched-blade turbines(I8)and an 7-11 (Op.)

328 0 J.CIWEM,1996, 1 0 , October

 The Effect of Agitator Impeller Design on Maximum Shear Stress, and the Resulting Impact on the Flocculation Process

It would be possible to argue that if the paddles can

manufacturers to utilize their particular designs of
input more energy to achieve their optimum perform- hydrofoil (or other) impellers, and would not exclude any
ance, this would lead to a better performance of the particular impeller type. However, this should be carried
flocculation system due to the additional energy being out only in conjunction with a minimum bulk fluid
used to promote the collision of the floc particles. velocity, as explained earlier. It is recommended that a
However, in practice this does not seem to have occurred, value of 0.03 m/s is used, being the value which should
as the results were similar for both the paddle and the be achievable at the minimum predicted operating speed
hydrofoil, probably because that paddle wastes a large of the impeller. If the bulk fluid velocity is lower,
proportion of its energy usage by causing the whole of theagitation is likely to be lost initially at the water surface,
tank contents to rotate. When a fluid is under this type of
but progressively in other areas of the tank. T h e particu-
agitation regime there is little interaction (a) between the
lar value of zMAX to specify is dependent upon various
fluid layers except when the impeller passes or (b) in thefactors, such as type of coagulant, temperature, and water
corners of the tank. Therefore more energy would need quality, and is best assessed by looking at existing full-
to be expended for a given number of collisions. Recent scale flocculators or pilot-scale tests. T h e author is
designs of hydrofoil (such as the RTF4) are better presently attempting to arrive at specific recommen-
distributors of shear, and in these cases it is likely that the
dations based on standard operating speeds for picket-
impellers will be able to provide a real process improve- fence impellers and published data on the strength of the
ment because it will be possible to increase the velocity floc particles. This work will be published at a later date.
gradient while maintaining local shear at an acceptable As a guideline, Fig. 5 shows the levels of maximum
level. However, it should be noted that one of the advan- shear stress which impellers of various power numbers
tages of flow-producing impellers is that the velocity produce when operating at a range of tip speeds, using
gradient can be varied with ZMAX almost infinitely the above techniques. This could be used to relate the
(actually bound by the constraints of the tank size) at the
various local shears provided by different impeller types
design stage. when comparing bids. However, the importance of
producing at least a minimum bulk fluid velocity should
again be emphasized as another key to successful
Discussion flocculation.
It should be noted that these equations also apply to
Having explained why the use of equations 12 and 13 are laboratory-scale flocculators. However, these are complex
appropriate, and shown that in practice this sizing systems due to lack of baffling, recirculation under the
technique seems to work, the logical conclusion for a impeller, transitional type flow, etc. Further work needs
flocculator user may be to specify the agitator using zMAXto be carried out to relate laboratory-scale testing with
or NPS’9.VTIp2 as a design parameter. This would allow full-scale equipment specification with any confidence.

100

10

.1

.01
0 .5 1 1
Tip speed ( d s )
I3 .15 -x- .3 -0-.5 -#-I -4-3

Fig, 5. Maximum shear stress vs tip speed for various impeller po wer numbers

0 J CIWEM,1996, 10, October 329

S. G r i f f i t h s
Care should be taken when examining an existing
flocculator, as it is often tempting to multiply out
equation (2) so that: . specification of a maximum tip speed. This also
%MAX = f{Pa,Nb, D")
Therefore, by taking a reading of the power drawn from
the agitator and knowing the impeller diameter and
speed, tMAX can be estimated. This should not be done, as
the power consumption would include gearbox, motor
and other losses which may be relatively large, and would
therefore lead to inaccurate results. T h e manufacturer of
the agitator should be asked for details of the theoretical
power draw from the impeller, or estimations can be
made from equations 7 and 8.
Use o f Hydrofoils for Flocculation
Any flow-inducing type of impeller has a considerable
advantage over a gate or picket-fence agitator, in that they
are applicable to any shape of tank. The impellers mix by
inducing flow within the tank rather than having to travel
through the liquid. Therefore, for tanks with width to
length ratios of 2: 1, only one agitator would be required.
Hydrofoil impellers not only have the advantage of
producing lower shear stresses when sized correctly, but
also of very high bulk flow per unit of power invested.
This reduces the chances of by-passing and makes the
residence time distribution curve narrow and therefore
more ideal for the process.
Mixing efficiency will be significantly increased by
using hydrofoil impellers due to the pumping action
which is produced. Therefore the time taken for a given
number of collisions will be reduced. Potentially, this
could lead to a reduction in the residence time required
in the tanks, and thus a higher throughput in a given tank,
or smaller tanks for a given throughput. T h e increased
number of collisions could also lead to an improved
performance of the flocculators, as more collisions will be
caused at, potentially, a lower level of maximum shear.
Hydrofoil-type flocculator agitators are often
cheaper in capital cost because of the lower torque
requirements for the gearbox and shaft system. Although
hydrofoils are expensive to manufacture due to their
complex shape, the cost of this item usually compares
favourably with a picket fence because of its much smaller
physical size.
Conclusions
1. Although, in the past, the concept of 'velocity
gradient' has been proven to be a successful method
of specifying flocculator agitators, recent papers have
indicated that for new, more efficient impeller
systems the normal design procedure is not valid.
This paper has attempted to give an alternative
procedure which is easy to use. In summary:
(i) Camp and Stein's velocity gradient concept
assumes a perfect distribution of shear within
the vessel. This can never be the case in a
mechanically agitated system.
(ii) The G factor has been adapted to fit the
330
standard impeller which was used in the past for
flocculation, i.e. the gate or picket fence, by the
has the effect of setting maximum shear stress
levels.
(iii) New hydrofoil-type impellers offer many advan-
tages for the flocculation process, but do not
necessarily fit the G factor and tip speed
parameters which were used in the past. There-
fore a more general design parameter is required
to predict floc break-up.
(iv) Although no specific design value recommen-
dations have been given, Geisler's equation for
maximum shear stress has been recommended
as an easy method of comparing the break-up of
flocs, and hence the overall performance
produced in an agitated tank. Reworking of
previous test data has shown this method to be
reliable.
(v) T h e bulk fluid velocity has been defined and
recommended as an essential design parameter
for flow-producing impellers. A minimum value
should be used in order to prevent stagnant areas
and by-passing in the tank, and higher values
should be used to increase the collision rate of
particles in the tank.
(vi) Hydrofoils and high-efficiency impellers have
the advantage of producing a high bulk flow with
a low shear stress, compared with other axial-
flow impellers.
(vii) In general, to keep within shear stress limits
equivalent of a picket fence while maintaining a
minimum bulk fluid velocity, a large hydrofoil
impeller at a relatively low tip speed (for this
type of impeller) would be required.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to acknowledge the contribution to
this paper of Chemineer in the UK and US, without
whose time and training this paper would not have been
written.
Nomenclature
A' = Equivalent area of tank (m2)
BFV = Bulk fluid velocity (m/s)
B = Break-up constant
C, = Floc-strength coefficient
D = Impeller diameter (m)
d = Floc diameter (m)
dS = Stable floc diameter (m)
G = Velocity gradient (5')
g = Acceleration due to gravity (m/s2)
h = Coefficient depending on strength of floc bonds
KA = Aggregation constant
KB = Break-up constant
L = Coefficient depending on break-up mode and
size regime of eddies
m = Coefficient depending on size regime of eddies
Nl,f = Number of contacts of primary particles (l),
and flocs (Q
0 J.CIWEM,1996, 10, October
 The Effect of Agitator Impeller Design on Maximum Shear Stress, and the Resulting Impact on the Flocculation Process

N = Impeller speed (sd) (4) MICHAELS, A. S., AND BOLGER, J. C. lnd. €ng. Chem. Fund., 1962, (l),
n = Number concentration of primary particles (l), 24-33.
and flocs (0 (5) MICHAELS, A. S., AND BOLGER, J. C. lnd. Eng. Chem. Fund., 1962, (l),
N, = Reynoldsnumber 153-1 62
NP = Powernumber (6) LAGVANMA, A. L., AND GEMMEL,R. S. J. Am. Wat. Wks.Assoc.,1968,(9),
N, = Flow number 1040-1046.
P = Power (watts) (7) VAN DE VEN, T. G., AND HUNTER, R. J. Rhocel. Acta., 1977,16,534-543.
Q = Flowrate (m3/s) (8) FIRTH,B. A., AND HUNTER, R. J. J. COll. lnterf. Sci., 1976,57,248-275.
R = Radius of floc particles (m) (9) SPEILMAN, L. A. Hydrodynamic aspects of flocculation. In The Scientific
r = Radius of primary particles (I), and flocs (f), Basis of Flocculation. (Ed. K. Ives.) Sijthoff and Noordhoff, 1978.
( 4 (10) FRANCOIS, R. J., AND VAN HAUTE,A. A. Floc strength measurements
T = Tankdiameter (m) giving equipment support for a four level hydroxide floc structure.
T' = Mean residence period (s) KatholiekeUniversiteitLeuven, Inst. of Indust. Chem de Craylaan2 B-
Trrnax = Largest force in structure 3030 Heverlee, Belgium, 1983.
u = Velocity (m/s) (11) TOMI,D., AND BAGSTER, D. F. Chem. Eng. Sci., (1975) 30,269-278.
V = Volume(m3) (12) Chemineer Inc., American Chemical Engineering. McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
VTp = Impeller tip speed (m/s) New York, N.Y.
AH = Impeller head difference (m) (13) BOURNE, J. F., AND RAVINORANATH, K. Comparison of finite difference and
p = Viscosity (Nm/s2) collection methods for micromixing calculations. Technisch-
z = Shear stress (N/m2) Chemisches Lab. E TH, CH-8092 Zurich. 1978.
k l = Force proportionality constant (14) OLDSHUE,J. Y. Fluid Mixing Technology. McGraw Hill Inc. New York.
p = Density(kg/m3) 1983.
(15) VAN DEN AKKER. H. E., AND BAKKER,R. A. A computational study of
chemical reactors on the basis of micromixing models. In froc. of8th
References EUL Con[ on Mixing, 1994. (Instn. of Chem. Eng. paper 33,256-266).
(16) OLOSHUE, J, Y., AND MADY,0. B. Flocculatorirnpellecacomparison.A.I.
(1) CAMP,T. R., AND STEIN,P. C. Velocity gradients and internal works in Chem. fng. Journal, 1979, May, 72-75.
fluid motion. J. SOC.Civ. fngng., 1943,30,219-237. (17) GEISLER,R., KREBS,R., AND FORSCHNER, P. Local turbulent shear stress in
(2) ARGAMAN, Y., AND KAUFMAN,W. J. Turbulence in orthokinetic floccu- stirred vessels and its significance for different mixing tasks. Ekato
lation. SERL Report No 68-5, Sanitary Engineering Research Ruhr- und Mischtechnik GmbH. In froc. of 8th EuL Cant: on Mixing
Laboratory, Univ. of California, Berkeley, California, July 1965. (Instn. of Chem. Eng.), Sept 21-23,1994.
(3) ARGAMAN, Y., AND KAUFMAN,W. J. Turbulence and flocculation. J. San. (18) PARIS,D. Evaluationand Performance of Flocculators. NfWWA, 1977.
fngng. Div., ASCE, 1970,96, (SM), 223-241.

0 J,CIWEM,1996, 10, October 331