Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer With No-Newtonian Liquids in Mechanically Agitated Vessels

ADVANCES IN HEAT TRANSFER VOL.
37
Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer with

Non-Newtonian Liquids in Mechanically
Agitated Vessels
R. P. CHHABRA
Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,
Kanpur 208 016, India
I. Introduction
Mixing is perhaps one of the oldest and the commonest unit operation
encountered in the chemical, biochemical, polymer, food, agriculture,
ceramic, paper, pharmaceutical and allied industries and in natural settings
in every day life [1]. Almost all manufacturing processes entail some sort of
mixing to varying extents, and this step may constitute a considerable
proportion of the overall process time. Therefore, the financial investment in
terms of both fixed and operating costs of mixing operations represents a
significant fraction of the overall costs. For instance, improper and
inadequate mixing is believed to add an estimated amount of US $ 1–10
billion per annum to the cost of process industries in the United States alone
[2]. Consequently, there is a strong motivation to develop sound and reliable
strategies for the design of mixing equipment which in turn requires a
thorough understanding of mixing itself.
The term mixing is applied to the operations or processes which are
aimed to reduce the degree of non-uniformity or inhomogenity, or the
gradient of a physical property such as colour, concentration, temperature,
viscosity, electric charge, and so on, or to achieve a random distribution of
one constituent into another medium. Obviously, mixing can be achieved by
moving (convection) material from one region to another within the body of
the fluid thereby reducing the overall degree of non-homogeneity. Of course,
the ultimate homogenization occurs only by molecular motion. There are
instances when the objective of mixing is to produce a desired level of
homogeneity but mixing is also used to promote the rates of heat and mass
transfer, often where a system is also undergoing a chemical reaction. At the
Advances in Heat Transfer 77 Copyright ß 2003 Elsevier Inc.,
Volume 37 ISSN 0065-2717 All rights reserved
78 R. P. CHHABRA
outset, it is therefore instructive and useful to consider some common

examples of problems encountered in industrial mixing operations, since this
will not only reveal the ubiquitous nature of the phenomenon of mixing, but
will also provide a glimpse of and an appreciation of some of the difficulties
associated with this seemingly simple process. One can classify mixing
applications in a variety of ways, such as the quality of the final product
(mixture), flowability of the product in the mixing of powders, etc., bubble
size in gas–liquid systems, Newtonian or non-Newtonian liquids, but it is
perhaps most satisfactory (albeit quite arbitrary) to base such a classification
on the phases present in the system such as gas–liquid, liquid–solid, solid–
solid, liquid–liquid, etc. This scheme of classification not only brings out a
degree of commonality but also facilitates the development of an unified
framework to deal with the mixing problems cutting across diverse
industrial settings ranging from food, polymer to the processing of agri-
cultural products and waste streams. Table I provides a selection of
representative examples for various kinds of mixing applications, together
with some key references, as encountered in a range of technological
settings.
An inspection of Table I clearly reveals the near all pervasive nature of
mixing. Furthermore, there are situations wherein the mixing equipment
may be designed not only to achieve a pre-determined level of uniformity
but also to enhance heat transfer. For example, if the rotational speed of an
impeller in a stirred vessel is selected so as to achieve a required rate of heat
transfer, the agitation may then be more than adequate for the mixing duty.
Excessive or overmixing should be avoided. For example, in biological
systems, excessively high impeller speeds or power input are believed by
many to give rise to shear rates which may damage micro-organisms. In
addition, there are very sensitive cells made by genetic engineering
techniques that have more diverse requirements for cultivation. For
instance, many cell cultures require anywhere from 2 to 6 months for
processing rather than the usual 5 to 7 days in antibiotic fermentation
processing. This requires the development of mixing equipment that can be
maintained aseptic for long periods of time. Similarly, in the pulp and paper
industry, there is a growing recognition of many advantages of carrying out
chemical processes at high pulp concentrations ( 12–25%) as opposed to
the concentrations of 6–7% in traditional processes. The desire to process
high-consistency pulps (which invariably exhibit complex non-Newtonian
behaviour) puts one into a new arena where both macro- and micro-scale
mixing are exceedingly difficult. Similarly, where the desirable flow
(rheological) properties of some polymer solutions may be attributable to
the chain length and the other architectural aspects of polymer molecules,
excessive impeller speeds or agitation over prolonged periods may adversely
FLUID MECHANICS AND HEAT TRANSFER 79
TABLE I
EXAMPLES OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MIXING
Type of mixing Examples Remarks Selected

references
Single-phase Blending of miscible petroleum More difficult to mix/agitate [3–7]

liquid products and silicone oils; use of highly viscous Newtonian and
agitation to promote rates of heat non-Newtonian systems, and
and mass transfer and chemical when the density and viscosity
reactions; homogenization of of the two components differ
liquid metals [8]. vastly (water/honey or glucose
syrup).
Liquid–liquid Immiscible liquids as encountered Main objective here is to [3–7]
in liquid–liquid extraction, produce large interfacial area,
formulations of emulsions in or a desired droplet size (or
brewing, food processing, size distribution). The degree
personal-care products and of the difficulty of mixing
pharmaceutical processes; increases with the decreasing
production of polymeric alloys. size of droplets and/or with
severe interfacial tension
effects.
Liquid–solid Suspensions of particles in low Power input depends strongly [3,4,6,7,
viscosity systems by mechanical upon the size and density of 10,12,13]
agitation; incorporation of carbon particles and viscosity in low
black powder and other fillers into viscosity systems. However, in
a viscous non-Newtonian matrix case of fine particles, surface
(such as rubber) to produce forces play an important role.
composites [14].
Gas–liquid Aerobic fermentation, wastewater Main objective is to produce [3,6,15]
treatment, oxidation and large interfacial area to
chlorination of hydrocarbons, promote mass transfer and
production of xanthan gums, chemical reaction. Dispersion
batters, bread mixes, etc. becomes increasingly difficult
with the increasing levels of
viscosity and non-Newtonian
behaviour.
Gas–liquid– Slurry and sparged reactors; three Intimate mixing required for [3,6,15]
solid phase fluidized bed reactors. efficient operation and
product quality control.
Solid–solid Formation of concrete by Strongly dependent upon the [3,16–
blending sand, cement and size, shape and surface 20,375]
aggregates; production of gun properties of the solid
powder, food mixtures [21], and components.
condiments and spices, fertilizers,
animal feeds, insecticides, solid–
solid chemical reactions [22], etc.
80 R. P. CHHABRA
affect the quality of the final product. It is thus vital to appreciate that
both ‘‘over-mixing’’ as well as ‘‘under-mixing’’ are equally undesirable for
different reasons. In view of the diversity of mixing problems, it is clearly
neither possible to consider the whole spectrum of mixing problems here nor
it is fair to expect that a single framework (model) will work for all kinds of
mixing situations. Indeed, highly specialized mixing techniques and
equipment have been developed over the years. For instance, the mixing
needs [23–25] of polymer-related processing is almost solely met by
extruders whereas for highly viscous liquids, in-line mixers are gaining
grounds, e.g., see Refs. [3,26]. Hence, in this chapter, consideration will be
given primarily to batch mixing of liquids, followed by heat transfer in
mechanically agitated systems. Over the years, considerable research effort
has been directed at exploring and understanding the underlying physics of
mixing in low viscosity systems when the fluid exhibits simple Newtonian
flow behaviour such as that exhibited by water and other low molecular
weight systems including molten metals and electrolytes. Indeed, scores of
books, research monographs and review papers providing critically
reasoned comprehensive accounts of developments in this area are available
[3–7,15,27,28,28a] and the frequent publication of special issue of periodi-
cals (e.g., see Refs. [29,30]) and regular conferences reporting significant
advances in this field testify to the overwhelming theoretical and pragmatic
importance of mixing even with Newtonian liquids.
Unfortunately, many materials of pragmatic significance and encoun-
tered in a large number of industrial settings do not adhere to the simple
Newtonian fluid behaviour and accordingly such substances are called non-
Newtonian or rheologically complex fluids [31–34]. One particular sub-class
of fluids of considerable interest is that in which the effective (or apparent)
viscosity depends on shear rate or, crudely speaking, on the rate of flow.
Most particulate slurries, emulsions, sewage sludges, gas–liquid dispersions
(foams, froths, batters) exhibit varying degrees of non-Newtonian
behaviour, as done by the melts and solutions of high molecular weight
polymers or other large molecules such as soap or protein. Further examples
of substances exhibiting non-Newtonian characteristics include foodstuffs
(soup, jam, jelly, marmalade, meat extract, etc.) [35], paints, personal care
products [36], propellants, synthetic lubricants and biological fluids (blood,
saliva, synovial fluid, etc.). Evidently, non-Newtonian fluid behaviour is so
widespread that it would be no exaggeration to say that the Newtonian fluid
behaviour might be regarded as an exception rather than the rule! Although
the earliest reference to non-Newtonian fluid behaviour dates back to 700
BC [37], the importance of non-Newtonian characteristics and their impact
on process design and operations have been recognized only during the past
40–50 years or so, especially as far as the mixing in agitated vessels is
concerned. Consequently, undoubtedly considerable research effort has

been devoted to what one might call engineering analysis of non-Newtonian
fluids as is evidenced by the number of books available on this subject
[31–34,38–40]. Yet it is remarkable that, inspite of the overwhelming
pragmatic significance of liquid mixing, most of the existing books on batch
mixing concentrate on low viscosity Newtonian fluids, albeit some of the
recent books have attempted to alleviate this situation by including short
sections on the mixing of viscous Newtonian and non-Newtonian systems
must. It is interesting to note that even in a recent extensive compilation of
the literature on mixing, only about 15% of the papers relate to the mixing
of non-Newtonian systems [40a].
II. Scope
In general, the scope of this chapter is thus not only to summarize, in a

comprehensive manner, the existing literature on the behaviour of non-
Newtonian liquids in mechanically agitated vessels but also to attempt a
reconciliation of the available information which is scattered in a diverse
selection of journals. In particular, consideration is given to the effect of
non-Newtonian characteristics of the liquid on the flow patterns, mixing
times, rate of mixing, power input, heat transfer, scale-up and equipment
selection for mechanically agitated systems. Although the major thrust of
this chapter is on the mixing and agitation of non-Newtonian systems, some
background information for Newtonian fluids is also included as it not only
facilitates qualitative comparisons but also highlights the fact that there are
situations where a great degree of similarity exists between the behaviour of
Newtonian and non-Newtonian liquids in mixing vessels, at least at a
macroscopic level. However, we begin with a brief discussion of thermo-
physical and rheological characteristics of non-Newtonian fluids relevant to
the flow and heat transfer in non-Newtonian fluids.
III. Rheological and Thermo-physical Properties
A. RHEOLOGICAL PROPERTIES
As indicated previously, it is readily acknowledged that many fluids
encountered in industrial practice exhibit flow characteristics which are not
normally experienced when handling simple Newtonian fluids. It is neither
possible nor the intent of this chapter to provide a detailed exposition to the
mysterious world of non-Newtonian fluids. Besides, excellent books are now
82 R. P. CHHABRA
available on this subject, e.g., see Refs. [31,32,34,38,39]. It is, however,

useful to introduce the simple rheological models here which have been used
in correlating the results for flow and heat transfer with non-Newtonian
media in mechanically agitated vessels. As will be seen in Section III.B, most
of the work on the mixing and agitation and heat transfer with non-
Newtonian fluids relates to the so-called shearthinning, shearthickening,
viscoplastic, and viscoelastic liquids, with an occasional reference to the
mixing of thixotropic substances [41]. For shearthinning and shearthicken-
ing fluids, the simple power-law model, Eq. (1), has been used extensively to
correlate the data from mixing vessels:
¼ mð_ Þn ð1Þ
where n<1 denotes shearthinning behaviour, n>1 predicts shearthickening

behaviour and n ¼ 1, of course, represents the standard Newtonian fluid
behaviour.
The viscoplastic fluid behaviour is characterised by the existence of a
yield stress, and for the externally applied stresses beyond the yield stress
levels, the flow curve may be linear—the so-called Bingham plastic or it may
be non-linear in which case the fluid is called the yield-pseudoplastic. The
Bingham plastic model is written as:
¼ oB þ B _ for jj > oB ð2aÞ
_ ¼ 0 for jj < oB ð2bÞ
The yield-pseudoplastic fluid behaviour is invariably approximated by

the well known Herschel–Bulkley model given below:
¼ oH þ mð_ Þn for jj > oH ð3aÞ
_ ¼ 0 for jj < oH ð3bÞ
It is appropriate to add here that considerable confusion exists in the

literature whether a true yield stress exists or not [41a], but in practice the
notion of an (apparent) yield stress is convenient since the behaviour of
many industrially important materials notably suspensions and emulsions
closely approximates to that predicted by Eq. (2) or (3). Furthermore, it is
appropriate to make three observations at this juncture. Firstly, it is often
possible to fit either Eq. (1) or (2) or any other such fluid model equally well
to a given set of shear stress/shear rate data and this fact does not imply and
should not be used to infer the nature of the material as being shearthinning
or Bingham plastic or Herschel–Bulkley fluid. Secondly, oB in Eq. (2) and oH
in (3) must only be seen as disposable parameters and as such their values
must not be confused with the true yield stress if any [42]. Indeed, excellent
independent techniques are now available to ascertain/measure the value of
yield stress without invoking a rheological model [43].
In the case of viscoelastic fluids, the rheological models need to be much
more elaborate than Eqs. (1)–(3), and frequently the importance of
viscoelastic effects in a flow situation including that in mechanically agitated
vessels is quantified in terms of a dimensionless Deborah, De, or a
Weissenberg, Wi, number, which are defined as follows:
Characteristic time of fluid f

Wi ¼ ¼ ð4Þ
Characteristic time of process p
There does not appear to be an unique way of evaluating f for a viscoelastic

fluid. Some time its value is inferred from first normal stress difference data,
N1, as:
0
m0 1=ðn nÞ
f ¼ ð5Þ
2m
where
0
N1 ¼ m0 ð_ Þn ð6Þ
On occasions, the value of f is also deduced from shear stress–shear rate

data itself when such data extend to sufficiently small shear rates to embrace
the so-called zero shear region. Similarly, the commonest choice of the
characteristic process time is typically taken to be of the order of O(N1)
where N is the rotational speed of the impeller [31,32].
While considering heat transfer applications in mechanically agitated
vessels, it is imperative to account for the effect of temperature on
rheological properties. This is frequently achieved by evaluating the
rheoloical constants (like m, n, oB , , oH , m0 , n0 , etc.) as functions of
temperature within the temperature interval envisaged in the application
under consideration. As expected, the decrease in apparent viscosity at a
constant shear rate is well represented by the usual Arrhenius type
expressions, with both the pre-exponential factor and the activation energy
being shear rate dependent. Thus, for the commonly employed power-law
model, Eq. (1), it is now reasonably well established that the flow behaviour
index, n, for particulate suspensions, polymer solutions and melts is nearly
independent of temperature at least over a 40–50 temperature interval [44]
84 R. P. CHHABRA
whereas the consistency coefficient, m, conforms to the usual exponential

temperature dependence, i.e.,
m ¼ mo expðE=RTÞ ð7Þ
where mo and E are evaluated using experimental results in the temperature

range of interest. Similarly, for Bingham plastic fluids, both oB and B
decrease with an increase in temperature, but obviously the values of the
pre-exponential factor and the activation energy vary from one substance to
another and unfortunately no predictive formulae are available for use in a
new application [45–47].
Lastly, and probably most significantly, each non-Newtonian material is
unique in itself in the sense that the reliable information about its
rheological characteristics comes only from the direct rheometrical tests
performed on it.
B. THERMO-PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
In addition to the viscous and viscoelastic rheological characteristics, the
other important physical characteristics required in heat transfer applica-
tions include thermal conductivity (k), density (), heat capacity (cp), surface
tension (), and the coefficient of thermal expansion (). While the first three
of these, namely, k, and cp enter into virtually all heat transfer
calculations, surface tension () exerts a strong influence on boiling heat
transfer and bubble dynamics in non-Newtonian fluids. Similarly, the
isobaric coefficient of thermal expansion is important in heat transfer by free
or natural convection. Additionally, the values of molecular diffusivity and
solubility are similarly needed when dealing with mass transfer processes
such as that encountered in gas–liquid reactors [48] involving Newtonian
liquids, and scores of biotechnological applications such as production of
xanthan gum, fermentation, aeration, wastewater treatment, in all of which
the liquid phase exhibits complex non-Newtonian behaviour [49–68].
Admittedly, very few experimental measurements of thermo-physical
properties have been reported in the literature, and the available data for
commonly used polymer solutions (dilute to moderate concentrations) of
carboxymethyl cellulose (Hercules), polyethylene oxide (Dow), carbopol
(Hercules), polyacrylamide (Allied colloids), etc., density, specific heat,
coefficient of thermal expansion differ from the corresponding values for
water by no more than 5–10% [69–76]. The thermal conductivity and
molecular diffusivity may be expected to be shear rate dependent, as both of
these are related to the viscosity which, as seen above, shows strong
dependence on shear rate and the structure of polymer molecules, flocs, etc.
While limited available measurements [77] confirm this expectation for the
thermal conductivity of aqueous carbopol solutions, the effect, however, is
rather small [78,78a]. For process engineering design calculations, there will
thus be a little error incurred in using the values of these properties for
that of water at the relevant temperature conditions. For the sake of
completeness, the available body of knowledge on molecular diffusion in
non-Newtonian liquids is incoherent and inconclusive, e.g., see Ref. [42] and
the literature cited therein.
For industrially important particulate slurries and pastes displaying
shearthinning, shearthickening and viscoplastic characteristics, thermo-
physical properties, namely, density, specific heat and thermal conductivity
can deviate significantly from that of its constituents. Early measurements
[79] on aqueous suspensions of powdered copper, graphite, aluminium and
glass beads suggest a linear variation of density and specific heat between
the pure component values, i.e.,
sus ¼ s þ ð1 ÞL ð8Þ
Cpsus ¼ Cps þ ð1 ÞCpL ð9Þ
where is the fractional (by volume) concentration of the solids; subscripts

sus, s, L correspond to the values for the suspension, the solid and the liquid
phase, respectively.
The thermal conductivity, ksus, of such systems, on the other hand, shows
much more involved functional relationship than the linear dependence
embodied in Eq. (8) or (9). The following expression seems to consolidate
most of the data available in literature [37,79,80]:
ksus 1 þ 0:5" ð1 "Þ

¼ ð10Þ
kL 1 þ 0:5" þ ð1 "Þ
where " ¼ ks/kL.

Thermal conductivities of suspensions up to 60% (by weight) in water
and other suspending media are well correlated by Eq. (10). For suspensions
of highly conducting particles (" ! 1), the maximum value of the ratio
(ksus/kL) approaches [(1þ2 )/(12 )]. Besides, the corresponding increase
in the viscosity from such high values of would more than offset the
effects of increase in thermal conductivity on the value of the convective heat
transfer coefficient (and hence on heat transfer), as seen in the case of flow in
a pipe [80a]. For slurries/suspensions of mixed size particles, the following
86 R. P. CHHABRA
expression due to Bruggemann [81] seems to correlate the results

satisfactorily:
ðksus =ks Þ 1
¼ ðksus =kL Þ1=3 ð1 Þ ð11Þ
ðkL =ks Þ 1
Equation (11) seems to correlate rather well the data on alumina-in-paraffin
oil suspensions in the range 0 0.3 [82]. An extensive review on the
correlation and prediction of thermal conductivity of structured fluids
including polymer solutions, filled and unfilled polymer melts, suspensions
and food-suspensions is available in the literature [83].
IV. Non-Newtonian Effects in Agitated Vessels
Over the years, considerable research effort has been directed at explor-
ing the different aspects of mechanical agitation of non-Newtonian media
in stirred vessels and research findings have been published in a wide ranging
literature. Table II provides an extensive sampling of such studies and it
also testifies to the overwhelming pragmatic relevance of this subject. A
detailed inspection of this table shows the diverse variety of impellers used
to agitate/mix an equally rich variety of non-Newtonian materials ranging
from polymer solutions, to fermentation broths, to livestock manure
slurries, to cookies dough, to chocolates, to clay and other particulates
suspensions and polymerization reactive systems [150,151,260], though most
of the literature relates to the use of laboratory scale of equipment. As
mentioned previously, this diverse selection of experimental test fluids also
reflects in a range of non-Newtonian characteristics including shearthinning,
shearthickening, yield stress, thixotropy, viscoelasticity and combinations
thereof. Furthermore, as each non-Newtonian substance is unique in itself,
so is an agitator/tank assembly owing to a wide variation in the values
of geometric parameters like the shape of tanks, type of bottoms (flat/
dished/conical/contoured), details of impeller, internals of the tank like
number, type, thickness and width of baffles, cooling coils, draft tubes, etc.
Such geometrical complexities alone preclude the possibility of detailed
comparisons of results from different studies unless the equipments used are
geometrically similar. However, in spite of this intrinsic difficulty, it is
possible to discern and establish some overall generic trends. It is perhaps
appropriate to add here that the bulk of the effort has been directed at the
elucidation of the effect of non-Newtonian properties on the following
aspects of the overall agitation process: (i) average shear rate, power
consumption and scale up, (ii) flow patterns and flow field, (iii) rate and
time of mixing, (iv) CFD modelling, (v) coil and jacket heat transfer, and
(vi) design and selection of equipment. Accordingly, consideration will now

be given to each of these topics in the ensuing sections arranged broadly
under three major sections, namely, Fluid Mechanics (VI), Heat Transfer
(VII) and Equipment Selection (VIII), respectively. However, prior to
embarking upon a detailed treatment of each of these issues, it is worthwhile
to recall that one is often confronted with two types of key engineering
problems in mixing applications: how to ascertain and quantify the
suitability of an available equipment for an envisaged application, and
secondly, how to design and/or select an optimum system and optimum
operating conditions for a new application. In either event, however, a
thorough understanding of the underlying mixing mechanism is required to
appreciate the problems of selection and optimum utilization of mixing
equipment. Therefore, we begin with a description of different mechanisms
of mixing in Section V.
V. Mechanisms of Mixing
In order to carry out mixing to produce a uniform product (or to

distribute one phase into another in a random fashion), it is imperative to
understand how mixtures of liquids move and approach uniformity or fully
mixed state. Intuitively, for liquid mixing devices, it is essential to meet two
requirements: firstly, there must be a bulk (convective) flow so that there are
no stagnant regions, and secondly, there must be a zone of intensive or high-
shear mixing in which the inhomogeneities are progressively broken down
by high levels of prevailing shear and elongational stresses [261–265].
Obviously, both these processes are energy-consuming and eventually the
mechanical energy is dissipated as heat; the proportion of energy
attributable to each of these steps obviously varies from one application
to another and is also somewhat dependent upon the type of mixer itself, but
is mainly governed by the flow field in the tank and the physical properties
of the liquid phase. Similarly, depending upon the fluid properties (mainly
viscosity), the main flow in a mixing vessel may be laminar or turbulent,
with a substantial transition zone in between, and frequently, both types of
flow conditions (laminar and turbulent) occur in different parts of the vessel.
Since the laminar and turbulent flows arise from different physical
mechanisms and as such represent intrinsically different types of flow, it is
convenient to treat them separately.
A. LAMINAR MIXING
While there is no simple way to predict a priori whether laminar or
turbulent mixing will occur in a given situation, large-scale laminar mixing
88 R. P. CHHABRA
in a mechanically stirred vessel is associated with low Reynolds number

(<10) or with high viscosity (typically > 10 Pa s) which may exhibit either
Newtonian or non-Newtonian flow behaviour. Under such conditions,
inertial forces therefore tend to die out quickly, and the rotating impeller
must sweep through a significant proportion of the cross-section of the
vessel to induce adequate bulk flow. Due to the rather large velocity
gradients close to the rotating impeller, the fluid elements in this region
repeatedly deform, stretch (elongate) as shown schematically in Fig. 1. Each
time a fluid element passes through this high shear zone, it becomes thinner
and thinner and ultimately breaks down into smaller elements. Obviously,
the flow field in a mixing vessel is three-dimensional, and shear and
elongation occur simultaneously. As shown schematically in Fig. 2, for an
incompressible liquid, elongational flow also results in the thinning or
flattening of a fluid element. Thus, both these mechanisms (shear and
elongation) give rise to forces or stresses in the liquid which in turn effect a
reduction in droplet size and an increase in interfacial area, by which means
the desired degree of homogeneity is obtained. However, the relative
importance of the prevailing shear and elongational stresses is believed to be
strongly dependent on the geometry of the impeller [265a]. In the context of
viscoelastic liquids, it is appropriate to mention here that while Newtonian
FIG. 1. Schematics of the thinning of a fluid element due to shear flow.
FIG. 2. Schematics of the thinning of a fluid element due to elongation flow.

and inelastic liquids have elongational viscosities which are typically three
times the corresponding shear viscosity, this ratio—Trouton ratio—can be
as large as 103–104 in the case of viscoelastic liquids thereby indicating much
greater resistance to extension than that to shear deformation offered by
viscoelastic liquids [31,32,34]. This factor alone, as will be seen later, makes
the mixing and agitation of viscoelastic liquids not only a difficult task but
much greater power is needed for mixing such fluids.
Under laminar flow conditions, a similar mixing process also occurs when
a liquid is sheared between the two rotating cylinders. In this device, during
each revolution, the thickness of an initially radial fluid element (dispersed
phase) is reduced, as shown schematically in Fig. 3, and eventually when the
fluid elements become sufficiently thin, molecular diffusion comes into play.
Obviously, if an annular tracer element is introduced to begin with, then no
mixing would occur (Fig. 3). This emphasises the importance of the
orientation of the fluid elements relative to the direction of shear produced
by the mixer.
Another model configuration which has been used extensively to explore
the underlying mechanism of mixing is a two-dimensional cavity whose
walls are subject to a periodic motion. The resulting shear forces in the
cavity can stretch and fold the tracer [1,261–264]. Based on the notion of a
point transformation coupled with elegant visualization experiments, Ottino
and co-workers [1,261–264] have argued that viscous fluids flowing in simple
and periodic patterns in two-dimensions can result in chaos that, in turn,
induce efficient mixing, similar to that encountered in microchannels [266].
Finally, mixing can also be induced by physically ‘‘splicing’’ the fluid into
successively smaller units and then re-distributing them. In-line (static)
mixers for viscous fluids operating under laminar flow conditions rely
primarily on this mechanism (Fig. 4).
Thus, mixing in viscous liquids is achieved by a combination of some or
all of the aforementioned mechanisms which reduce the size or scale of the
inhomogeneity and then re-distribute them by bulk flow.
FIG. 3. Laminar shear mixing in a concentric cylinder configuration.

90 R. P. CHHABRA
FIG. 4. Schematics of mixing by cutting and folding of fluid elements.
B. TURBULENT MIXING
In contrast, in low viscosity systems (< 10 m Pa s), the main flow gener-
ated in mixing vessels with a rotating impeller is usually turbulent, albeit
laminar flow conditions also exist away from the impeller. The inertia
imparted to the liquid by the impeller is sufficient to result in the circulation
of the liquid throughout the vessel. Turbulence may occur throughout the
vessel but clearly will be the greatest in the impeller region. Mixing by eddy
diffusion is much faster than that by molecular diffusion, and thus, turbulent
mixing occurs much more rapidly than the laminar mixing. Mixing is fastest
in the impeller region owing to the high shear rates and the associated
Reynolds stresses in vortices formed at the tips of the impeller blades; also, a
high proportion of the energy is dissipated here.
From a theoretical standpoint, turbulent flow is inherently complex and
has defied predictions from first principles. Consequently, the flow fields
prevailing in a mixing tank are not amenable to a theoretical treatment. At
sufficiently high values of the Reynolds number of the main flow, some
qualitative insights can be gained by using the theory of locally isotropic
turbulence. Under these conditions, it is reasonable to postulate that the
flow contains a spectrum of velocity fluctuations in which eddies of different
sizes are superimposed on an overall time-averaged steady flow. In a mixing
vessel, intuitively it appears reasonable to postulate that the large (primary)
eddies, of a size of the order of the impeller diameter, would give rise to large
velocity fluctuations of low frequency. Such eddies are anisotropic, and
account for much of the kinetic energy present in the system. Interactions
between these primary eddies and the slow moving fluid streams produce
smaller eddies of higher frequency which undergo further disintegration
until finally, their energy is dissipated as heat via viscous forces. This is how
mixing occurs under these conditions.
Admittedly, the foregoing description is a gross over-simplification, but
nonetheless it does afford some qualitative insights about turbulent mixing.
Qualitatively, this process is similar to that of the turbulent flow of a
fluid close to a boundary surface. Although some quantitative results-both
experimental and numerical for the scale size of eddies in Newtonian liquids
(mostly water) and shearthinning fluids are available in the literature
[15,27,269–275,275a], but it is not at all obvious that how this information
can be integrated into the existing design procedures and practices for
mixing equipment to improve their performance. Furthermore, owing to
their generally high viscosities, non-Newtonian substances are processed
(mixed) frequently in laminar flow conditions and hence, most of the
aforementioned studies relating to turbulence in stirred vessels are only of
marginal interest in the present context.
In addition to these flow configuration, many investigators, e.g., Refs.
[277–279] have employed simple but novel configurations including mixing
in shaker table containers and in cavity flows to gain useful physical insights
into the mechanisms of dispersion of one phase into another.
Finally, in addition to such convection effects, molecular diffusion always
acts in such a way as to reduce the scale and intensity of inhomogeneities,
but its contribution is insignificant until the fluid elements have been
sufficiently reduced in size for their specific areas to become large. It is
appropriate to recall that the ultimate homogenization of miscible systems is
brought about only by molecular diffusion. In the case of high viscosity
liquids, this is also a slow process.
VI. Fluid Mechanics
As noted earlier and also revealed by an inspection of the extensive

literature summarized in Table II, the bulk of the research effort has been
devoted to the elucidation of the interplay between the physical properties of
the liquid (Newtonian and non-Newtonian) and the geometry of the system
(tank–impeller assembly) on scale up, power input and average shear rate,
flow patterns, and the rate and time of mixing. Some preliminary studies on
the numerical modelling (CFD) are also available which provide further
physical insights. Furthermore, most work relates to laboratory scale
equipment (i.e., cylindrical vessels of diameter rarely exceeding 500 mm or
so) and with model but well characterised non-Newtonian fluids (aqueous
polymer solutions and suspensions, etc.), and only scant literature is
available with industrial scale equipment. We begin with the scale-up of
stirred vessels in Section IV.A.
A. SCALE UP
Undoubtedly, one of the key problems confronting the designers of
mixing equipment is that of deducing the most satisfactory configuration for
a large unit from experiments carried out at small scale (laboratory units).
92
TABLE II
SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES ON NON-NEWTONIAN LIQUIDS IN MECHANICALLY AGITATED SYSTEMS
Investigator Type of impeller and Systems Main objectives

dimensions
Metzner and Six-bladed flat turbine Pseudoplastic solutions of CMC, carbopol Flow patterns, mixing times, average shear rate
co-workers [84–87] 0.182 (D/T) 0.77 and suspensions of Attasol and power input for single phase systems
R. P. CHHABRA
0.15 T 0.55 m
Calderbank and Six-bladed turbine and two- Aqueous solutions of CMC, clays in water, Average shear rate and power input
Moo-Young [88] bladed paddle paint, paper pulp suspension, etc.
T ¼ 0.25 m
0.34 (D/T) 0.67
Nagata and Helical ribbon, half- Pseudoplastic and viscoplastic suspensions General studies on mixing of viscous
co-workers [89–98] ellipsoidal, paddle, turbine, of CaCO3, MgCO3, TiO2, kaolin and Newtonian and non-Newtonian liquids, wall
anchor solutions of CMC, PVA and coil heat transfer for single phase liquids
0.2 T 0.4 m under aerated and unaerated conditions
0.3 (D/T) 0.95
Godleski and Smith Turbine Solutions of Natrosol Power input and blending/mixing times for
[99] 0.14 T 0.44 m pseudoplastic liquids
Chapman and Helical screw, turbine High viscosity Newtonian liquids Power input for centered and off-centered
Holland [100] T ¼ 0.14, 0.178, 0.24 and agitators
0.29 m
D/T ¼ 0.26–0.55
Gluz and Turbine, blade screw anchor, Solutions of sodium CMC Dimensional analysis, power input,
Pavlushenko [101– bell-spiral, propeller homogenization and heat transfer in single
103] phase systems
Beckner and Smith Flat- and pitch-bladed Solutions of CMC and of polybutradiene in Power input for single phase pseudoplastic
[104] anchor ethylbenzene liquids
T ¼ 0.23 m
FLUID MECHANICS AND HEAT TRANSFER

0.68 (D/T) 0.96
Peters and Smith Anchor Polyacrylamide solutions in water Flow pattern and mixing time for single phase
[105,106] T ¼ 0.15, 0.23, 0.3 m systems
(D/T) 0.85
Mizushina et al. [107– Anchor, paddle and Aqueous solutions of CMC; polystyrene- Wall and cooling coil heat transfer under
110] propeller in-toluene; cement slurry turbulent conditions; homogenization of
T ¼ 0.3 m temperature
0.6 (D/T) 0.8
Hagedorn and Paddle, propeller, anchor Aqueous solutions of carbopol Wall heat transfer correlations
Salamone [111] turbines (0.36 n 0.69)
T ¼ 0.35 m
0.30 (D/T) 0.65
Hall and Godfrey Sigma-blade and helical Solutions of hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose Blending times and power input
[112,113] ribbon
0.04 T 0.56
D/T0.90
Bourne and Butler Helical ribbon Aqueous solutions of CMC and HPMC Flow patterns and power input
[114,115] Six and 160 gallon tanks
0.89 (D/T) 0.98
93
(Continued)
TABLE II
94
(CONTINUED)

dimensions
Hoogendoorn and Paddle, propeller, anchor and Solutions of carbopol (0.36 n 0.69) Jacket heat transfer
den Hertog [116] Rushton turbine
T ¼ 0.35 m
Skelland and Three-bladed propellers Solutions of carbopol (0.53 n 0.91) Coil heat transfer in the range
Dimmick [117] T ¼ 0.45 m 340 Re 260,000
D/T ¼ 0.16–0.25
R. P. CHHABRA
Mitsuishi and Two-, six-bladed turbines Solutions of CMC, PVA and clay Power input and heat transfer studies
co-workers [118,119] T ¼ 0.1, 0.3 m suspensions
0.5 (D/T) 0.8
Coyle et al. [120] Helical ribbon Pseudoplastic systems (0.2 n 1) Wall heat transfer results
T ¼ 0.35 and 0.76 m
D/T ¼ 0.93, 0.97
O’Shima and Yuge Helical, anchor and helical Newtonian systems Circulation times for highly viscous liquids
[121] screw impellers
Sandall and Anchor and turbines Chalk–water slurries, solutions of carbopol Jacket heat transfer results for single phase
co-workers [122–124] T ¼ 0.18 m liquids and slurries, and on gas absorption in
D/T ¼ 0.33, 0.98 polymer solutions
Rieger and Novak Helical screw with and Solutions of CMC and PAA (0.16 n 1) Power input, scale-up and homogenization
[125–128] without a draft tube (centered studies
and off centered)
(D/T) ¼ 0.61, 0.9 and 0.95
T ¼ 0.1–0.15 m
Chavan and Helical ribbon and screw Solutions of CMC, PAA and Natrosol Theoretical and experimental results on power
co-workers [129–136] impellers input, internal circulation, mixing and blending
0.45 (D/T) 0.64 times in inelastic and viscoelastic systems
T ¼ 0.46 m
Edney and Edwards Six-bladed (flat) Solutions of CMC and PAA Heat transfer studies under aerated and
[137] turbine unaerated conditions

T ¼ 1.22 m
D/T ¼ 0.41
Ford and co-workers Helical screw with a Solutions of CMC and PAA Effects of rheological properties on mixing and
[138–140] draught-tube blending times
T ¼ 0.46 m, D/T ¼ 0.4, 0.5
Edwards et al. [41] Anchor, helical ribbon and Aqueous solutions of CMC and carbopol; Power input for pseudoplastics and thixotropic
screw tomato sauce, salad cream, yoghurt, etc. materials
T ¼ 0.13 m
0.67 (D/T) 0.94
Kale et al. [141] Circular discs and turbines Aqueous solutions of CMC and PAA Effect of elasticity on power input at high
Reynolds numbers
Quarishi et al. Rushton turbine, Solutions of PAA and PEO Reduction in power input in drag reducing
[142,143] paddle polymer solutions
T ¼ 0.24, 0.3 m
D/T ¼ 0.2–0.33
Yagi and Yoshida Six-bladed turbine Solutions of CMC and PAA Mass transfer studies in polymer solutions
[144] T ¼ 0.25 m
(D/T) ¼ 0.40
(Continued)
95
96
TABLE II
(CONTINUED)

dimensions
Sawinsky et al. [145] Anchor and helical ribbon – New power input data for Newtonian liquids
0.5 (D/T) 0.98 for 30 Re 104, and re-analysis of literature
data for power law fluids
Hiraoka et al. [146] Paddle – Numerical (2-D) simulation of variation of
R. P. CHHABRA
0.3 (D/T) 0.9 viscosity for power-law fluids for Re 10
Hocker and Turbine Aqueous solutions of CMC and PAA Power input for single phase agitation and
co-workers [147,148] T ¼ 0.4 m aerated conditions
D/T ¼ 0.33
Ranade and Ulbrecht Six-bladed turbine Solutions of CMC and PAA Effect of rheology (pseudoplasticity and
[149] T ¼ 0.3 m elasticity) on mass transfer in gas–liquid
0.25 (D/T) 0.35 systems
White and co-workers Turbine, screw and anchor Polybutadiene in polystyrene solutions Flow pattern and stream line visualization
[150,151]
Rautenbach and Helical ribbon Solutions of PAA Heat transfer in high viscosity Newtonian and
Bollenrath [152] non-Newtonian media
De Maerteleire [153] Four-bladed impeller Newtonian liquids Coil heat transfer in aerated systems
T ¼ 0.18 m (170 Re 2.6 105)
(D/T) ¼ 0.56
Carreau and Helical ribbon and screw Solutions of Natrosol, CMC and PAA Mixing time, flow patterns, power input and
co-workers [154–162] agitators with draft coil coil heat transfer in inelastic and viscoelastic
system media
0.145 T 0.291 m
0.73 (D/T) 0.91
Nishikawa et al. Six-bladed turbine Solutions of CMC Heat and mass transfer to viscous Newtonian
[163–165] T ¼ 0.3 m and non-Newtonian media under aerated and

(D/T) ¼ 0.6 unaerated conditions
Poggemann et al. Flat blade, pitched bladed – Extensive evaluation of data on coil and wall
[166] turbine, propeller, paddle heat transfer studies with single phase
anchor and helical ribbon Newtonian and non-Newtonian liquids
D/T ¼ 0.3–0.98
Solomon et al. [167] Rushton disc turbine and Aqueous solutions of CMC and carbopol Power input and cavern sizes in viscoplastic
pitched bladed turbine fluids
T ¼ 0.29 m
Chen [9] Propellers and turbines Live stock manure slurries (power law fluids) Power input
T ¼ 0.298 m
0.2 (D/T) 0.34
Prud’homme and Rushton turbine Boger fluids Effect of elasticity on mixing times and power
co-workers [168,169] T ¼ 0.23 m input
D/T ¼ 0.33
Ayazi Shamlou and Helical ribbon Solutions of CMC and carbopol; chocolates Power input and heat transfer studies
Edwards [170,171] T ¼ 0.15, 0.4 m
0.75 (D/T) 0.925
(Continued)
97
98
TABLE II
(CONTINUED)

dimensions
Bertrand and Two-bladed anchor and gate Carbopol solutions Experimental and predicted power input results
Couderc [172–174] impellers for pseudoplastic liquids
D/T ¼ 0.5, 0.66, 0.78
Elson and co-workers Rushton turbine Xanthan gum solutions X-ray flow visualization studies for viscoplastic
R. P. CHHABRA
[175,176] D/T ¼ 0.25–0.6 and shearthickening fluids
T ¼ 0.071 m
Ismail et al. [177] Disc turbines Air/water Power input and cavity formation dynamics
T ¼ 0.4 m under aerated conditions
D/T ¼ 0.28–0.50
Nienow et al. [178] Rushton turbine Aqueous solutions of xanthan gum, CMC, Effect of rheological properties on power input
T ¼ 0.29 m and carbopol under aerated and unaerated conditions
Kuboi and Nienow Dual impellers (angled Solutions of CMC and carbopol Flow patterns and mixing rates
[179] bladed and turbine)
T ¼ 0.29 m
D/T ¼ 0.5
Wichterle and Standard turbine and Slurries of Bentonite and limestone Flow patterns and power input for viscoplastic
co-workers [180,181] propellers and pseudoplastic systems. Measurements of
T ¼ 0.18, 0.24, 0.3 m shear rate on turbine impeller tip
0.3 (D/T) 0.6
Desplanches et al. Turbines Aqueous solutions of carbopol Heat transfer and boiling of Newtonian and
[182–184] T ¼ 0.29, 0.63 and 1 m (0.40 n 0.65) non-Newtonian solutions
D/T ¼ 0.80–0.81
Kuriyama et al. [185] Helical ribbon Solutions of CMC (n ¼ 0.5, 0.7) Heat transfer analysis for pseudoplastic liquids
T ¼ 0.16 m
D/T ¼ 0.9
Kamiwano et al. [186] Six-bladed flat turbine Solutions of hydroxyethyl cellulose Flow pattern and velocity fields using an

0.1 T 0.4 m imaging method
D/T ¼ 0.4–0.5
Etchells et al. [187] Several impellers including TiO2 slurries Power input for mixing of Bingham plastics at
radial, axial, Lightnin A 310 industrial scale
T ¼ 0.305 m
D/T ¼ 0.25–0.33
Kai and Shengyao MIG, disc turbine, plate Aqueous solutions of CMC Power input and coil heat transfer for single
[188] paddles, anchors, etc. phase systems in the range of 7 Re 18,400
Zeppenfeld and Rushton turbine Aqueous solutions of CMC and xanthan Power input calculation for Newtonian and
Mersmann [189] D/T ¼ 0.33 gum power law liquids in the intermediate range of
Reynolds numbers
Koloni et al. [190] Six-bladed turbine Power law slurries of CaCO3 and Ca(OH)2 Power input, gas holdup and interfacial area in
D/T 0.33–0.4 aerated systems in square vessels
T ¼ 0.3 and 0.7 m
Galindo and Rushton turbine, SCABA-6 Xanthan gum broths; aqueous solutions of Power input and cavern formation in yield
co-workers [51– RGT, Intermig, Lightnin carbopol stress fluids
55,63,191] T ¼ 0.21 m, D/T ¼ 0.47, 0.53
(Continued)
99
100
TABLE II
(CONTINUED)

dimensions
Kaminoyama et al. Anchor impeller, six-bladed Bingham plastic and Ellis model fluids Numerical analysis (velocity field) of Bingham
[192,193] turbine and paddle plastic fluids in a vessel stirred by an anchor
Jomha et al. [194] Helical ribbon and anchor Suspensions of superclay in water Power input for shearthickening fluids
T ¼ 0.152 m
R. P. CHHABRA
D/T ¼ 0.71–0.93
Sestak et al. [195] Anchor impeller Solutions of CMC, PAA, Polyox and kaolin; Power input for pseudoplastic and thixotropic
T ¼ 01, 0.15, 0.43 m wall paper paint and laponite suspensions fluids
D/T ¼ 0.9
Wang and Yu [196] Disc turbine, plate paddles, Solutions of CMC (0.49 n 0.92) Coil and wall heat transfer correlations
MIG impeller, anchors, semi-
ellipsoidal impeller
Sinevic et al. [197] – Solutions of CMC and carbopol Power input and secondary flows in coaxial
flow of non-Newtonian systems
Oliver et al. [198] Six-bladed Rushton turbine Non-shearthinning elastic liquids Effect of viscoelasticity on power consumption
T ¼ 0.22 m
D/T ¼ 0.45
Shervin et al. [199] Rushton turbine, helical Acrylic polymer in a mineral oil Flow visualization, blending time and scale up
ribbon and double helix for viscoelastic liquids
T ¼ 0.15 m
D/T ¼ 0.5, 0.7, 0.83
Skelland and Kanel Flat-curved and pitch-blade Dispersion of di-isobutyl ketone in aqueous Dispersion of a Newtonian liquid in polymer
[200] turbines, propeller carbopol solutions solutions
T ¼ 0.214 m
D/T ¼ 0.36, 0.475
Takahashi and Anchor and helical ribbon Aqueous solutions of hydroxy-ethyl Effects of geometric parameters on power
co-workers [201–206] T ¼ 0.10, 0.13 m cellulose consumption with pseudoplastic liquids
D/T ¼ 0.82–0.96

Pandit et al. [11] Helical ribbon Suspensions of turmeric and pepper Power input and mixing times for thixotropic
T ¼ 0.38 m suspensions
D/T ¼ 0.895
Tran et al. [207] Pitched- and six-bladed Clay slurries with viscosity modifiers Power input for viscoplastic slurries
turbines
T ¼ 0.2, 0.3, 0.367 m
D/T ¼ 0.20–0.25
Tanguy and Helical ribbon, combined Boger fluids, solutions of Gellan, xanthan Numerical and experimental studies on power
co-workers [208–225] geometries, double planetary, gum, CMC input for inelastic and viscoelastic liquids with a
kenics and SMX static mixers variety of impellers. Comparative performance
T ¼ 0.21, 0.44 m of static mixers
D/T ¼ 0.88
Amanullah et al. SCABA and axial flow Aqueous solutions of carbopol Correlations of cavern sizes in shearthinning
[226,227] impellers fluids
Hjorth [228] SCABA impeller Aqueous solutions of CMC and carbopol Velocity profiles in laminar and transitional
flow
Bouwmans et al. [229] Pitched- and six-bladed Newtonian systems Blending of liquids of different densities and
turbine viscosities
T ¼ 0.29, 0.64 m
101
(Continued)
102
TABLE II
(CONTINUED)

dimensions
Foroquet-Murh and Anchor Solutions of CMC Boiling heat transfer in stirred vessels
Midoux [230] T ¼ 0.225 m
D/T ¼ 0.98
Delaplace and Helical ribbon Aqueous solutions of CMC, alginate, Power input, mixing time for shearthinning and
co-workers [231–235] T ¼ 0.346 m guargum and adragante gum shearthickening fluids
R. P. CHHABRA
D/T ¼ 0.925
Ozcan-Taskin and Pitched- and six-bladed Boger fluids Flow field and power input for viscoelastic
Nienow [236] turbine MaxfloT, Chemineer liquids
HE3
T ¼ 0.22 m
0.35 (D/T) 0.53
Ruan et al. [237] – Cookie dough Evaluation of rheological properties from
mixing power curves
Reilly and Burmster Rushton turbine Solutions of CMC Homogenization of liquids of different
[238] T ¼ 0.13 and 0.29 m viscosities and densities
Jaworski et al. [239] Pitched-blade turbine Aqueous carbopol solutions Flow field around caverns in viscoplastic
T ¼ 0.05 m liquids
Masiuk and Lacki Helical ribbons Aqueous solutions of CMC Effect of ribbon geometry on power input and
[240] T ¼ 0.345 m mixing time
D/T ¼ 0.97
Moore and Six-bladed turbine Aqueous polymer (carboxy-vinyl) solutions Velocity distribution for viscoplastic liquids
co-workers [241,242] T ¼ 0.15 m
D/T ¼ 0.3
Mavros et al. [243] Rushton turbine, Lightnin A Aqueous solutions of CMC Effect of impeller geometry and non-
310 and Mixel TT agitator Newtonian properties on flow patterns using
D/T ¼ 0.5 LDV

Velasco et al. [65] Dual impeller, Rushton Rifamycin production Power input in an industrial fermenter
turbine, six-bladed
turbine
T ¼ 0.20 m
D/T ¼ 0.53
Youcefi et al. [244] Two-bladed impeller Aqueous solutions of CMC, carbopol and Velocity field and power input in inelastic and
T ¼ 0.3 m PAA viscoelastic liquids
D/T ¼ 0.5
Shimizu et al. [245] Rushton turbine Solutions of CMC and xanthan gum Drop breakage in stirred non-Newtonian
T ¼ 0.09 m liquids
D/T ¼ 0.54
Torrez and Andre Rushton turbine Bingham plastic and Herschel–Bulkley Numerical and experimental results on power
[246,247] T ¼ 0.3 m model fluids input in shearthinning and viscoplastic liquids
D/T ¼ 0.15
Wang et al. [248] Composite (inner–outer) Aqueous solutions of CMC (0.46 n 1) Power input is reduced in pseudoplastic liquids
helical ribbon
T ¼ 0.24 m
D/T ¼ 0.9–0.97
(Continued)
103
104
TABLE II
(CONTINUED)

dimensions
Rai et al. [249] Helical ribbon Aqueous solutions of CMC and PAA Coil heat transfer under aerated and unaerated
T ¼ 0.115 m conditions
D/T ¼ 0.7
Nouri and Hockey Rushton turbine Aqueous solutions of CMC (0.56 n 0.9) Power curves at high Reynolds numbers, 100–
[250] T ¼ 0.294 105
D/T ¼ 0.33
R. P. CHHABRA
Mishra et al. [251] Disc turbine Aqueous solutions of PAA Flow field for viscoelastic liquids
T ¼ 0.3 m
D/T ¼ 0.33
Fangary et al. [252] Lightnin A 320 and A 410 Aqueous solution of CMC Fluid trajectories using positron emission
agitators particle tracking method
T ¼ 0.29 m
D/T ¼ 0.60
Vlaev et al. [253] Rushton 45 turbine Solutions of CMC, PAA and xanthan gum Regime maps for dispersion of a gas into
T ¼ 0.2, 0.4 m liquids
D/T ¼ 0.33
Curran et al. [254] Single- and double flight Aqueous solutions of carbopol Circulation times and power input data for
ribbon impellers viscoplastic fluids
T ¼ 0.208 m
D/T ¼ 0.89
Bohme and Stenger Turbines Aqueous solutions of PAA Power input and scale up
[255] T ¼ 0.094, 0.144, 0.288 m
D/T ¼ 0.5
Heim [256] Anchor and helical ribbon Aqueous solutions of CMC Power input and wall heat transfer results
T ¼ 0.3 m
D/T ¼ 0.90–0.97
Chowdhury and Helical ribbon screw Aqueous solutions of CMC and guar gum Power input data and correlation (Re 5000)
Tiwari [257] T ¼ 0.38, 0.57 and 1 m (0.27 n 1)
D/T ¼ 0.89–0.95
Ducla et al. [258] Turbine impellers Aqueous solutions of CMC and PAA Calculations of average shear rate from power

input data
Pollard and Kantyka Anchor Chalk–water slurries and polymer solutions Jacket and coil heat transfer
[259] T ¼ 0.3, 0.6, 92 m (0.38 n 1) ( 200 Re 106)
D/T ¼ 0.90–0.91
Pandey et al. [267] Marine type impellers CMC solutions (0.7 n 1) Jacket/wall and coil heat transfer
D ¼ 75, 127, 184 mm (400 Re 107)
Blasinski and Ribbon agitators Solutions of CMC (0.75 n 0.93) Wall heat transfer (30 Re 7000)
Kuncewicz [268] T ¼ 0.3 m
D/T ¼ 0.93
Delaplace et al. [276] Helical ribbon impeller Solutions of guargum and carbopol Numerical and experimental results on wall
T ¼ 0.34 m (shearthinning and viscoplastic fluids) heat transfer
D/T ¼ 0.93
CMC, carboxymethyl cellulose; PAA, polyacrylamide; PEO, polyethylene oxide; PVA, polyvinyl alcohol. In most cases, tap water has been used as
solvent.
105
106 R. P. CHHABRA
An even more common problem is the design of small scale experiments

to optimize the use of existing (out of use) large scale equipment for new
applications. From a theoretical standpoint, scale-up demands geomet-
rical, kinematic and dynamic (also chemical for reactive system, thermal
similarity for heat transfer applications) similarity between the two units.
Furthermore, the boundary conditions must also be identical in the two
equipments. However, owing to process (material) and/or operational
constraints, it is seldom possible to achieve the complete similarity and
therefore considerable experience (intuition) is required for a successful
scale up of laboratory data [3,6,15,27,31,32,103,280–282]. Since detailed
descriptions of the scale up method and the associated difficulties are
available in a number of excellent sources [3,6,15,27,281], only the salient
points are re-capitulated here. It is customary and perhaps convenient to
relate the power input to the agitator to the geometrical and mechanical
arrangement of the mixer and thus to obtain a direct measure of the change
in power consumption due to the alteration of any of the factors relating to
the mixer. A representative mixer arrangement is shown schematically in
Fig. 5. The mathematical description of the complete similarity between the
two systems is usually expressed in terms of the dimensionless ratios of
geometric dimensions and of the forces present in the fluid in a mixing
vessel. For a Newtonian fluid and in the absence of heat and mass transfer
and chemical reactions, for geometrically similar systems, the resulting
dimensionless ratios of the forces are the familiar Reynolds (Re), Froude
(Fr) and Weber (We) numbers defined as follows:
D2 N
Re ¼ ð12Þ

FIG. 5. Typical tank (with a jacket)–impeller assembly.

N 2D
Fr ¼ ð13Þ
g
N 2 D3
We ¼ ð14Þ

It is customary to use the impeller diameter, D, as the characteristic linear
dimension in this field.
For applications involving heat and mass transfer, additional dimension-
less groups include Prandtl number (Pr), Schmidt number (Sc), Nusselt
number (Nu), Sherwood number (Sh) and Grashof numbers (Gr). Besides,
additional factors come into play depending upon whether the heat transfer
is occurring between a fluid in a jacket and that in the mixer (wall or jacket
heat transfer) or via a cooling coil and/or draft tube (coil heat transfer). It is
also important to recognize the role of the two commonly used boundary
conditions, namely, the constant temperature (e.g., if condensing steam is
used to heat up a batch of liquid) or the constant heat flux (if the vessel is
wound with an electric heating coil). Irrespective of all these features, free
convection, how so ever small, is always present in heat and mass transfer
studies which ought to be accounted for in the interpretation/correlation of
such results.
In the case of inelastic (purely viscous) non-Newtonian fluids, an
appropriate value of the apparent viscosity must be identified for use in
Eq. (12) and in other dimensionless groups such as Prandtl, Schmidt and
Grashof numbers. Over and above this, it may also be necessary to
introduce further non-dimensional parameters indicative of the other non-
Newtonian effects such as a Bingham number, Bi (¼ oB =B N) for
viscoplastic fluids and a Weissenberg number, Wi (¼ f N) for viscoelastic
liquids. It is thus imperative that the complete similarity between the two
systems implies the equal values of all such dimensionless groups for the two
systems. As noted previously, owing to the conflicting requirements imposed
by the complete similarity, in practice only partial or distorted similarity is
possible. In general, it is thus necessary to identify the one or two key
features that must be matched at the expense of the secondary level factors.
Thus, for instance, for purely shearthinning power type materials, both the
Bingham (Bi) and Weissenberg numbers (Wi) are irrelevant as is the Froude
number in the absence of significant vortex formation, such as in highly
viscous systems. The fact that each non-Newtonian substance is unique in
terms of its rheology adds further to the complexity of scale-up, especially
for viscoelastic systems.
Aside from the above-noted theoretical considerations, additional
difficulties can also result from the choice of scale-up criteria, and these
108 R. P. CHHABRA
again vary from one application to another including the type and the main
goal of mixing. Thus, for geometrically similar systems, the size of the system
is determined by the scale-up factor. For power consumption, one
commonly used criterion is to maintain the power input per unit volume of
liquid constant in two mixers. In blending operations, it may be necessary to
keep dimensionless blend time constant. Similarly, heat transfer processes in
agitated vessels are scaled up either on the basis of equal heat transfer per
unit volume of liquid batch or by maintaining a constant value of heat transfer
coefficient. Yet in instances when chemical reactions are carried out in
agitated vessels, it may be necessary to ensure the same regime (e.g., mass
transfer or kinetic controlled) and/or to have equal residence time in the two
systems. Using geometric similarity, it is useful to make the following
observations [344]:
(i) Circulation and mixing times in a large vessel will be considerably
longer than that in a small tank.
(ii) The maximum shear rate (in the impeller zone) will be higher in the
larger tank, but the average shear rate will be lower thereby giving
rise to a much wider variation in shear rates in a full-scale equipment
than that in a laboratory scale equipment.
(iii) The Reynolds numbers in the large tank are typically 5–25 times
larger than that in a small vessel. Thus, if the small scale equipment
operates in the laminar regime, the corresponding full scale plant is
likely to operate in transitional region.
(iv) Heat transfer is usually much more demanding on a large scale than
that in the laboratory scale equipment.
In summary, while the equality of the Reynolds number ensures the
complete similarity of flow in geometrically similar systems, the actual scale-
up criterion varies from one application to another as seen above, e.g., see
Refs. [125,187,255,280,282–284,311,344].
B. POWER INPUT
From a practical standpoint, it is readily conceded that the power input
(or power consumption) is the most important design parameter in mixing
processes. Unfortunately, power input depends upon a large number of
process variables, the geometrical arrangement and the physical character-
istics of the liquids; this dependence is far too complex to be established
from first principles. Therefore, most of the developments in this field are
based on dimensional considerations aided by experimental observations.
Owing to the inherently different mechanisms of mixing in low and high
viscosity liquids and the way these influence the power input, it is convenient
to consider the issue of power consumption in low and high viscosity

systems separately.
1. Low Viscosity Liquids
Typically, low viscosity liquids are mixed (agitated) in a vertical
cylindrical tank fitted with baffles, with a height-to-diameter ratio of 1.5–2,
and fitted with an agitator (shown schematically in Fig. 5). Under such
conditions, high speed impellers (typically, 0.33 (D/T ) 0.5) are suitable,
running with tip speeds of ca. 1–3 m/s. The main flow pattern in the vessel is
usually turbulent. Admittedly, such studies on the single phase mixing of
low viscosity Newtonian liquids are of limited industrial interest, it does,
however, serve as a useful starting point for the subsequent treatment of
high viscosity systems.
With reference to the schematic arrangement shown in Fig. 5, simple
dimensional considerations lead to the following functional relationship:
P
¼ f ðRe; Fr; geometric ratiosÞ ð15Þ
N 3 D5
where the Power number, Po, is defined as,
P
Po ¼ ð16Þ
N 3 D5
Since we are dealing with the agitation of single phase liquids and the
surface tension effects are assumed to be negligible. Therefore, the Weber
number is redundant here. Furthermore, for geometrically similar systems,
geometrical ratios are all fixed and thus Eq. (15) reduces to:
Po ¼ f ðRe; FrÞ ð17Þ
Similarly, the Froude number is generally important only when severe

vortex formation occurs, and in single phase mixing it can be neglected for
Re< 300 or so, as shown in Fig. 6 for a propeller agitator [285]. Due to the
detrimental effect of vortex formation on the quality of mixing, in practice it
is minimised and/or avoided by either installing baffles in the tank (Fig. 5) or
by installing the agitator in an off-center position. Hence in most situations
involving low viscosity Newtonian liquids, the Power number is a
unique function of the Reynolds number and the mixer geometry only.
Furthermore, as the viscosity of the liquid progressively increases, the
tendency for vortex formation progressively diminishes and so does the
necessity of baffles in the mixing tanks for liquids of > 5 Pa s. The effect
of the type of impeller and the geometry on power input is shown in Fig. 7
110 R. P. CHHABRA
FIG. 6. Effect of Froude number on the power curve for a propeller impeller (re-plotted
from Ref. [285]).
FIG. 7. Effect of impeller design on Power number–Reynolds number relationship for

Newtonian liquids (re-plotted from Ref. [286]).
for scores of liquids encompassing a five orders of magnitude variation in

Reynolds number [286]. For a fixed geometrical arrangement and a single
phase liquid, in the absence of vortex formation, experimental results on
power input can be represented by a unique power curve, in accordance with
Eq. (17). The dependence in Fig. 7 is seen to be similar to the Moody
diagram for friction in pipes. Three distinct regions can be discerned in the
power curve: at low Reynolds numbers (< 10 or so), the Power number
varies inversely with the Reynolds number, i.e., a slope of 1 on log–log
coordinates which is typical of viscosity dominated flows. This region, which
is characterised by slow mixing both at macro- and molecular level, is where
unfortunately the majority of highly viscous (Newtonian and non-

Newtonian) liquids are processed. The actual value of the Reynolds number
marking the end of this region is strongly dependent upon the type of fluid
and the configuration of the mixer. As will be seen later, the smaller the
value of the power-law index, the larger is the value of the Reynolds number
at which the transition occurs.
At very high Reynolds numbers (> 104), the main flow in the tank is
fully turbulent and inertia dominated, resulting in fast mixing. In this
region, the Power number is almost independent of the Reynolds number
and is nearly constant, as can be seen in Fig. 7 for Newtonian fluids. This
type of limiting behaviour is also displayed by shearthinning inelastic
liquids, as demonstrated recently by Nouri and Hockey [250]. However,
once again, the asymptotic value of the Power number is solely dependent upon
the geometrical configuration of the impeller/tank combination. Gas–liquid,
liquid–liquid and liquid–solid contacting operations are typically carried out
in this region.
In between the laminar and turbulent regimes, there exists a substantial
transition zone in which the both viscous and inertial forces are of com-
parable magnitudes. No simple mathematical relationship exists between the
Power number and the Reynolds number, and for a given value of Re, the
corresponding value of Po must be read off the appropriate power curve.
Little is known about the critical value of Reynolds number marking the
onset of the fully turbulent flow conditions. The following correlation [287]
for Newtonian fluids is available to predict the value of the Reynolds
number corresponding to the onset of the fully turbulent conditions:
Rec ¼ 6370 Po0:33

t ð18Þ
where Pot is the constant value of the Power number under fully turbulent
conditions which is strongly geometry dependent and hence the effect of the
impeller/tank geometry is implicitly included in Eq. (18). The changes in the
flow patterns associated with laminar–turbulent transitions have been
studied by Hjorth [228].
Similar power curves for many different impeller geometries including
dual, composite and proprietary designs, baffle arrangements, shapes of
tanks, etc., are available in the literature [3,15,27,40a,52,53,62,148,172,
174,215,288–302], but it must be remembered that though the power curve
approach is applicable to the mixing of any single phase liquid, at any
impeller speed, each such curve is valid only for an unique impeller–tank
combination. Unfortunately, little is known about the influence of variation
in geometric parameters such as non-standard baffles, impeller-to-bottom
clearance, etc., and this makes it almost inevitable to perform experiments
112 R. P. CHHABRA
on an envisaged system to deduce useful information about the large scale

system. Notwithstanding this intrinsic limitation, adequate information is
now available on the calculation of power consumption for the agitation of low
viscosity Newtonian liquids under most conditions of practical interest,
though little is available in terms of the standardization of equipment
configurations [305].
2. High Viscosity Newtonian and Inelastic Non-Newtonian liquids
It is useful to recall that mixing in high viscosity liquids is slow both at the
molecular scale (owing to low values of molecular diffusivity) as well as at
the macroscopic level, due to poor bulk flow. In high viscosity liquids, only
the fluid in the immediate vicinity of the agitator is influenced by the
agitator and the flow is usually laminar. Therefore, efficient mixing of
viscous fluids requires specially designed impellers with close clearances at
the side and bottom walls of the vessel and which sweep rather large
volumes of the liquid in the tank. High speed stirring with small impellers
(Rushton turbine, propeller, etc.) merely wastefully dissipates energy in the
impeller region of the vessel, particularly when the liquid is highly
shearthinning or possesses a yield stress. Although highly viscous
Newtonian fluids include lubricating oils, glycerol, sugar syrups, most of
the high viscous fluids of interest in chemical, food, pharmaceutical, and
allied processing industries exhibit non-Newtonian flow characteristics,
notably shearthinning and viscoplastic characteristics, albeit a few
substances also display shearthickening and time dependent thixotropic
behaviour. However, in spite of such complexities, the power curve
approach is generally applicable in such cases as detailed here. Since most
non-Newtonian materials exhibit an apparent viscosity which is a function
of the rate of shear. The flow in a mixing tank is three-dimensional and
rather complex. Furthermore, the rate of shear shows a great degree of
variation, being maximum in the impeller region and it may even approach
zero in parts of the tank where the fluid is virtually stagnant. Furthermore,
in view of the non-viscometric flow conditions in the tank, the shear rate
may depend upon the rheology itself. Thus, it is not at all possible to
estimate the rate of shear (and its distribution) in a stirred tank from first
principles. In view of this, and from a practical point, the notion of an
average shear rate is perhaps convenient and useful, at least for the purpose
of calculating power input in a new application provided a power curve has
been established for Newtonian liquids in a geometrically similar system.
Perhaps the simplest way to develop an expression for the average shear rate
is to force the power input data for non-Newtonian liquids on to the
corresponding power curve established with Newtonian fluids for a fixed
geometry, as discussed below.
3. Average Shear Rate

A remarkably simple relationship has been shown to exist between the
power consumption for time-independent non-Newtonian substances and
for Newtonian liquids under laminar and geometrically similar conditions.
This link, which was first established by Metzner and Otto [84] for
shearthinning polymer solutions and slurries, hinges on the fact that there
appears to be a characteristic average shear rate _avg for a mixer which
determines power consumption, and which is directly proportional to the
rotational speed of the impeller, i.e.,
_avg ¼ Ks N ð19Þ
while initially Ks was postulated to be a function of the impeller–vessel

configuration only, albeit some of the subsequent investigators have
questioned the validity of this assumption [88,104,118]. If the apparent
viscosity corresponding to the average shear rate defined by Eq. (19) is used
in the equation for a Newtonian liquid, the power consumption for laminar
conditions is satisfactorily predicted for most inelastic shearthinning
and viscoplastic liquids. Subsequently, the linear relationship embodied in
Eq. (19) was confirmed by the flow visualization experiments of Metzner
and Taylor [85].
A compilation of the literature values of Ks reported up to 1983 has been
given by Skelland [288] and is shown here in Table III in a slightly modified
form. An inspection of Table III suggests that for shearthinning fluids, Ks
lies approximately in the range 10–13 for most configurations studied thus
far (and presumably of practical interest) with propellers, turbine type
impellers, while slightly large values of 25–30 have been reported for close
clearance impellers like anchors and helical ribbons [160,206,303]. Skelland
[288] also reconciled most of the power consumption data in the form
of power curves as shown in Fig. 8. The range of the impeller–vessel
configuration used by different investigators is reflected in the diversity of
power curves, albeit all are of qualitatively similar form. Irrespective of the
mixer configuration, Re 10 seems to mark the end of the laminar region.
In contrast, the transition to the fully turbulent conditions (characterised by
a constant value of the Power number, Pot) seems to occur at different
values of the Reynolds number ranging from 100 (curve BB) to Re>1000
(see curves D–D2, D–D3 in Fig. 8). Clearly, the critical value of the
Reynolds number is strongly dependent on the impeller–vessel geometry.
Furthermore, the available scant data shown in Fig. 8 and other available in
the literature [250] on this transition boundary does not seem to conform to
the behaviour predicted by Eq. (18) developed for Newtonian fluids.
114
TABLE III
VALUES OF Ks FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF IMPELLERS AND KEY TO FIG. 8
Curve Impeller type Number and size of baffles D (m) D/T N (Hz) Ks (n<1)
A–A Single turbine with six flat blades 4, WB/T ¼ 0.1 0.051–0.20 0.182–0.77 0.05–1.5 11.5 1.5
A–A1 Single turbine with six flat blades None 0.051–0.20 0.18–0.77 0.18–0.54 11.5 1.4
B–B Two turbines, each with six flat 4, WB/T ¼ 0.1 – 0.286 0.14–0.72 11.5 1.4
blades and T/2 apart
B–B1 Two turbines, each with six flat 4, WB/T ¼ 0.1 or none – 0.85–0.98 0.14–0.72 11.5 1.4
blades and T/2 apart
C–C Fan turbine with six blades at 45 4, WB/T ¼ 0.1 or none 0.10–0.20 0.33–0.75 0.21–0.26 13 2
C–C1 Fan turbine with six blades at 45 4, WB/T ¼ 0.1 or none 0.10–0.30 1.0–1.42 13 2
D–D Square-pitch marine propellers with None, (i) shaft vertical at vessel axis, 0.13 0.21–0.45 0.16–0.40 10 0.9
R. P. CHHABRA
three blades (downthrusting) (ii) shaft 10 from vertical, displaced
D/6 from centre
D–D1 Same as for D–D—but upthrusting None, (i) shaft vertical at vessel axis, 0.13 0.21–0.45 0.16–0.40 10 0.9
(ii) shaft 10 from vertical, displaced
D/6 from centre
D–D2 Same as for D–D None, position (ii) 0.30 0.5–0.53 0.16–0.40 10 0.9
D–D3 Same as for D–D None, position (i) 0.30 0.5–0.53 0.16–0.40 10 0.9
E–E Square-pitch marine propeller with 4, WB/T 0.15 0.6 0.16–0.60 10
three blades
F–F Double-pitch marine propeller with None, position (ii) – 0.33–0.71 0.16–0.40 10 0.9
three blades (downthrusting)
F–F1 Double-pitch marine propeller with None, position (i) – 0.33–0.71 0.16–0.40 10 0.9
three blades (downthrusting)
G–G Square-pitch marine propeller with 4, WB/T ¼ 0.1 0.12 0.47 0.05–0.61 10
four blades
G–G1 Square-pitch marine propeller with 4, WB/T ¼ 0.1 0.12 0.47 1.28–1.68 –
four blades
H–H Two-bladed paddle 4, WB/T ¼ 0.1 0.09–0.13 0.33–0.5 0.16–1.68 10
– Anchor None 0.28 0.98 0.34–1.0 11 5
– Cone impellers 0 or 4, WB/T ¼ 0.08 0.10–0.15 0.35–0.52 0.34–1.0 11 5
FIG. 8. Power curves for time-independent fluids. Key to the curves is given in Table III
(based on Ref. [288]).
However, this transition is perhaps of minor relevance here, for most non-
Newtonian fluids are usually processed in laminar flow conditions and the
flow conditions seldom approach turbulent regime.
Over the years, it is increasingly being recognized that the high speed
agitators and close clearance anchor or gate type impellers are not very
effective in mixing highly viscous Newtonian and non-Newtonian liquids for
different reasons. While the high speed impellers wastefully dissipate most of
the energy in a relatively small body of the liquid in the impeller zone, close
clearance impellers create very little circulation and pumping action away
from the wall. Therefore, impellers with high pumping capacity are
preferred for highly viscous systems. The two designs, shown schematically
in Fig. 9, have gained wide acceptance are helical screw and helical ribbon
impellers [306–309] and the modifications thereof such as a having a draft
tube to improve its pumping capacity. Using the analogy with the couette
flow and replacing the rotating impeller by a rotating cylinder of an
equivalent diameter, some analytical predictions of the average shear rate
and power consumption are available in the literature which are in line with
experimental results for such impellers [114,115,129,131,135,136]. Subse-
quently, this flow has also been modelled as a drag flow and analogous
analytical expressions for Ks and power consumption for power law fluids
are available in the literature [156,157]. However, all these analyses implic-
itly endeavour to collapse the data for non-Newtonian systems on to the
power curve for Newtonian fluids for a specific arrangement of the mixer.
Admittedly, the approach of Metzner and Otto [84] has enjoyed a great
degree of success in correlating much of the power input data for a variety of
116 R. P. CHHABRA
FIG. 9. Schematics of Helical ribbon, Helical screw and Helical screw with a draft tube.
FIG. 10. Effect of power law index on Ks for a helical ribbon impeller.
configurations [304], it is not completely satisfactory and has thus also come
under severe criticism. For instance, this approach does not always lead to a
unique power curve for a given geometrical configuration if the value of the
power-law index, n, varies widely [38,118,250]. This implies that the constant
Ks in Eq. (19) is not truly a constant, and its value depends upon the values
of rheological parameters, such as n [88,104,195,235], time-dependency
[194,195], etc. Fig. 10 shows this effect clearly for the agitation of scores of
power law fluids by helical ribbon impellers [213].
However, this problem seems to be much more acute for anchors, helical
ribbons and the other close clearance impellers than that for turbines,
propellers, etc. [206,213,233]. Owing to the intense shearing of relatively thin
sheets of liquids at the wall, one would expect the value of Ks to be much
higher for anchors and other similar impellers than propellers, turbines, etc.
Indeed, the available experimental results suggest values of Ks ranging from
10 to as high as 80 [213]. It appears that the value of Ks for anchors not
only depends upon rheology, but also is extremely sensitive to the geo-
metrical details of an impeller–tank combination. For instance, Calderbank
and Moo-Young [88] put forward and following correlation for Ks for the
agitation of shearthinning liquids by anchors:
n=ð1nÞ
9ðT=DÞ2 4n
Ks ¼ 9:5 þ ð20Þ
ðT=DÞ2 1 3n þ 1
Equation (20) is applicable for T/D<1.4. Similarly, Beckner and Smith [104]
suggested the following expression for Ks (0.27 n 0.77):
Ks ¼ að1 nÞ ð21Þ
The empirical constant a appearing in Eq. (21), in turn, is a function of

geometry alone, particularly of the side and bottom clearances. Some
analytical efforts [129,135,160] have also been made to replace the impeller
by a rotating cylinder of an equivalent diameter such that the values of the
torque (hence power) in two cases are the same. This approach, though
highly idealised, but clearly does bring out the effect of rheology and
geometry on the factor Ks [31,160]. For instance, Yap et al. [157] presented
the following expression for Ks for helical ribbons used to mix shearthinning
and mildly viscoelastic systems:
Ks ¼ 41=ð1nÞ ðD=TÞ2 ðl=DÞ ð22Þ
Equation (22) predicts a rather strong dependence of Ks on the flow

behaviour index n and showing more than an order as magnitude variation
as n changes from 0.5 to 0.8, eventually becoming indeterminate at n ¼ 1.
Perhaps the most reliable expression for Ks for helical ribbon agitators used
for pseudoplastic fluids is that due to Delaplace and Leuliet [233]:

"ðn þ 1Þ n=ðn1Þ Kp D
Ks ¼ ð23Þ
ð" þ 1Þn p2 l
118 R. P. CHHABRA
where
1
2ðT=DÞ2 lnðT=DÞ
" ¼ 1 þ 1 þ ð24Þ
ðT=DÞ2 1
Kp is the power constant under laminar flow conditions and is given by

(Po Re) for Newtonian liquids. Thus, the use of Eq. (23) necessitates some
experimental tests with Newtonian liquids to ascertain the value of Kp for a
given mixing system. This, in turn, then can be combined with viscometric
data (value of n) to calculate the value of Ks and thus to find the average
shear rate via Eq. (19). Similarly, admittedly while the value of Ks is
geometry dependent but fortunately it is nearly independent of the
equipment size and thus there are no scale-up problems with this approach.
Data on power consumption in viscoplastic [51–55,63,89–98,175,176,180,
181,191,207], dilatant or shearthickening fluids [194] and time-dependent
thixotropic suspensions [41,195] have been similarly correlated using this
approach.
In summary, the prediction of power consumption for the agitation of a
given time-independent fluid of known rheology in a specific impeller–tank
assembly, at a desired impeller speed, proceeds as follows:
(i) The average shear rate is estimated using Eq. (19). The relevant value
of Ks thus must be known either from small scale experiments or
from expressions like Eq. (20) or Eq. (21) or Eq. (22), etc.
(ii) The relevant apparent viscosity is evaluated either from shear stress–
shear rate plot (rheogram), or by means of an appropriate viscosity
model such as power-law, Bingham plastic, or Herschel–Bulkley
models. However, extrapolation of such data beyond the experi-
mental range of conditions must be avoided as far as possible.
(iii) The value of the apparent viscosity calculated in step (ii) is used to
evaluate the Reynolds number of flow via Eq. (12), and then the
value of the Power number (hence of P) is obtained from the
appropriate power curve such as shown in Fig. 7 or Fig. 8 where
such power curves are not available for the specific impeller–vessel
combination, power consumption data with Newtonian liquids must
be obtained to produce a power curve over as wide ranges of condi-
tions as anticipated with time-independent non-Newtonian fluids.
Despite the uncertainty associated with this approach, in terms of the
value of Ks, this scheme yields the values of power consumption under
laminar flow conditions with an accuracy of the order of 25–30%. However,
beyond the laminar flow conditions, Eq. (19) is not applicable and indeed
FIG. 11. Dependence of average shear rate on the rotational speed for an anchor in laminar
range.
FIG. 12. Dependence of average shear rate on the rotational speed for an Intermig impeller
in laminar and transitional region.
the dependence of the average shear rate on the rotational speed of the
impeller gradually changes for being proportional to N to that N2 under fully
turbulent conditions [310], as shown in Fig. 11 for an anchor impeller and
in Fig. 12 for a composite impeller of the INTERMIG turbine type [311].
In concluding this section on power input, it is worthwhile to add here
that there is sufficient evidence in the literature [147,160,310] to suggest that
an extended laminar region exists with an increasing degree of shear
thinning value, i.e., decreasing value of n. Indeed, the slope of power curves
continues to be 1 almost up to Re ¼ 100 or so, as can be seen in Fig. 13
for a helical ribbon impeller. It is, however, not yet possible to predict
120 R. P. CHHABRA
FIG. 13. Typical power curves for inelastic shearthinning fluids stirred by helical ribbon
screw impellers (re-drawn from Ref. [160]).
a priori the value of the Reynolds number up to which such laminar flow
conditions will exist in an envisaged application. This is solely due to the
complex interplay between the flow patterns and the geometry of the system.
Therefore, it is worthwhile to re-iterate that the uncertainty surrounding the
prediction of Ks in the intermediate region is perhaps not all that relevant in
the context of non-Newtonian fluids. In other words, it is thus possible to
estimate the power consumption for the agitation of purely viscous non-
Newtonian systems with about as much as accuracy as that of the power
curve developed based on data for Newtonian liquids.
Before leaving this section, it is also useful to mention that Eq. (19) has
also been used in the reverse sense, that is, using impeller power data as a
means of characterising rheology [237,312–316]. Indeed, the well-established
vane technique for measuring the yield stress is based on the analysis of the
power–time response curves for viscoplastic materials [312]. Aside from this
justifiable applications, many other investigators [237,313–316,316a–d] have
attempted to infer the values of rheological parameters (such as n, m) from
power input data. Attention must be drawn to the fact that due to the
indeterminate and complex 3-D nature of the flow field produced by an
impeller, such an approach, in principle, is suspect, albeit it can be used as
an useful tool for quality control purposes. However, it must be borne in
mind that this approach of inferring rheological properties from power
input data is fraught with danger.
4. Effect of Viscoelasticity
In contrast, much less is known and therefore considerable confusion
exists about the role of viscoelasticity on power input to the impeller.
Some studies suggest that since the primary flow pattern in mixing tanks is
unaffected by viscoelasticity, and hence the power input is little influenced
by fluid viscoelasticity, at least in the laminar flow regime. Indeed, the early
experimental studies [136,317–320] lend support to this notion, though this
is not necessarily so [236]. On the other hand, Nienow et al. [178]
documented a slight increase in power input for viscoelastic liquids, whereas
Ducla et al. [258] reported a slight decrease in power consumption with
turbine impellers. However, in practice, most polymer solutions (used as test
fluids) in experimental studies exhibit simultaneously both shear dependent
viscosity and viscoelasticity, and it is therefore not possible to isolate the
contributions of these two rheological characteristics on power input.
However, this dilemma can be resolved by using the so-called Boger fluids
[319a], which in steady shear display varying levels of viscoelasticity in the
absence of shearthinning. The available experimental studies with these
fluids [168,169,198,236] reveal a strong interplay between the geometry and
fluid viscoelasticity on one hand and the fluid viscoelasticity and the
kinematic conditions (laminar, transitional flow) on the other. The effect of
viscoelasticity may even depend upon the size of the equipment [168]. For
the standard Rushton turbine and modifications thereof, Oliver et al. [198],
Prud’homme and Shaqfeh [168] and Collias and Prud’homme [169]
concluded that the power input may increase or decrease below the
corresponding value for Newtonian fluids (same geometry and the Reynolds
number) depending upon the values of the Reynolds and Weissenberg
numbers. For instance at low Reynolds numbers, viscoelasticity seems to
increase the power consumption [168,169,198]. On the other hand, in the
case of axial flow impellers, Ozcan-Taskin and Nienow [236] concluded that
even at low values of the Elasticity number (defined as Wi/Re), the power
consumption was significantly higher in viscoelastic media than that in
Newtonian liquids otherwise under identical conditions. For instance, even
when El 0.02 and 5 Re 500 in these experiments they documented up
to 50–60% increase in power input at low Reynolds number and it appears
to taper off as the value of the Reynolds number progressively increases.
Qualitatively similar increases in power input have been also reported by
Youcefi et al. [244,325] for a two-bladed impeller. On the other hand, no
such increase in power input has been reported for double planetary type
mixers [223]. Representative analogous results for a helical ribbon [160] are
shown in Fig. 14 where the results for both the usual polymer solutions
(showing both shearthinning and viscoelasticity) and the Boger fluids
(purely elastic liquids) are included. In addition to an increase in power
input, data for viscoelastic fluids tend to veer away from the Newtonian
line at small values of the Reynolds number. For instance, for the 0.35%
PIB/PB/Kerosene solution, power input data begin to deviate from the
122 R. P. CHHABRA
FIG. 14. Effect of viscoelasticity on power input to helical ribbon screw impellers (re-plotted
from Ref. [160]).
Newtonian line at as small values of the Reynolds number as 1 whereas in

other cases this departure occurs at Re 30–40 thereby indicating a complex
interplay between rheology and flow parameters. This behaviour is in stark
contrast to that for inelastic shearthinning fluids wherein the laminar region
is extended. However, this departure from the Newtonian line is mainly due
to the fluid elasticity because the Reynolds number is still too small for the
inertial effects to be significant. This is believed to be due to the rather high
values of extensional viscosities for these fluids. At high Reynolds numbers,
viscoelasticity seems to suppress the secondary motion, thereby resulting in
a reduction in power consumption [141,310] and as seen also in Fig. 14.
Collias and Prud’homme [169] have further explored the role of visco-
elasticity on power consumption and mixing times. Utilizing Eq. (19) and
the equality of the Reynolds number for two geometrically similar systems,
one can readily show that:
1n0
El1 N2
¼ ð25Þ
El2 N1
where the subscripts ‘‘1’’ and ‘‘2’’ refer to the two geometrically similar
systems; n0 is the power-law type index for the first normal stress difference
0
( _ n ). For the same fluid, the equality of the two Reynolds numbers yields,
2
N1 D2
¼ ð26Þ
N2 D1
and this in turn yields,

2ð1n0 Þ
El1 D1
¼ ð27Þ
El2 D2
Note that the same fluid, i.e., constant values of m, n, n0 , , etc., has been
used in the two different size equipments. Eq. (27) clearly brings out the
complex interplay between the rheology (n0 ), size of equipment (D) and
kinematics (because El ¼ Wi/Re). Indeed, this well may be the basic reason
for much of the confusion in the literature regarding the role of
viscoelasticity [169]. Clearly the value of n0 whether greater than 1 (as in
Ref. [178]) or smaller than 1, as in the study of Bartels and Janssen [321]
is crucial to the role of viscoelasticity in an envisaged application.
Consequently, no satisfactory and universally applicable correlations are
available for the prediction of power input in viscoelastic systems. Before
concluding this section on the effect of viscoelasticity on power consump-
tion, it is also of interest to draw attention to the scant work available with
the drag reducing systems (containing only few ppm of polymers). The
reduction in power input accompanied by concomitant reduction in gas–
liquid mass transfer occurs only under turbulent conditions in agitated
systems [142,143,149]. While usually such a reduction is attributed to the
viscoelastic behaviour, but this statement has seldom been backed up by
appropriate rheological measurements.
Finally, it is important to note here that the whole of the preceding
section pertaining to the prediction of power input relies on the fact that the
value of the rotational speed N is known. It is a much more difficult question
to answer that what is the optimum or an appropriate value of N for a new
application. Since a full understanding of the underlying physical phenom-
ena is not yet available, the choice of the optimum operating speed remains
(and will continue to be) primarily a matter of experience. Though some
guidelines in the literature are available but unfortunately all such
recommendations vary from one impeller to another, and even from one
fluid to another depending upon the severity of non-Newtonian effects. For
the simplest type of fluid behaviour, namely, the Newtonian fluids being
stirred by a disc turbine, Hicks et al. [322] introduced a scale (degree) of
agitation, SA, which ranges from 1 to 10 with 1 being mildly mixed and 10
being intensely mixed. The scale of agitation in turn is defined as
[282,303,323]:
Nq ND3
SA ¼ 32:8 ð28Þ
VL
124 R. P. CHHABRA
where Nq is the dimensionless pumping number ( ¼ Q/ND3), Q being the

bulk flow produced by the impeller and these characteristics are provided by
the manufacturers of mixing equipment; VL is the volume of the liquid
batch. Most chemical and processing applications are characterised by
scales of agitation in the range 3–6, while values of 7 SA 10 are typical of
chemical reactors, fermentors and of mixing of high viscosity liquids. Some
guidelines are also available for choosing a suitable value of SA for specific
applications employing turbine agitators [324] which unfortunately are
known to be not at all suitable for the mixing of rheologically complex
systems. Furthermore, the use of this methodology involving SA is not
recommended for viscoelastic and viscoplastic fluids [303].
C. FLOW PATTERNS AND FLOW FIELDS

Further physical insights into mixing can be gained from the analysis of
flow fields created by an impeller in a mixing tank. Such studies also
facilitate the identification of stagnant or dead zones in the vessel. Flow
patterns are strongly dependent upon the type of the impeller and geometry
of the system, and these are further influenced by the rheological properties
of the liquid. It is customary and convenient to classify the agitators used
with non-Newtonian liquids into three types:
(i) The first type or class I impellers operate at relatively high
(rotational) speeds, generating high deformation rates in the vicinity
of the impeller, as well as relying on the favourable momentum
imparted to the whole volume of liquid. Turbine impellers and
propellers (shown in Fig. 29) exemplify this class of impellers, with
impeller-to-tank diameter ratio somewhere in the range 0.16–
0.6. Usually, the flow conditions relate to intermediate to high
values of the Reynolds number.
(ii) The second type or class II impellers are characterised by close
clearance at the wall which extend over the whole diameter of the
tank and their operation relies on intense shearing of the liquid in the
small gaps at the walls with D/T> 0.8–0.9. Gates and anchors
(also shown in Fig. 29) are representative of.
(iii) Finally, there are slow rotating class III impellers which do not result
in high shear rate, but rely on their excellent pumping capacity to
ensure that an adequate momentum is imparted to the liquid in all
parts of the vessel. Helical screw and helical ribbon impellers (shown
in Fig. 9) are representative of this category.
Due to the intrinsically different type of flow features created by these
impellers, it is appropriate to deal with each of these categories separately.
1. Class I Impellers
The flow patterns for single phase Newtonian and inelastic non-
Newtonian fluids in tanks agitated by this class of impellers have been
reported by many investigators [85,86,167,175,176,180,227,236,239,251,
252,269,326–329]. The experimental techniques used include the introduc-
tion of tracer liquids, neutrally buoyant particles or hydrogen bubbles,
Positron emission, X-ray visualization method; and measurement of local
velocities by means of pitot tubes, laser doppler velocimeters and so on. The
salient features of the flow patterns produced by propellers and disc turbines
are shown schematically in Fig. 15. Basically, the propeller creates an axial
flow through the impeller, which may be upwards or downwards depending
upon the direction of rotation. Strictly speaking the flow field is three-
dimensional and unsteady; the study of circulation patterns such as that
shown in Fig. 15 are helpful in delineating the presence of dead zones. If the
propeller is mounted centrally and in a tank without baffles, severe vortex
formation can occur (especially in low viscosity systems) which can be
circumvented by installing baffles and/or by mounting the agitator in an off-
centered position. In either event, the resulting flow patterns are much more
complex than that shown in Fig. 15 and the power consumption also
increases [33,295].
The flat-bladed turbine impeller creates a strong radial flow outwards
from the impeller, thereby establishing circulation zones in the top and
bottom of the vessel (Fig. 15). The flow pattern can be changed by altering
the impeller geometry and, for instance, if the turbine blades are angled to
the vertical, a strong axial flow component is also produced. Such a flow
pattern may be advantageous in applications where it is necessary to
suspend solids. However, as the Reynolds number decreases, the flow is
primarily in the radial direction. Similarly, a flat paddle produces a flow field
with significant tangential components of velocity, which does not promote
FIG. 15. Qualitative flow patterns for propellers and disc turbine impellers.
126 R. P. CHHABRA
FIG. 16. Qualitative flow patterns for a dual (two turbines mounted on a single shaft)
impeller.
mixing. Propellers, turbines and paddles are commonly used impellers for
low viscosity Newtonians and inelastic shearthinning liquids, usually
operating in the transitional and turbulent flow regions.
For tall vessels employing liquid depth-to-tank diameter ratio (Z/T )
larger than 1, it is common to use multiple impellers mounted on a single
shaft. Clearly, the resulting flow patterns will be more complex than that
seen in Fig. 15. Using two axial flow turbines mounted on the single shaft
gives rise to two ‘‘zones of action’’ as shown in Fig. 16 [344].
For a shearthinning substance, the apparent viscosity is lowest in the
impeller region and the fluid motion decreases rapidly away from the
impeller. This decay in velocity is much more rapid in pseudoplastic fluids
than that in Newtonian liquids. Viscoplastic fluids possessing a yield stress
also display qualitatively similar behaviour in the sense that the shear
induced by the rotating impeller is restricted to a small cavity (cavern) and
there is no (or little) mixing outside this cavity. Intuitively, the
shearthickening fluids would display exactly the opposite behaviour which
is counter-intuitive, i.e., poor mixing in the impeller region! In a pioneering
study using tanks of square cross-section, Wichterle and Wein [180]
delineated the regions of motion/no-motion in shearthinning fluids being
stirred by disc-turbine and propeller-type impellers, as shown in Fig. 17a
and b, respectively. While at low Reynolds number, the size of the well-
mixed region Dc is of the order of D, but as the Reynolds number gradually
increases, the value of Dc/D increases thereby the well-mixed zone
progressively grows in size. Wichterle and Wein [180] also put forward the
following expressions for Dc:
Dc
¼1 for a2 Re < 1 ð29aÞ
D
FIG. 17. Flow patterns in highly shearthinning liquids, with a disc turbine and a
propeller [180].
Dc
¼ aðReÞ0:5 for a2 Re > 1 ð29bÞ
D
where a is a constant which is 0.3 for propellers, 0.6 for turbines and approxi-
mately equal to 0.375(Pot)1/3 for other types of impellers; Pot is the constant
value of the Power number under fully turbulent conditions. In Eq. 29, the
Reynolds number is defined by setting Ks ¼ 1, i.e., Re ¼ N2nDn/m.
For viscoplastic materials, a direct link between the flow pattern and the
corresponding power input is illustrated by the study of Nagata et al. [330].
They reported a cyclic increase and decrease in power input which can be
explained qualitatively as follows. Initially, the power input is high due to
the high (apparent) viscosity of the solid-like structure; however, once the
yield stress is overcome and the material begins to yield and to exhibit fluid-
like characteristics, the power consumption decreases and the stress level
drops. The structure is then re-established and the solid-like behaviour
results leading to an increase in power input and hence the cycle repeats
itself. Also, there was a propensity for a vortex to form at the liquid free
surface during this cyclic behaviour. This tendency was considerably
diminished or almost eliminated by using class II impellers. In this case, the
solid-like behaviour can occur in the center of the vessel. More detailed and
quantitative information on flow patterns in viscoplastic materials stirred by
the standard Rushton disc turbine has been gleaned using X-rays [175,176],
hot-wire anemometry [167] and laser doppler anemometry [241,242]. Many
attempts have been made to develop predictive relations for the size of
caverns seen in viscoplastic liquids [53,167,226,227,239]. For instance,
Solomon et al. [167] put forward the following relation for Dc:
1=3
Dc 4Po N 2 D2
¼ ð30Þ
D p3 oB
128 R. P. CHHABRA
Equation (30) was stated to apply in the following ranges of conditions:
2 2 3
N 2 D2 4 N D D
B
3
B
; i:e:; when D Dc T:
o p Po o T
Subsequently, based on a consideration of the fluid velocity at the cavern

boundary, and assuming the cavern to be of spherical shape, Amanullah
et al. [227] put forward the following expression for cavern diameter in
power law shear thinning fluids:
ðn2Þ=n " # ðn2Þ=n

Dc 2 n 4pm 1=n T
¼ Vo þ ð31Þ
2 n F 2
Similar expressions for toroidal shaped caverns as observed with radial

flow SCABA 6SRGT and Lightnin A 315 axial flow impellers [52,53] are
also available in the literature [227]. However, unlike Eq. (29) or (30), this
approach necessitates a knowledge of the total force, F, acting at the cavern
boundary and the fluid velocity Vo which are neither generally known [239]
nor amenable to a priori prediction for a new application. Despite these
limitations, Amanullah et al. [227] reported a good match between the
predictions of Eq. (31) and their own experiments. Similar results on cavern
sizes and shapes generated by dual impellers like Intermig are also available
in the literature [191]. Overall, it can be concluded that these laboratory
scale studies on cavern characteristics are also of considerable significance is
industrial settings [187,283].
In contrast, the influence of liquid viscoelasticity is both more striking
and difficult to assess [236,251]. An early photographic study [331] of
turbine and propeller type impellers rotating in viscoelastic fluids suggests
two distinct flow patterns. In a small region near the impeller the flow is
outwards, whereas elsewhere the flow is inwards towards the impeller in the
equatorial plane and outwards from the rotating impeller along the axis of
rotation. These two regions are separated by a close streamline thereby
allowing no convective transport between the two regions. A more quanti-
tative study [332] reveals that, irrespective of the nature of the secondary
flow pattern, the primary flow pattern around a rotating body is virtually
unaffected by the viscoelastic behaviour of the liquid. Indeed, a variety of
flow patterns may be observed depending upon the type of the impeller and
the kinematic conditions, i.e., the values of the Reynolds and Weissenberg
numbers or Elasticity numbers [236,251].
2. Class II Impellers
While gate and anchor-type close clearance impellers produce poor axial
circulation of the liquid in the tank, it appears that the liquid viscoelasticity
promotes axial flow [105,106]. Thus, Peters and Smith [105] reported the axial
flow to be almost 15 times greater in a viscoelastic medium than that in a
comparable Newtonian fluid. Figure 18 displays the resulting shear rate
distribution obtained in a viscoelastic fluid being stirred by an anchor where it
is seen that the liquid in the tank is virtually unaffected (shear rate 0) by the
passage of the anchor impeller, except close to the wall of the vessel.
Broadly speaking, both anchor and gate impellers promote fluid motion
near the wall, but leave the body of the liquid near the shaft relatively
stagnant, as can be inferred from the typical streamline pattern shown in
Fig. 19. Besides owing to the poor top to bottom turnover, significant
vertical concentration gradients usually exist, which can be minimised by
using a helical ribbon or a helical screw twisted in the opposite sense,
pumping the fluid downward near the shaft. Typical qualitative flow
patterns for an anchor impeller are sketched in Fig. 20. In these systems, the
flow pattern changes with the impeller speed and thus neither the notion of
an average shear rate, nor its linear variation with N implicit in Eq. (19), is
strictly valid. Furthermore, any rotational motion induced within the tank
wall will also produce a secondary flow in the vertical direction; the liquid
near the tank bottom is virtually stationary while that at higher levels
is rotating and hence will experience centrifugal forces. Consequently,
FIG. 18. Shear rate profiles for an anchor rotating in a viscoelastic medium [105,106].
130 R. P. CHHABRA
FIG. 19. Streamline patterns (relative to the arm of the impeller) for a viscoelastic liquid in a
tank agitated by a gate impeller.
FIG. 20. Secondary flow pattern in an anchor agitated tank.
the unbalanced forces present within the liquid lead to the formation of a
toroidal vortex. Depending upon the viscosity level and type (Newtonian,
inelastic or viscoelastic) of fluid, the secondary flow pattern may be single-
(Fig. 20) or double-celled as shown schematically in Fig. 21. Indeed, such
flow patterns are also borne out by numerical predictions and experimental
observations for inelastic shearthinning media [332].
3. Class III Impellers
Apart from the qualitative results for a composite impeller (anchor fitted
with a ribbon or screw) mentioned in the preceding section, only scant
results are available on the flow patterns created by helical ribbon and
helical screw impellers. The first study of the flow pattern produced by a
helical ribbon impeller is that of Nagata et al. [333] and Fig. 22 displays the
FIG. 21. Schematic representation of a twin-celled secondary flow pattern.
FIG. 22. Flow pattern produced by a helical ribbon impeller [333].
complex flow pattern induced by a helical ribbon impeller. The primary top-
to-bottom circulation, mainly responsible for mixing, is principally due to
the axial pumping action of the ribbon. The shear produced by the helical
ribbon is confined in the regions inside and outside of blade, whereas the
shear between the bulk of the liquid and the wall is cyclic in nature.
Notwithstanding the degree of scatter present in Fig. 23, from Bourne and
Butler [114], the velocity data appear to be scale independent and the type of
fluid, i.e., inelastic shearthinning or viscoelastic. Furthermore, Bourne and
Butler [114] concluded that there was virtually no radial flow except in the
top and bottom regions of the vessel, and the vertical velocity inside the
ribbon helix varied only from 4 to 18% of the ribbon speed.
In addition to the aforementioned primary flow pattern, secondary flows
also develop with the increasing rotational speed of the impeller, similar to
those observed with an anchor and shown in Fig. 21. Carreau et al. [155]
132 R. P. CHHABRA
FIG. 23. Variation of axial (liquid) velocity in the core region of helical ribbon impellers
pumping down in 27 and 730 l tanks. The solid lines indicate the upper and lower bounds of
data [114,115]. þ: D/T ¼ 0.89; : D/T ¼ 0.952 (small tank); s : D/T ¼ 0.954 (large tank).
also studied flow patterns for a helical ribbon impeller in viscoelastic

systems. They also reported significant reduction in axial circulation as can
be seen in Fig. 24 where the non-dimensional axial velocity is plotted for an
inelastic (2% CMC solution) and a viscoelastic PAA solution at N ¼ 0.67 Hz.
The values of the axial velocities in the inelastic CMC solution were
comparable to that in Newtonian liquids. On the otherhand, the tangential
velocities were so high in viscoelastic liquids that the entire contents of the
tank, except for a thin layer at the wall, rotated as a solid body with the
impeller.
Even less is known about the flow patterns produced by a helical screw.
In a preliminary study, Chapman and Holland [100] presented photographs
of dye-flow patterns for an off-centered helical screw agitator, pumping
upwards without a draft tube. There appeared to be a dispersive flow
present between the flights of the screw, the dispersion being completed at
the top of the screw. The flow into the screw impeller was from the other
FIG. 24. Axial velocity profile in an inelastic (2% CMC) and in a viscoelastic (1% PAA)
solution with a helical ribbon impeller rotating at N ¼ 0.67 Hz [155].
side of the tank, whereas the liquid in the remaining parts of the tank
appeared to be virtually stagnant. Preliminary three-dimensional numerical
predictions for the flow pattern produced by a helical screw appear to be in
line with experimental results for Newtonian liquids [208].
Aside from the aforementioned results for different class of impellers,
limited results are also available for other types of mixing devices used for
thick pastes with complex rheological behaviour [112,334]. One common
geometry used for the mixing of thick pastes is that of sigma-blade mixer
(Fig. 33), with thick S- or Z-shaped blades, which look like high pitch helical
ribbons. Usually, two units are placed horizontally in separate troughs
inside a mixing chamber and the blades rotate in opposite directions at
different speeds. Preliminary results obtained using a positive displacement
mixer point to their potential advantages over helical ribbon and sigma
blade mixers for thick pastes and extremely viscous materials [335].
From the aforementioned description, it is abundantly clear that the flow
patterns developed in a mixing tank are strongly dependent on the tank–
impeller configuration, rheology of the liquid and the operating conditions.
Needless to emphasize here that in selecting suitable equipment, extreme
care is needed to ensure that the resulting flow pattern is suitable for the
envisaged application.
D. MIXING AND CIRCULATION TIMES

Before addressing the question of circulation and mixing times, and the
related issue of the rate of mixing, one must deal with the methods of
134 R. P. CHHABRA
FIG. 25. Qualitative representation of the relationship between the ‘‘scale’’ and ‘‘intensity’’
of mixing.
assessing and quantifying the quality of a mixture. Due to the wide scope
and spectrum of mixing problems and the objectives of mixing, it is not
possible to develop a single criterion for all possible mixing applications.
Aside from such practical difficulties, even from a theoretical standpoint,
mixing is poorly understood. This is so primarily due to the fact that perfect
mixing implies three-dimensional randomisation of materials, and
unfortunately three-dimensional processes are not yet readily amenable to
mathematical treatment. Often times, the quality of a mixture is
qualitatively judged by visual criteria. Another intuitive and convenient,
but perhaps unscientific, criterion is whether or not the product (mixture)
meets the required specifications. For many applications this criterion may
be acceptable, but many high quality products require more stringent and
definitive criteria for assessing the quality of a mixture. Figure 25 illustrates
the intrinsic problem in defining the quality of a mixture. This figure shows
a matrix of two materials mixed to different degrees by two different
mechanisms, namely, size of inhomogeneity (‘‘scale of segregation’’), and
diffusion (‘‘scale of intensity’’). In order to appreciate the problem
associated with qualifying mixtures, a third parameter is needed, namely,
the scale of examination. This denotes the smallest area or volume that can
be resolved by whatever technique is used to assess the quality of the
mixture. If the scale of examination equals the area of one of the dark or
light squares in the right hand column of Fig. 25, then clearly all mixtures in
this column will be judged as poorly mixed.
Keeping the scale of examination at this level, as one moves to the left on
the ‘‘scale’’ axis, the quality of mixing improves. Therefore, a homogeneous
mixture can be produced by reducing the size of each component to some

level below the smallest scale of observation and distributing these com-
ponents throughout the system in a random manner. More detailed
discussions on the assessment of the quality of mixtures are available in the
literature [3,136,334]. Irrespective of the criteria used, mixing time is defined
as the time needed to produce a mixture or a product of pre-determined
quality, and the rate of mixing is the rate at which the mixing progresses
towards the final state.
When a tracer is added to a single-phase liquid in a mixing tank, the
mixing time is measured as the time interval between the introduction of
tracer and the time when the contents of the vessel have attained the
required degree of uniformity. If the tracer used is completely miscible and
has the same density and viscosity as the process liquid in the tank, the
tracer concentration may be measured as a function of time at any point in
the tank by an appropriate detector, such as by way of refractive index, or
by electrical conductivity. For a given amount of tracer, the equilibrium
concentration C1 is readily calculated and this value will be approached
asymptotically at any point (Fig. 26). In practice, it is, however, customary
to define the mixing time
m as that required for the mixture composition to
come within a specified (1 or 5%) deviation from the equilibrium value C1.
Unfortunately, this value is strongly dependent on the way the tracer is
added and the location of the detector, etc. It is thus not uncommon to
record the tracer concentration at several points in the tank, and to define
the variance of concentration, 2, about the equilibrium value as:
1 X
i¼p
2 ¼ ðCi C1 Þ2 ð32Þ
p 1 i¼1
FIG. 26. Qualitative representation of mixing-time measurement curve.

136 R. P. CHHABRA
FIG. 27. Reduction in variance of concentration of tracer with time.
where Ci is the response of the ith detector at time t. Fig. 27 schematically

shows a typical variance curve.
Over the years, many experimental methods have been developed and
used to measure mixing times in stirred vessels. Typical examples include
acid–base titrations, measurement of electrical conductivity, temperature,
refractive index, and pH, light absorption, etc. However, in each case, it is
important to specify the manner of tracer addition, the position and the
number of points of detection, the sampling volume of the detector (scale
of examination), and the criterion used for locating the end point. Each of
these factors exerts varying levels of influence on the experimental value
of mixing time, and therefore, extreme care must be exercised in comparing
results from different investigations [334,336]. Inspite of all such inherent
limitations, the notion of a single (average) mixing time is convenient in
practice, albeit extrapolations from one system to another must be treated
with reserve. Furthermore, irrespective of the technique and the criterion
used, the response curve may show periodic behaviour. This may be due to
the repeated passage of a fluid element with a locally high concentration of
tracer. The time interval between any two successive peaks is known as the
circulation time,
c.
For a given geometrical configuration, dimensional arguments suggest
the dimensionless mixing and circulation times to be functions of the
Reynolds number, Froude number, Weber number and Weissenberg
number, i.e.,

m ¼ N
m ¼ f1 ðRe; Fr; We; WiÞ ð33aÞ

c ¼ N
c ¼ f2 ðRe; Fr; We; WiÞ ð33bÞ
For geometrically similar systems and in the absence of vortex formation

and surface tension effects, Eq. (33) simplify to:

m ¼ f3 ðRe; WiÞ ð34aÞ

c ¼ f4 ðRe; WiÞ ð34bÞ
Evidently for inelastic liquids, the Weissenberg number is also redundant. In

general terms,
m is constant both in laminar and in fully turbulent
conditions, with a substantial transition zone in between these two limits.

Undoubtedly, the functional relationship between
m and Re is strongly
dependent on the tank–impeller geometry and the type of the impeller,
namely, class I, or II, or III.
Little information is available about the mixing times for class I impellers
in non-Newtonian systems. The scant experimental results [86] for turbine
impellers in baffled tanks suggest that the correlations developed for
Newtonian fluids can also be used for inelastic systems via the notion of an
effective viscosity corresponding to the shear rate given by Eq. (19). The
results of Godleski and Smith [99] point to much larger mixing times than
those predicted by Norwood and Metzner [86], thereby implying severe
segregation between the high shear (impeller region) and low shear (wall
region) zones of the tank. On the other hand, Bourne and Butler [114,115]
concluded that the rate of mixing and the mixing times are not very sensitive
to the rheological properties of the liquids. Furthermore, in highly
shearthinning systems with a yield stress, a cavern of turbulent flow engulfs
the fast rotating agitator, whereas the rest of the liquid may be at rest.
Under such conditions, the utility of mixing and circulation times is severely
limited. Intuitively, one would expect similar, or perhaps even more severe,
deterioration in mixing (hence mixing times) in viscoelastic liquids,
especially when the secondary flow and flow reversal occur. However, the
lack of information on mixing times with class I impellers is not too serious,
for these impellers are rarely used for the agitation of viscous non-
Newtonian fluids.
The only study pertaining to the use of class II impellers for non-
Newtonian materials is that of Peters and Smith [105,106] which seems to
suggest a reduction in both mixing and circulation times for viscoelastic
polymer solutions agitated by an anchor impeller. The decrease in mixing
time is primarily due to the increased axial circulation as noted in the
preceding section.
138 R. P. CHHABRA
In contrast to the meagre information pertaining to class I and II

impellers, class III impellers have received much more attention. It is readily
agreed that the shearthinning behaviour does not exert any great influence
on the pumping capacity of helical impellers, whence the circulation times
are little influenced [130,134,155,159,310]. Thus, the dimensionless circula-
tion time
c is constant in the laminar regime (Re< 10) and it decreases
with the increasing Reynolds number and the decreasing value of power-law
index n in the transition zone, eventually becoming independent of the
rheology [310]. In this regard, this finding is in line with that of Bourne and
Butler [114,115] for class I impellers. Another study [158] with a helical
ribbon impeller shows that even though the average circulation times are not
influenced significantly by shearthinning behaviour, their distribution
becomes narrower with the decreasing value of power-law index n, thereby
suggesting poor mixing between the high shear and low shear regions in the
tank for highly shearthinning fluids.

Qualitatively similar observations can also be made about
m in inelastic

fluids, that is,
m is independent of the Reynolds number in the laminar
region (Re< 10) and it decreases with the Reynolds number in the
intermediate regime. Figure 28 confirms this expectation for a Newtonian
fluid, an inelastic CMC solution and a Boger fluid being mixed by a helical
ribbon. While in each case the constant mixing time limit is seen to be
reached at low Reynolds numbers, but the cessation of the so-called laminar
flow conditions is seen to occur at different values of the Reynolds number.
The mixing time seems to increase progressively as the fluid behaviour
changes from the Newtonian to inelastic shear thinning to viscoelastic
FIG. 28. Representative results on mixing times for a Newtonian [u], an inelastic [s] and a
viscoelastic [m, j] fluids stirred by a helical ribbon impeller [310].
behaviour thereby implying the inherent difficulty of homogenization of

non-Newtonian systems in general and viscoelastic fluids in particular.
Extensive reviews on the efficacy of class III impellers in homogenizing
highly viscous Newtonian and non-Newtonian systems are available in the
literature [206,234]. Based on an extensive evaluation of the literature data
for power input and mixing time for Newtonian liquids, Delaplace et al.
[234] suggest that the laminar flow conditions can exist up to about Re 60
for helical ribbon impellers which is also borne out by the results shown in
Fig. 28. They also alluded to the possible difficulties in linking the
performance of a helical ribbon impeller to the geometric configuration such
as the wall clearance, and the pitch ratio, etc.
It is abundantly clear from the foregoing discussion that the available
body of knowledge about the mixing and circulation times is much less
extensive and is also somewhat incoherent as compared with that for
power input. Indeed, significant advances are still being made in this area
even for Newtonian systems and/or in novel impeller systems such as jet
mixers [337]. Also, notwithstanding the inherent drawback of using the
single mixing time, alternative suggestions based on the production of
inter-material surface area and energetic considerations have also been
made to quantitatively describe the efficiency of mixing [338]. Thus, Ottino
and Macosko [338] defined an efficiency parameter for laminar mixing as
the ratio of energy expended in the creation of inter-material area and the
total energy dissipated. This criterion can also be used to rank various
mixing devices to ascertain their suitability for an anticipated application.
E. NUMERICAL AND CFD MODELLING

In recent years, considerable research effort has been expended in the
numerical and/or CFD modelling of the batch mixing of liquids in
mechanically agitated systems, e.g., see [146,173,193,208,210,217,246,247,
265,273,275,276,325,328,329,332,339–347,347a]. There is no doubt that
such modelling can potentially define many of the fluid mechanical
parameters for an overall mixing system [340]. Many of the models,
particularly for turbulent flow, divide the whole tank into many small
microcells. However, all such efforts tend to be very computation intensive.
The main impediment which has hindered the widespread use of CFD
modelling in mixing processes is the very elusive nature of the complex
phenomena (fluid rheology and geometry) of any practical mixing process.
The fluid mechanics (kinematics) required to achieve a process result is
generally not known. Notwithstanding these inherent formidable conceptual
difficulties, some successful attempts have been made at the numerical
modelling of flows in stirred tanks, albeit most of these relate to turbulent
140 R. P. CHHABRA
flow conditions for Newtonian fluids [275,276,327–329,346]. Indeed, scores

of methods including finite element, boundary element methods and
commercially available CFD packages like FLUENT and POLYFLOW
etc., as well as a variety of tank–impeller configurations have been used to
get detailed structure of the flow field and integral parameters like
circulation times and torque, etc., for specific geometric configuration.
However, the work with turbulent flow conditions is of little interest in the
context of non-Newtonian fluids, albeit one may encounter turbulent
conditions in some applications such as in industrial paper pulp processing
wherein a chest fitted with a side entering impeller is used [339]. Bakker and
Fasano [339] used FLUENT to predict the velocity profiles using the k–"
model for a paper pulp modelled as a Bingham plastic in such a geometry.
Both laminar and turbulent flow conditions were encountered in different
parts of the tank. However, they reported qualitative agreement between the
predicted and experimental flow patterns. Similarly, Venneker and van den
Akker [273] simulated the flow patterns for the turbulent flow of a power
law liquid (n ¼ 0.77) in a tank fitted with a Rushton turbine. The numerical
predictions were substantiated by LDA measurements and a good match
was reported. Since for viscous materials, the laminar flow conditions are
encountered much more frequently than the turbulent conditions, there have
been some modelling efforts under these conditions. Ottino et al. [345]
introduced a theoretical framework for describing the phenomenon of
mixing. They suggested the use of deformation of contact interfaces between
materials in case of multi-phase systems or of the originally designated
material surface as means of mathematically describing mixing. Similarly,
Khayat et al. [342] have developed some general ideas about three-
dimensional mixing flow of Newtonian and viscoelastic fluids, which in
principle can provide some clues about the batch mixing. In the context of
laminar mixing, even the response of viscous Newtonian liquids can provide
useful insights into the mixing of at least inelastic liquids. Thus, Abid et al.
[332] investigated the laminar flow of Newtonian fluids induced by an
anchor impeller fitted in a tank. Based on a detailed analysis of the
tangential velocity distributions, the flow appeared to be planar and hence
they concluded that under such conditions 2-D modelling would be
adequate. Similarly, Tanguy et al. [208] employed a 3-D finite element
scheme to predict circulation times and power input in laminar region for
Newtonian fluid being agitated by a helical ribbon screw impeller. While the
predicted and experimental values of circulation times are within 5% of each
other, the discrepancy for power input was up to 50% which increased with
the increasing speed of impeller. Subsequently, this work has been extended
to the agitation of a second-order model fluid under laminar conditions [217].
Within the range of applicability, viscoelasticity was seen to exert only a
minor influence on gross parameters. A similar study of viscous non-

Newtonian fluids stirred by a paddle impeller has also been reported [146].
The scant studies to elucidate the role of viscoelasticity [217,325] seem to
suggest very little effect on power input which is clearly at odds with the
available experimental results. Lafon and Bertrand [343] have predicted the
flow fields for power law fluids (n ¼ 0.174) agitated by an anchor which are
qualitatively consistent with the pattern shown in Fig. 20. Similarly,
Kaminoyama et al. [193] presented three-dimensional simulations for a
Bingham plastic fluid agitated by an anchor (idealised as a cylinder) and
predicted that the fluid deformation ceased at radial position (non-
dimensional using tank radius) of 0.4. Some preliminary studies with
highly idealised impeller geometries such as an elliptic cylinder [347] as well
as with novel impellers such as hydrofoil [341] with Newtonian and non-
Newtonian liquids are also available. Similarly, the relative performance of
static mixers can also be evaluated via CFD modelling [224] whereas
Wunsch and Bohme [348] have numerically analysed three-dimensional fluid
flow and convective mixing in a static mixer. Similarly, the three-dimen-
sional flow in a Banbury mixer (shown in Fig. 29) has been numerically
studied by Yang and Manas-Zloczower [349].
All in all, it is perhaps fair to say that undoubtedly the CFD is a powerful
tool for developing physical understanding as well as in optimizing the
performance of a mixing device. Such studies may also facilitate the
development of new designs of impellers. The only major drawback is that
the complex rheology coupled with the complicated geometrical aspects
does not permit extrapolation of results from one system to another thereby
requiring each situation to be dealt with as a new problem.
VII. Heat Transfer
It is an established practice to enhance the rate of heat transfer to process

fluids by externally applied motion, both within the bulk of the material and
at the proximity of heat transfer surfaces. In most applications, fluid motion
is promoted either by pumping through straight and coiled tubes or by
mechanical agitation as in stirred tanks. A simple jacketed vessel (Fig. 5) is
frequently used in chemical, food, biotechnological and pharmaceutical
process engineering applications to heat/cool process streams to control the
rate of reaction, or to bring it to completion. This is usually accomplished by
using condensing steam or cooling water in a jacket fitted outside the mixing
tank or in an immersed cooling coil in the tank contents. As is the case with
power input, mixing time and flow patterns, etc., the rate of heat transfer
(wall or coil) is strongly dependent on the tank–impeller configuration, type
142 R. P. CHHABRA
and number of baffles, fluid behaviour, kinematic conditions and the type of
heat transfer surface, for example jacket or coil. Since voluminous literature
is available on heat transfer to low viscosity Newtonian fluids in mixing
tanks [5,40a,350–356], it is thus possible to predict the value of the
convective heat transfer coefficient in such systems under most conditions of
practical interest.
In contrast, much less is known about the analogous situations involving
viscous Newtonian, non-Newtonian and viscoelastic systems as can be seen
from the listing in Table II. On account of generally high viscosities, overall
heat transfer tends to be poor in non-Newtonian fluids, and additional
complications from viscous dissipation may also arise under certain
circumstances. Most of the progress in this area has also been made through
the application of dimensional analysis supplemented by experimental
results. It is often not justifiable to make cross-comparisons between
different studies unless the two systems exhibit complete similarity, i.e.,
geometric, kinematic and thermal.
A simple dimensional analysis of the pertinent variables suggests the
following functional relationship:
Nu ¼ f ðRe; Pr; Gr; Fr; We; Wi; geometric ratiosÞ ð35Þ
As mentioned previously, usually the Froude and Weber numbers are not
very important in mixing of viscous single phase liquids. Furthermore, for
geometrically similar systems and inelastic fluid behaviour, Eq. (35)
simplifies to:
Nu ¼ f ðRe; Pr; GrÞ ð36Þ
The new dimensionless groups appearing in Eq. (36) are:
hLc
Nusselt number; Nu ¼ ð37Þ
k
Cp
Prandtl number; Pr ¼ ð38Þ
k
and the
ðtÞgL3c 2
Grashof number; Gr ¼ ð39Þ
2
where Lc is a characteristic linear dimension of the system. Thus, for

instance, for the purpose of correlating power input, mixing time data, it is
customary to use the impeller diameter, D, as the characteristic linear

dimension. For heat transfer applications, an unambiguous choice of Lc is
far from obvious and indeed different choices for Lc further add to the
complexity of the situation. The Grashof number clearly is a measure of the
importance of natural convection effects, which are generally small in low
viscosity liquids, due to high values of the Reynolds number. It becomes
increasingly significant in highly viscous liquids agitated by low speed close
clearance anchors, gates and helical ribbon or screw impellers [161]. The
effective viscosity term appearing in the Reynolds, Prandtl and Grashof
numbers is evaluated via Eq. (19) with an appropriate value of Ks.
An examination of Table II shows that most of the heat transfer studies
have attempted to establish the functional relationship embodied in Eq. (36)
for a given tank–impeller configuration and under the conditions when
natural convection is negligible in comparison with the forced convection. It
is convenient to present the pertinent information separately for each class
of impellers.
A. CLASS I IMPELLERS
These impellers operate at relatively high rotational speeds and are
effective only in low to medium viscosity liquids. In most cases, the flow
conditions in the tank correspond to transitional and/or turbulent and
therefore the natural convection effects are assumed to be negligible. For
shearthinning polymer solutions and slurries stirred by paddles turbines and
propellers, many correlations of varying forms and complexity are available
in the literature [101,166,182,355]. Most such expressions are of the
following general form:
Nu ¼ AReb Prc ðViÞd ð40Þ
where Vi is the viscosity number and accounts for the temperature

dependence of viscosity. It is usually defined as the ratio of the fluid
viscosity evaluated at the wall and that at the bulk temperature. Obviously,
the values of the constants A, b, c, d are strongly dependent on the tank–
impeller configuration and the type of heat transfer surface, namely, jacket
or coil.
For jacketed vessels, it is a well established practice to use either D or T as
the characteristic linear dimension in the definition of the Nusselt number.
In most cases, the effective viscosity has been calculated using Eq. (19) with
Ks ¼ 4p ¼ 12.56, as proposed by Gluz and Pavlushenko [101–103]. By way of
illustration, Gluz and Pavlushenko [101] put forward the following
144 R. P. CHHABRA
correlation for heat transfer:

0:18
hD 0:67 0:33 mw
Nu ¼ ¼ 0:215Re Pr ð41Þ
k mb
where mw and mb are the values of the power-law consistency coefficient

at the wall and bulk temperature, respectively. Equation (41) is based
on experimental data encompassing the following ranges of variables:
0.6 n 1; 5 Re 2 105, Pr 2.5 104, T ¼ 300 mm and Ks ¼ 4p.
Understandably, the natural convection effects are likely to be unimportant
at such high values of Reynolds number, as also reflected by the absence of
the Grashof number in Eq. (41).
The literature abounds with such correlations, but their utility is severely
limited by the fact that each of them applies to a specific tank–impeller
configuration [353]. Some of these correlations, however, explicitly contain
geometric ratios.
In contrast, the analogous expressions for heat transfer coefficient for coil
heat transfer with class I impellers tend to be more complex than Eq. (41)
and involve additional geometric parameters. The effective viscosity is still
estimated via Eq. (19) with a suitable value of Ks. One such correlation,
which covers fairly wide ranges of conditions, is due to Edney and Edwards
[137]:
0:375
hdc T eff;b 0:2
Nu ¼ ¼ 0:036Re0:64 Pr0:35 ð42Þ
k Dc w
where dc is the coil tube diameter, Dc is the mean helix diameter. Edney and
Edwards [137] used Ks ¼ 11.5 for a six-blade turbine and were able to obtain
a unified representation of their data for both Newtonian and non-
Newtonian fluids over the following ranges of conditions: 400 Re 106;
4 Pr 1900 and 0.65 eff 280 m Pa s. Preliminary results also suggest
that moderate levels of aeration did not influence the heat transfer
characteristics appreciably.
B. CLASS II IMPELLERS
These impellers, such as the gates and anchors, reach the far corners of
the tank directly rather than relying on momentum transport, and operate
at relatively low rotational speeds. For heat transfer applications, it thus
becomes even more important to induce fluid motion close to the heat
transfer surface, i.e., wall and/or coil. The bulk of the literature relating to
heat transfer for anchors rotating in Newtonian and inelastic liquids has
been reviewed by Ayazi Shamlou and Edwards [171] and others [350,355].
In jacketed vessels, the bulk of the resistance to heat transfer lies in the thin
liquid film between the impeller and the tank wall. Some analytical efforts
have also been made to model this process. The simplest approach hinges on
the fact that in view of the poor bulk flow, heat transfer occurs mainly by
conduction across the thin liquid film [120]. As expected, this gross-over
simplification severely under-estimates the value of the Nusselt number by
up to a factor of 4 [171]. Heim [256], on the other hand, invoked the
boundary layer flow approximation and developed a closed form expression
for the Nusselt number (at the wall) as a function of Re, Pr and (D/T). The
impeller-to-tank diameter ratio was found to be a more significant variable
under laminar flow conditions than under turbulent condition. Subsequent
experimental results for Newtonian liquids agitated by an anchor and screw
seem to lend a general support to the qualitative trends predicted by this
approach. Other approaches include the penetration model which essentially
treats the process as an unsteady, one-dimensional heat conduction problem
in an semi-infinite domain, in between the two successive passages of the
impeller. This approach has been shown to over-estimate the value of
Nusselt number almost by an order of magnitude [152]. One plausible
explanation for such a large discrepancy is perhaps due to the fact that the
impeller does not completely wipe the liquid off the wall of the tank thereby
leaving a static liquid film adhering to the wall. Thus, Rautenbach and
Bollenrath [152] put forward the following modified expression for Nu:
0:23
1
Nu ¼ 0:568 ð43Þ
NðT DÞn2b 1 ðD=TÞ
where is the thermal diffusivity, and nb is the number of impeller blades.

Pollard and Kantyka [259] reported an extensive experimental study on
heat transfer from a coil to chalk-in-water slurries (0.3 n 1) in vessels up
to 1.1 m in diameter fitted with anchor agitators; they correlated their results
on Nusselt number as follows:
0:14 0:48 0:27
hT 0:667 0:33 eff;b T T
Nu ¼ ¼ 0:077Re Pr ð44Þ
k eff;w D dc
Equation (44) applies over the following ranges of conditions: 200

Re 105. The effective viscosity appearing in Eq. (44) is evaluated using the
value of Ks given by Eq. (20).
Similarly for jacketed vessels (fitted with baffles), Hagedorn and
Salamone [111] measured the rates of heat transfer to water, glycerine and
aqueous carbopol solutions over wide ranges of conditions (0.36 n 1;
Re 7 105; Pr 24,000) and for a range of class I and II impellers. Based
146 R. P. CHHABRA
TABLE IV
VALUES OF CONSTANTS IN EQ. (45)
Impeller a b C d e f g i T/D
Paddle 0.96 0.15 2.51 0.26 0.31 0.46 0.46 0.56 1.75–3.5
Propeller 1.28 0 0.55 0.30 0.32 0.40 – 1.32 2.33–3.41
Turbine 1.25 0 3.57 0.24 0.30 0 0 0.78 2–3.50
Anchor 1.43 0 0.56 0.30 0.34 – – 0.54 1.56
on the measurement of temperatures at various locations in the tank, they

developed the following generic form of heat transfer correlation:
e f g
hT a=ððnþ1ÞþbÞ d mb T W
Nu ¼ ¼ C Re Pr ni ð45Þ
k mw D D
where the effective viscosity is evaluated via Eq. (19) using Ks ¼ 11. The
values of the empirical constants appearing in Eq. (45) vary from one
impeller to another and are listed in Table IV.
Note the inverse dependence of the Nusselt number on the scale of the
equipment (T/D) which is obviously due to the large stagnant zones present
beyond the impeller region. The predictions of Eq. (45) are believed to be
reliable to within 15% for moderately shearthinning behaviour (n 0.69)
and these progressively deteriorate ( 20%) as the value of n drops
further. Similarly, Sandall and Patel [124] and Martone and Sandall [122]
have presented empirical expressions for the heating of pseudoplastic
(carbopol in water) solutions and viscoplastic chalk-in-water slurries in a
steam-jacketed tank fitted a turbine impeller and baffles or with an anchor
agitator. Based on only one value of tank diameter, T, their correlation is of
the following form:

hT eff;b d
Nu ¼ ¼ C Rea Prb ð46Þ
k eff;w
In this case also, the effective viscosity appearing in the Reynolds and
Prandtl numbers and in the viscosity ratio term is evaluated using Eqs. (19)
and (20). Equation (46) encompasses over the following ranges of experi-
mental conditions: 0.35 n 1; 80 Re 105, and 2 Pr 700. The values
of the constants are as follows: a ¼ 2/3, b ¼ 1/3, d ¼ 0.12. The remaining
constant C showed some dependence on the type of the impeller; thus for
instance, C ¼ 0.48 for turbine and C ¼ 0.32 for anchors. Attention is drawn
to the fact that the aforementioned values of a, b and d also coincide with
the corresponding values for Newtonian fluids and hence the effect of non-
Newtonian behaviour is reflected by the values of C.
C. CLASS III IMPELLERS

These impellers are characterised by relatively low shear rates, excellent
pumping capacity and considerably improved mixing efficiency for highly
viscous Newtonian and non-Newtonian media. Hence, considerable
attention has been accorded to heat transfer aspects in these systems.
While the theoretical ideas of Heim [256] and Coyle et al. [120] mentioned in
the preceding section are also applicable here to a certain extent, most of the
progress in this area has been made by means of dimensional and scaling
considerations. Several excellent experimental studies with jacketed vessels
[96,120,161,171,185,188,256] and coil heat transfer [96] have been reported
in the literature. Once again, owing to geometrically different configura-
tions employed in different studies, it is strictly not possible to make
meaningful cross-comparisons. Therefore, only a representative selection of
widely used correlations is presented here to give the reader an idea of what
is involved in attempting to develop universal correlations in this field.
Carreau et al. [161] studied heat transfer between a coil (also acting as
a draft tube) and viscous Newtonian, shearthinning and viscoelastic
polymer solutions agitated by a helical screw in a flat-bottomed tank.
Experiments were performed in both heating and cooling mode to avoid
any spurious effects. The flow rate of water inside the coil was sufficiently
high to ensure the high values of heat transfer coefficient on the inside.
The value of Ks ¼ 16, a value deduced from their previous study [159], was
used to evaluate the effective viscosity. They developed the following
correlation:
0:59
hco dco 0:51 0:33 dco
Nu ¼ ¼ 0:387Re Pr ð47Þ
k D
where the subscript ‘‘o’’ refers to the outside of the coil. All physical
properties were evaluated at the mean film temperature (twþtb)/2. Carreau
et al. [161] noted that Eq. (47) predicts the values of hco in viscoelastic
systems with lower accuracy than that for Newtonian and inelastic fluids.
The strong influence of (dco/D) on Nu in Eq. (47) is in line with the model
predictions [256]. Carreau et al. [161] also proposed alternative correlations
in terms of the liquid circulation velocity rather than the impeller
tip velocity used in the conventional definition of the Reynolds number.
148 R. P. CHHABRA
The mean circulation velocity of the liquid Vc, is defined as:
lc
Vc ¼ ð48Þ
tc
where lc and tc are the mean circulation length and time, respectively. The
value of lc is strongly influenced by the flow pattern and the geometry and
needs to be inferred from experimental results. In their study [161],
lc ¼ 1.08 m, and the circulation time tc was calculated from the following
correlation [159]:
V
¼ ½0:124 þ 0:265ð1 expð0:00836 ReÞÞ
ð1 0:811Wi0:25 Þ ð49Þ
D3 Ntc
where V is the volume of the tank, and Wi ¼ N1/2eff_ e. The effective shear
rate _e for heat transfer is calculated as:
Vc
_e ¼ ð50Þ
dco
They introduced the following modified definitions of the Reynolds, Prandtl

and Nusselt numbers:
Vc2n ðns dco Þn

Rec ¼ ð51Þ
m
Cp mVcn1
Prc ¼ n1
ð52Þ
kdco
and
hco ðns dco Þ

Nuc ¼ ð53Þ
k
The factor (nsdco) accounts for the number of loops in the coil. In terms of
these new groups, Carreau et al. [161] re-correlated their results as follows:
Nuc ¼ 2:82 Re0:385

c Pr0:33
c ð54Þ
All thermo-physical properties are evaluated at the mean film temperature.

While the general form of Eq. (54) is similar to that of Eq. (47), but
Eq. (54) does incorporate some description of the flow patterns via the use
of lc and tc.
As stated at the outset, only a selection of widely used correlation is

presented here and the reference must be made to the extensive compilations
due to Edwards and Wilkinson [355], Poggemann et al. [166] and Dream
[354]. It should be emphasized again that the currently available information
on heat transfer to non-Newtonian fluids in agitated vessels relates to
specific vessel–impeller configurations. Few experimental data are available
for independent validation of the individual correlations available in the
literature. However, another comment is also in order at this juncture.
Although the methods used for the estimation of the effective viscosity via
Eq. (19) vary from one correlation to another, especially in terms of the
value of Ks, this appears to exert only a moderate influence on the value of h,
at least for shearthinning fluids. For instance for n ¼ 0.3, a twofold variation
in the value of Ks will give rise to a 40% reduction in the value of the
effective viscosity and its effect on the value of h is further diminished
because h varies as 0:3–0:7
eff . Thus, an error of 100% in the estimation of eff
will result in an error of only 25–60% in the value of h which is not at all bad
in view of the complexity of the flow in an agitated vessel.
It is worthwhile to re-iterate here that for a given fluid rheology and
impeller–tank geometry, there is a little point in attempting to augment the
value of the heat transfer coefficient by increasing the speed of rotation, as
the small increase in the value of h is more than off-set by the corresponding
increase in power input to the system. Thus, unfortunately, not much can be
done about improving heat transfer in agitated tanks and one must live with
what one gets!
Some preliminary results are also available on the nucleate boiling of
non-Newtonian polymer solutions [230,378–380] in stirred tanks. Gaston-
Bonhomme et al. [378–380] studied boiling heat transfer in a mechanically
stirred tank fitted with a helicoidal heating coil for moderate degrees of
shearthinning behaviour and relatively thin fluids. Subsequently, Floquet-
Muhr and Midoux [230] have examined the effect of power law consistency
coefficient on the convective heat transfer coefficients in a tank fitted with an
anchor. Most such correlations are of the following form:
qsfcnb ¼ qsfc þ qsnb ð55Þ
where s ¼ 2 for Newtonian fluids and s ¼ 1 for power law shearthinning

fluids; qfcnb is the heat flux under forced convection with nucleate boiling, qfc
is the heat flux under forced convection conditions only and qnb under the
nucleate boiling conditions only. These heat fluxes, in turn, are estimated
using appropriate correlations available in the literature [230,378–380].
150 R. P. CHHABRA
VIII. Mixing Equipment and its Selection
The wide range of mixing equipment available commercially reveals the

great variety of mixing duties encountered in the processing and allied
industries. It is reasonable to expect therefore that no single piece of mixing
equipment will be suitable for carrying out such wide ranging duties.
Furthermore, most of the equipment available commercially is based on the
assumption of Newtonian fluid behaviour and only a few manufactures
have taken into account non-Newtonian characteristics of the material.
However, broadly speaking, the mixers suitable for highly viscous
Newtonian materials are also likely to be acceptable at least for
shearthinning inelastic fluids. In general, the higher the viscosity, smaller
are the clearances between the moving and fixed parts, and these devices
operate at low rotational speeds. Such considerations have led to the
development of a number of distinct and proprietary types of mixers over
the years. Unfortunately, very little has been done, however, by way of
standardisation of equipment [6,303]. As noted previously, the lack of such
standards not only makes it necessary to conduct some experimental tests
for each application but it also makes it virtually impossible to formulate
universally applicable design methods. The choice of a mixer type, its design
and optimum operating conditions is therefore primarily a matter of
experience. In the following sections, an attempt has been made to present
the main mechanical features of commonly used equipment, their range of
applications, etc. Extensive discussions of design and selection of different
types of mixers, and the effects of various physical and operational
parameters on the performance of the equipment are available in the
literature [3,6,27,357–372]. Most equipment manufacturers also provide
performance profiles and recommended range of applications of their
products, and also offer some guidelines for the selection of most suitable
configuration and operating conditions for a specific application. Finally, it
is also worthwhile to mention here that the fixed and operating costs for the
mixing equipment also vary significantly from one type to another type of
mixer, and this must not be overlooked while selecting the most appropriate
configuration for an envisaged application [373].
The equipment used for batch mixing of viscous liquids by mechanical
agitation (impeller) has three main elements: a tank or vessel, baffles and an
impeller.
A. TANK OR VESSEL
These are often vertically-mounted cylindrical tanks, up to 10 m in
diameter, and height-to-tank diameter ratio of at least 1.5, and typically
filled to a depth equal to about one tank diameter. In some applications,

especially in gas–liquid and liquid–liquid mixing applications, tall vessels are
used and the liquid depth is then up to three tank diameters; multiple
impellers fitted on to a single shaft are frequently used [179,301]. The vessels
of square cross-section have also been used in some applications [298];
similarly, the vessels may be closed or open at the top [297–299]. The base of
the tanks may be flat, dished, conical, or specially contoured, depending
upon a variety of considerations such as the ease of emptying/draining, or
the need to suspend solid particles, etc.
For the batch mixing of thick pastes and doughs using helical screw and
ribbon impellers, Z- or sigma-blade mixers, the vessels may be installed
horizontally. In such applications, the working volume of thick pastes and
doughs is often relatively small, and the mixing blades (impeller) are massive
in construction.
B. BAFFLES
In order to prevent (or to minimise the tendency for) gross vortexing,
which has deleterious effect on the quality and efficiency of mixing,
particularly in low viscosity liquids, baffles are often fitted to the wall of the
tank. These take the form of thin strips, about 0.1T in width, and typically
four equi-spaced baffles may be used. The baffles may be mounted flush with
the wall or a small clearance may be left between the wall and the baffle to
facilitate fluid motion in the wall region. Minor variations in the length of
baffles usually have only a small influence on power input [290]. Baffles are,
however, generally not required for high viscosity liquids (> 5 Pa s)
because in these fluids viscous stresses are sufficiently large to damp out the
tendency for the rotary motion. In some cases, the problem of vortexing is
obviated by mounting impellers off-centre or horizontally.
C. IMPELLERS
This is perhaps the most important component of a batch mixer and a
wide variety of impellers have evolved over the years to meet ever increasing
requirements for the mixing of rheologically complex materials. Figure 29
shows a selection of the commonly used impellers or agitators.
Propellers, turbines, paddles, gates, anchors, helical ribbon and screws
are usually mounted on a central vertical shaft in a cylindrical vessel, and
they are selected for a specific duty, largely on the basis of liquid viscosity or
non-Newtonian characteristics [358]. As the viscosity of the liquid
progressively increases, it becomes generally necessary to move from a
152 R. P. CHHABRA
FIG. 29. Some of the commonly used impeller designs.
propeller to a turbine and then, in order, to a paddle, to a gate or to an

anchor, and then to a helical ribbon, and finally to a screw. The speed of
rotation or agitation is gradually reduced as the medium viscosity increases.
Propellers, turbines and paddles are typically used with low viscosity
liquids and operate in the transitional/turbulent regime. A typical velocity
(ND) for a tip of the blades of a turbine is 3 m/s, with a propeller being a
little faster and a paddle little slower. These agitators are also known as
remote-clearance impellers because of the significant gap between the wall
FIG. 30. A selection of variation in turbine impeller designs.
and the impeller, 0.13 (D/T ) 0.67. For each of the impeller shown in
Fig. 29, minor design variations are available which have been introduced
by individual equipment manufacturers. In the case of the so-called
standard six-bladed Rushton turbine, possible variations available are
shown in Fig. 30. Thus, it is possible to have angled-blades, retreating
blades, hollow bladed turbines, wide blade hydro-foils, etc. Figure 31 shows
some further novel designs of this class of impellers. For tall mixing vessels
(such as that used in fermentation applications), it is quite common to
mount two or more disc turbines (T/2 distance apart) on the same shaft to
improve mixing over the whole depth of the liquid.
Gates, anchors, helical ribbons and screws (also see Fig. 29) are usually
employed for the mixing of highly viscous Newtonian and non-Newtonian
media. The gate, anchor and ribbon type impellers are usually arranged with
a close clearance at the vessel wall, whereas the helical screw has a smaller
diameter and is often used inside a draft tube (Fig. 29) to promote liquid
motion throughout the vessel. Helical ribbons or interrupted ribbons are
often used in horizontally installed cylindrical tanks. A variation of the
simple helix mixer is the helicone, shown schematically in Fig. 32, which has
154 R. P. CHHABRA
FIG. 31. Some novel designs of impellers.
FIG. 32. A double helicone impeller.
the added advantage that the gap between the blade and the vessel wall is
easily adjusted by a small axial shift of the impeller. In some applications
involving dispersion of particles in high viscosity liquids, the shear stresses
generated by an anchor may not be adequate for the breakup and dispersion
of agglomerates, and it may be necessary to use an anchor to promote
general flow in the vessel together with a high shear mixing impeller mounted
on a separate off-centred, inclined shaft and operating at high speed.
FIG. 33. A sigma-blade mixer.
Kneaders, Z-blade (Fig. 29) and sigma-blade (Fig. 33), and Banbury
mixers (Fig. 29) are required for the mixing of highly viscous materials like
pastes, rubbers, doughs, and so on, many of which exhibit non-Newtonian
flow characteristics. The tanks are usually mounted horizontally, and two
impellers are used. The impellers are massive and clearances between blades,
as well as between the vessel wall and the blade, are very small thereby
ensuring the entire mass of liquid is subjected to intense shearing. While
mixing heavy pastes and doughs using a sigma blade mixer, it is not
uncommon for the two blades to rotate at different speeds in the ratio of 3:2.
The blade design differs from that of the helical ribbons due to the fact that
the much higher viscosities, of the order of 10 kPa s, require a more solid
construction; the blades consequently tend to sweep a greater quantity of the
fluid in front of them, and the main small-scale mixing occurs by extrusion
between the blade and the wall. Partly for this reason, the mixers of this type
are operated only partially full, though the Banbury mixer used in the rubber
industry is filled completely and pressurized as well. The pitch of the blades
produces the necessary motion along the channel, and this gives the large
scale blending needed to limit the batch blending times to reasonable levels.
Figure 34 shows the various designs of impellers of Banbury type mixers
which are used extensively in rubber and polymer industries.
In addition to the aforementioned selection, many other varieties such as
double planetary, two intersecting cylinders [373a], composite and dual
impellers are also available. In view of such a wide variety of impeller
designs coupled with the diversity of mixing problems, it is virtually impossible
to offer guidelines for the selection of the most appropriate equipment for a
given duty. This choice is further made difficult depending upon the main
objective of mixing, that is, whether it is to achieve homogenization or to
156 R. P. CHHABRA
Fig. 34. Some variations in the design of Banbury mixer internals.
add/remove heat or to promote chemical reactions, etc. In spite of all these

uncertainties, it is readily conceded that the choice of an impeller is
primarily governed by the viscosity of the medium. Therefore, some
attempts have been made to devise selection criteria for impellers solely
based on viscosity. Figure 35 shows one such selection chart.
In general, the discussion herein has been restricted to the batch mixing
of liquids. It is, however, appropriate to direct the reader to some lead
references to other types of mixing problems. Gas–liquid mixing has been
thoroughly treated by Tatterson [15,27] for low viscosity systems. The
corresponding literature on high viscosity liquids is summarized in various
sources [3,6,7,59,60,374]. The contemporary literature on the mixing of
solids is reviewed in a series of papers by Lindley and co-workers [16–20]
and more recently by Ottino and Khakhar [375].
IX. Concluding Summary
In this chapter, the voluminous literature available on the batch mixing

of single phase liquids by mechanical agitation has been critically and
thoroughly reviewed. Starting with the diversity of industrial settings where
mixing is encountered in process engineering applications, various
mechanisms of mixing in laminar and turbulent flow conditions have been
examined. Following this are addressed the issues of scale-up, power input,
FIG. 35. Suggested ranges of operations of various impellers (based on the values of
viscosity) (modified after Niranjan et al. [19]).
flow pattern and mixing times, numerical modelling, wall and coil heat
transfer, and finally the selection of equipment. It is instructive to recall here
that adequate information is available on all these aspects of mixing for
Newtonian liquid media, albeit most developments are based on dimen-
sional considerations supplemented by experimental results. In contrast, the
corresponding body of information is neither as extensive nor as coherent in
the case of highly viscous Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids. Further-
more, most of the information relates to inelastic (or time independent)
shearthinning and viscoplastic media. Much less is known about the
agitation of shearthickening, time-dependent (thixotropic and rheopectic)
and viscoelastic liquids.
A bulk of the research effort has been expended in elucidating the effect
of non-Newtonian characteristics on scale-up, power input, mixing time,
flow patterns and on heat transfer. In each case, it is endeavoured to define
an average shear rate for a given geometrical configuration so that the
results for non-Newtonian fluids collapse on to the corresponding
relationship for Newtonian media for the same geometry. Under laminar
flow conditions in the tank, the average shear rate has been found to be
proportional to the rotational velocity of the impeller and this dependence
becomes stronger in the transitional region. Under laminar conditions, the
constant of proportionality, Ks, is a function of geometry only, though in
some cases it has been found to depend upon the rheology of the liquid also.
Some analytical efforts have also been made to predict the value of this
158 R. P. CHHABRA
constant, especially for close clearance impellers. Thus for a given geometry,
it is imperative to establish the power curve with Newtonian liquids and few
tests are then needed with non-Newtonian fluids to calculate the pertinent
value of the Ks for the specific configuration. This chart can then be used for
geometrically similar systems to calculate the power input for large scale
equipment. In general terms, this approach is able to predict power input
with an accuracy of 25–30% for shearthinning and viscoplastic fluids, and to
a lesser extent for mildly viscoelastic systems. In general, the increasing
levels of shearthinning conditions extend the so-called laminar region
whereas on the other hand, results for viscoelastic media begin to veer away
from the power curve at much lower values of the Reynolds number. Such
deviations are not due to turbulence in the conventional sense (i.e., due to
inertial effects), but these may well be due to the so-called elastic turbulence
and/or elongational stresses [376,377]. In spite of all these limitations, the
role of non-Newtonian rheology on power input is probably the most widely
aspect of liquid mixing. Much less is known about the mixing times. While,
in principle, the notion of an average shear rate has also proved useful in
interpreting mixing and circulation times, little experimental data is
available owing to the experimental difficulties inherent in such measure-
ments. Qualitatively speaking, the dimensionless mixing (and circulation)
time is independent of the Reynolds number, in both the laminar and the
fully turbulent conditions. Thus, it decreases with increasing Reynolds
number from the upper asymptotic value to the lower one. While
shearthinning does not appear to exert much influence, mixing times tend to
be much higher for viscoplastic and even larger for viscoelastic liquids than
that for Newtonian media otherwise under identical conditions. Similarly,
considerable segregation occurs in highly shearthinning and viscoplastic
fluids as the momentum imparted by the rotating member is confined to a
small cavity (cavern) surrounding the rotating impeller, with very little
motion outside this cavity. At low Reynolds numbers, the size of the cavity
is of the order of the impeller diameter, and it, however, grows with the
increasing Reynolds number. Little is known about the effect of
viscoelasticity on flow patterns. Similarly, much less is known about the
heat transfer to/from non-Newtonian fluids stirred by an impeller.
Irrespective of the type of heat transfer, namely, through the wall jacket
or from a coil, the approach has been to reconcile the data for non-
Newtonian fluids (at least for inelastic systems) with that for Newtonian
liquids using the notion of an average shear rate deduced from power input
data. This approach has been quite successful in reconciling experimental
data which is rather surprising. The value of the Ks factor inferred from
power input data implicitly reflects the gross fluid mechanical phenomena in
the impeller region whereas the bulk of the thermal resistance to heat
transfer lies outside this region! The fact that even this approach works is
presumably due to the fact that in high viscosity systems, convection does
not contribute to the overall heat transfer as much as in low viscosity
Newtonian fluids. Besides, one must learn to accept poor heat transfer
characteristics in rheologically complex liquids, as any attempt to enhance
heat transfer by increasing the speed of rotation is self-defeating because the
power input depends upon the rotational speed much more strongly than
the Nusselt number.
The chapter is concluded by presenting a short overview of the
mechanical equipment available to cope with a variety of single phase liquid
mixing duties. Unfortunately, no design codes are available, but some
guidelines are presented for the selection of an appropriate system for a new
application.
From the foregoing treatment, it is abundantly clear that even the
simplest type of mixing involving single phase non-Newtonian liquids has
not been studied as systematically and thoroughly as that for Newtonian
media and this area merits much more attention than it has received in the
past. In particular, the following is a (partial) list of the related topics which
need further systematic exploration:
(i) For a given geometry, the effect of viscoelasticity on flow patterns,

mixing times, and efficiency of mixing needs to be examined to deal
with the mixing of viscoelastic systems.
(ii) There seems to be a complex interplay between the geometry,
rheology and kinematics and until this relationship is established,
extrapolation/scale up cannot be carried out with a great degree of
confidence.
(iii) CFD and/or numerical modelling has just begun to provide some
insights into the underlying physical processes and the full potential
of CFD needs to be realized to inspire confidence in the optimal
design and operation of mixing equipment.
(iv) In view of the changing patterns in the processing in biotechnology,
pulp and paper and other process engineering applications, new
designs of equipment are needed, and CFD studies can provide some
hints in this direction.
(v) More effort needs to be directed at detailed kinematical studies
involving flow visualization so that the underlying fluid mechanics
can be understood better than that through gross measurements of
power input and mixing time, etc.
(vi) Certainly, much more experimental work is needed on heat transfer
characteristics in these systems to cover as wide range of conditions
as possible.
160 R. P. CHHABRA
Nomenclature
a constant in Eq. (29) (–) Sc Schmidt number (–)

c height of impeller from tank to Sh Sherwood number (–)
bottom (m) SA intensity of agitation (–)
Cp heat capacity (J/kg K) t temperature difference (K)
D impeller diameter (m) t temperature (K)
Dc coil helix diameter (m) T tank diameter (m)
dc coil tube diameter (m) Vi ratio of viscosity at wall and in the
E energy of activation of flow (J/ bulk (–)
mol K) VL volume of liquid batch (m3)
El Elasticity number, Wi/Re, (–) We Weber number (–)
Fr Froude number (–) Wi Weissenberg number (–)
Gr Grashof number (–) Z depth of liquid (m)
g acceleration due to gravity (m/s2)
h heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 K) GREEK LETTERS
k thermal conductivity (W/m K)
Kp ¼ Po Re for Newtonian fluids in thermal diffusivity (m2/s)
laminar region isobaric coefficient of expansion (1/
Ks constant in Eq. (19) (–) K)
l length (m) _ shear rate (1/s)
m power law consistency coefficient for
c circulation time (s)
shear stress (Pa sn)
m mixing time (s)
m0 power law coefficient for first normal f fluid characteristic time (s)
0
stress difference (Pa sn ) p process characteristic time (s)
N1 first normal stress difference (Pa) viscosity (Pa s)
n flow behaviour index (–) B Bingham plastic viscosity (Pa s)
n0 power law index for first normal density (kg/m3)
stress difference (–) surface/interfacial tension (N/m)
nb number of blades in the impeller (–) shear stress (Pa)
Nu Nusselt number (–) oB Bingham model parameter (Pa)
Nq Pumping number (–) oH Herschel–Bulkley model parameter
P power (W) (Pa)
Po Power number (–)
Pot constant-value of Power number SUBSCRIPTS
under turbulent conditions (–)
Pr Prandtl number (–) avg average
Q circulation flow rate (m3/s) b bulk
Re Reynolds number (–) eff effective
R universal gas constant (J/mol K) w wall
References
1. Ottino, J. M. (1989). The mixing of fluids. Sci. Am. 260(1), 56–67.

2. Tatterson, G. and Calabrese, R. (1989). ‘‘Industrial Mixing Research Needs’’. AIChE, New
York.
3. Harnby, N., Edwards, M. F., and Nienow, A. W. (1992). ‘‘Mixing in the Process Industries’’,
2nd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
4. McDonough, R. J. (1992). ‘‘Mixing for the Process Industries’’. Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York.
5. Nagata, S. (1975). ‘‘Mixing: Principles and Applications’’. Wiley, New York.
6. Oldshue, J. Y. (1983). ‘‘Fluid Mixing Technology’’. McGraw Hill, New York.
7. Ulbrecht, J. J. and Patterson, G. K. (1985). ‘‘Mixing of Liquids by Mechanical Agitation’’.
Gordon and Breach, New York.
8. Beishon, D. S. and Robertson, T. (1987). Problems Associated with the Homogenisation of
Liquid Metals. I. Chem. E. Symp. Ser. (No. 108): Fluid Mixing III, pp. 1–31.
9. Chen, Y. R. (1981). Impeller power consumption in mixing livestock manure slurries.
Trans. ASAE 24, 187–192.
10. Dorris, G. M. (2000). Effects of impeller type and mixing power on settling and filtering of
lime mud. J. Pulp Paper Sci. 26(2), 47–53.
11. Pandit, A. B., Tenefrancia, N., Joshi, J. B., and Tiwari, K. K. (1984). Power consumption
and homogenization time for Oleoresin suspensions. Chem. Eng. J. 28, 25–38.
12. Bourne, J. R., Buerli, M., and Regenass, W. (1981). Power and heat transfer to agitated
suspensions: Use of heat flow calorimetry. Chem. Eng. Sci. 36, 782–784.
13. Weisman, J. and Efferding, L. E. (1960). Suspension of slurries by mechanical mixers.
AIChE J. 6, 419–426.
14. Coran, A. Y. and Donnet, J.-B. (1992). The dispersion of carbon black in rubber
Part I. Rapid method for assessing quality of dispersion. Rubber Chem. Technol. 65,
973–997.
15. Tatterson, G. B. (1991). ‘‘Fluid Mixing and Gas Dispersion in Agitated Tanks’’. McGraw
Hill, New York.
16. Lindley, J. A. (1991). Mixing processes for agricultural and food materials: 1.
Fundamentals of mixing. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 48, 153–170.
17. Lindley, J. A. (1991). Mixing processes for agricultural and food materials: Part 2, Highly
viscous liquids and cohesive materials. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 48, 229–247.
18. Lindley, J. A. (1991). Mixing processes for agricultural and food materials: 3. Powders and
particulates. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 49, 1–19.
19. Niranjan, K., Smith, D. L. O., Reilly, C. D., Lindley, J. A., and Phillips, V. R. (1994).
Mixing processes for agricultural and food materials: Part 5, Review of mixer types. J.
Agric. Eng. Res. 59, 145–161.
20. Reilly, C. D., Smith, D. L. O., Lindley, J. A., Niranjan, K., and Phillips, V. R. (1994).
Mixing processes for agricultural and food materials: Part 4, Assessment and monitoring of
mixing systems. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 59, 1–18.
21. Aarons, B. L. and Hepner, L. (1975). Mixing and blending in the food processing
industries. Food Trade Rev. 45(1), 7–11.
22. Tamhankar, S. S. and Doraiswamy, L. K. (1979). Analysis of solid–solid reactions: A
review. AIChE J. 25, 561–582.
23. Schenkel, G. (1966). ‘‘Plastics Extrusion Technology’’. Cliffe Books, London.
24. Janssen, L. P. B. M. (1978). ‘‘Twin Screw Extrusion’’. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
25. Rauendaal, R. C. (1992). ‘‘Mixing in Polymer Processing’’. Hanser, Munich.
26. Heywood, N. I., Viney, L. J., and Stewart, I. W. (1984). I. Chem. E. Sym. Ser. No.89, Fluid
Mixing II, p. 147.
27. Tatterson, G. B. (1994). ‘‘Scaleup and Design of Industrial Mixing Processes’’. McGraw
Hill, New York.
28. Uhl, V. W. and Gray, J. B. (1967). ‘‘Mixing: Theory and Practice’’. Academic, New York.
28a. Zlokarnik, M. (2001). ‘‘Stirring: Theory and Practice’’. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim.
29. Papers in J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. (2001), 34(5).
30. Special issue on Mixing: Chem. Eng. Res. Des. (2001), 79A(8).
162 R. P. CHHABRA
31. Carreau, P. J., DeKee, D., and Chhabra, R. P. (1997). ‘‘Rheology of Polymeric Systems:
Principles and Applications’’. Hanser, Munich.
32. Chhabra, R. P. and Richardson, J. F. (1999). ‘‘Non-Newtonian Flow in the Process
Industries’’. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
33. Coulson, J. M. and Richardson, J. F. (1999). In ‘‘Chemical Engineering’’, Vol. 1, 6th edn.,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
34. Bird, R. B., Armstrong, R. C., and Hassager, O. (1987). Dynamics of Polymeric Liquids
Vol. 1: Fluid Dynamics, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York.
35. Steffe, J. (1992). ‘‘Rheological Methods in Food Process Engineering’’. Freeman Press, East
Lansing, MI.
36. Laba, D. (1993). ‘‘Rheological Properties of Cosmetics and Toiletries’’. Marcel-Dekker,
New York.
37. Slattery, J. C. (1972). ‘‘Momentum, Energy and Mass Transfer in Continua’’. McGraw
Hill, New York.
38. Skelland, A. H. P. (1967). ‘‘Non-Newtonian Flow and Heat Transfer’’. Wiley, New York.
39. Siginer, D., DeKee, D., and Chhabra, R. P. (1999). ‘‘Advances in the Flow and Rheology
of Non-Newtonian Fluids’’. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
40. Tanner, R. I. (2000). ‘‘Engineering Rheology’’, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York.
40a. Mezaki, R., Mochizuki, M., and Ogawa, K. (1999). ‘‘Engineering Data on Mixing’’.
Elsevier, Amsterdam.
41. Edwards, M. F., Godfrey, J. C., and Kashani, M. M. (1976). Power requirement for the
mixing of thixotropic liquids. J. Non-Newt. Fluid Mech. 1, 309–322.
41a. Barnes, H. A. (1999). The yield stress—A review. J. Non-Newt. Fluid Mech. 81, 133–167.
42. Chhabra, R. P. (1993). In ‘‘Bubbles, Drops and Particles in Non-Newtonian Fluids’’
pp. 112–113. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
43. Nguyen, Q. D. and Boger, D. V. (1992). Measuring the flow properties of yield stress fluids.
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 24, 47–72.
44. Lin, C.-X. and Ko, S.-Y. (1995). Effects of temperature and concentration on the steady
shear properties of aqueous solutions of carbopol and carboxymethyl cellulose. Int. Comm.
Heat Mass Transfer 22, 157–169.
45. Chhabra, R. P. (1999). Heat and mass transfer in rheologically complex systems. In
‘‘Advances in the Flow and Rheology of Non-Newtonian Fluids’’ (D. Siginer, D. DeKee,
and R. P. Chhabra, eds.), Part B, 1435–1488. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
46. Manoliadis, O. and Bishop, P. L. (1984). Temperature effect on rheology of sludges. J.
Environ. Eng. (ASCE) 110, 286–290.
47. DeKee, D. and Chhabra, R. P. (1994). Elastic modulus and yield stress of suspensions.
Rheol. Acta 33, 238–240.
48. Charpentier, J.-C. (1981). Mass-transfer rates in gas–liquid absorbers and reactors. Adv.
Chem. Eng. 11, 1–133.
49. Aiba, S. and Okamoto, R. (1965). Power requirements of agitation and capacity coefficient
of mass transfer in bubble aeration. Chem. Eng. (Japan) 43(8), 609–616.
50. Aunins, J. G., Woodson, B. A., Jr., Hale, T. K., and Wang, D. I. C. (1989). Effects of
paddle impeller geometry on power input and mass transfer in small-scale animal cell
culture vessels. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 34, 1127–1132.
51. Galindo, E. (1994). Aspects of the process for xanthan production. Trans. IChemE 72C,
227–237.
52. Galindo, E. and Nienow, A. W. (1992). Mixing of highly viscous simulated xanthan
fermentation broths with the Lightnin A-315 impeller. Biotechnol. Prog. 8, 233–239.
53. Galindo, E. and Nienow, A. W. (1993). Performance of the scaba 6SRGT agitator in
mixing of simulated Xanthan gum broths. Chem. Eng. Technol. 16, 102–108.
54. Galindo, E., Nienow, A. W., and Badhan, R. S. (1988). Mixing of simulated xanthan gum
broths. In ‘‘Bioreactor Fluid Dynamics’’ (R. King, ed.), pp. 65–78. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
55. Hannote, M., Flores, F., Torres, L., and Galindo, E. (1991). Apparent yield stress
estimation in xanthan gum solutions and fermentation broths using a low cost viscometer.
Chem. Eng. J. 45, B49–B56.
56. Herbst, H., Schumpe, A., and Deckwer, W.-D. (1992). Xanthan production in stirred tank
fermenters: Oxygen transfer and scale up. Chem. Eng. Technol. 15, 425–434.
57. Lee, Y. H. (1983). Aeration. In ‘‘Annual Reports on Fermentation Processes’’ (G. T. Tsao,
ed.), Vol. 6, pp. 101–147. Academic Press, San Diego.
58. Moo-Young, M. and Blanch, H. W. (1981). Design of biochemical reactors: Mass transfer
criteria for simple and complex systems. Adv. Biochem. Eng. 19, 1–69.
59. Nienow, A. W. (1998). Hydrodynamics of stirred bioreactors. Appl. Mech. Rev. 51(1), 3–32.
60. Oldshue, J. Y. (1983). Mixing in fermentation processes. In ‘‘Annual Reports on
Fermentation Processes’’ (G. T. Tsao, ed.), Vol. 6, pp. 75–99. Academic Press, San Diego.
61. Reusss, M. (1994). Stirred tank bioreactors. In ‘‘Bioreactor System Design’’ (J. A. Asenjo
and J. C. Merchuk, eds.), pp. 207–255. Marcel Dekker, New York.
62. Sanchez, A., Martinez, A., Torres, L., and Galindo, E. (1992). Power consumption of three
impeller combinations in mixing xanthan fermentation broths. Process Biochem. 27, 351–365.
63. Serrano-Carreon, L. and Galindo, E. (1997). Studies on cavern development in mixing a
yield stress fluid in a pilot-scale proto-fermenter. Recent Progres en Genie des Procedes
11(51), 161–168.
64. Tecante, A., Brito de la Fuente, E., Choplin, L., and Tanguy, P. A. (1996). Oxygen transfer
in non-Newtonian fluids stirred with a helical ribbon screw impeller. In ‘‘Advances in
Engineering Fluid Mechanics: Multiphase Reactor Polymerisation System Hydrody-
namics’’ (N. P. Cheremisinoff, ed.), pp. 431–453. Gulf, Houston.
65. Velasco, D., Martinez, A., and Galindo, E. (1994). Hydrodynamics of industrial
fermentations: Rheology and power draw in Rifamycin production. AIChE Symp. Ser.
90(299), 157–165.
66. Vlaev, D., Mann, R., Lossev, V., Vlaev, S. D., Zahradnik, J., and Seichter, P. (2000).
Macro-mixing and streptomyces fradiae. Trans. IChemE 78A, 354–362.
67. Wachsen, O., Lange, C., and Reichert, J.-H. (1995). Zur on-line-bestimmung der viskositat
von nicht-newtonschen biosuspensionen in geruhrten fermentern. Chem. Ing. Tech. 68,
268–272.
68. Yoshida, F. (1982). Aeration and mixing in fermentation. In ‘‘Annual Reports on
Fermentation Processes’’ (G. T. Tsao, ed.), Vol. 5, pp. 1–34. Academic Press, San Diego.
69. Porter, J. E. (1971). Heat transfer at low Reynolds numbers (highly viscous liquids in
laminar flow). Trans. IChemE 49, 1–29.
70. Cho, Y. I. and Hartnett, J. P. (1982). Non-Newtonian fluids in circular pipe flows. Adv.
Heat Transfer 15, 59–143.
71. Paul, D. D. and Abdel-Khalik, S. I. (1983). Nucleate boiling in drag reducing polymer
solutions. J. Rheol. 27, 59–76.
72. Prud’homme, R. K. and Long, R. E. (1983). Surface tensions of concentrated xanthan and
polyacrylamide solutions with added surfactants. J. Colloid Interfacial Sci. 93, 274–276.
73. Irvine, T. F., Jr., Kim, I., Cho, K., and Gori, F. (1987). Experimental measurements of
isobaric thermal expansion coefficients of non-Newtonian fluids. Exp. Heat Transfer 1,
155–162.
74. Hu, R. Y. Z., Wang, A. T. A., and Hartnett, J. P. (1991). Surface tension measurement of
aqueous polymer solutions. Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 4, 723–729.
75. Ishiguro, S. and Hartnett, J. P. (1992). Surface tension of aqueous polymer solutions. Int.
Comm. Heat Mass Transfer 19, 285–295.
164 R. P. CHHABRA
76. Miyairi, Y. and Mitsuishi, N. (1976). Measurements of thermal properties of aqueous

polymer solutions. Heat Transfer-Japanese Res. 5(4), 26–29.
77. Loulou, T., Peerhossaini, H., and Bardon, J. P. (1992). Etude experimentale de la
conductivite thermique de fluides non-Newtoniens sous cisaillement application aux
solutions de carbopol 940. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 35, 2557–2562.
78. Lee, D.-L. and Irvine, T. F., Jr. (1997). Shear rate dependent thermal conductivity
measurements of non-Newtonian fluids. Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 15, 16–24.
78a. Lee, W. Y., Cho, Y. I., and Hartnett, J. P. (1981). Thermal conductivity of non-Newtonian
fluids. Lett. Heat Mass Transfer 8, 255–259.
79. Orr, C., Jr. and Dallavalle, J. M. (1954). Heat transfer properties of liquid–solid
suspensions. Chem. Eng. Prog. Sym. Ser. 59(9), 29–45.
80. Tareef, B. M. (1940). Colloid J. (USSR) 6, 545.
80a. Shin, S. (1996). The effect of the shear rate-dependent thermal conductivity of non-
Newtonian fluids on the heat transfer in a pipe flow. Int. Comm. Heat Mass Transfer 23,
665–678.
81. Bruggemann, D. A. G. (1935). Berechnung verschiederner physikalischer konstanten von
heterogenen substanzen. Ann. Physik 24, 636–679.
82. Rajaiah, J., Andrews, G., Ruckenstein, E., and Gupta, R. K. (1992). Thermal conductivity
of concentrated, sterically stabilised suspensions. Chem. Eng. Sci. 47, 3863–3868.
83. Dutta, A. and Mashelkar, R. A. (1987). Thermal conductivity of structured liquids. Adv.
Heat Transfer 18, 161–239.
84. Metzner, A. B. and Otto, R. E. (1957). Agitation of non-Newtonian fluids. AIChE J. 3, 3–10.
85. Metzner, A. B. and Taylor, J. S. (1960). Flow patterns in agitated vessels. AIChE J. 6, 109–114.
86. Norwood, K. W. and Metzner, A. B. (1960). Flow pattern and mixing rates in agitated
vessels. AIChE J. 6, 432–437.
87. Metzner, A. B., Feehs, R. H., Ramos, H. L., Otto, R. E., and Tuthill, J. D. (1961).
Agitation of viscous Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids. AIChE J. 7, 3–9.
88. Calderbank, P. H. and Moo-Young, M. B. (1959). The prediction of power consumption in
the agitation of non-Newtonian fluids. Trans. IChemE 37, 26–33.
89. Nagata, S., Yanagimoto, M., and Yokoyama, T. (1957). A study on the mixing of high-
viscosity liquid. Kagaku Kogaku 21, 278–286.
90. Nagata, S., Nishikawa, M., Gotoh, S., and Nakajima, M. (1970). Power consumption of
helical mixer for the mixing of highly viscous liquid. Kagaku Kogaku 34, 1115–1117.
91. Nagata, S., Nishikawa, M., Tada, H., and Gotoh, S. (1971). Power consumption of mixing
impellers in pseudo-plastic liquids. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 4, 72–76.
92. Nagata, S., Nishikawa, M., Takimoto, T., Kida, F., and Kayama, T. (1971). Jacket side
heat transfer coefficient in mixing vessel. Kagaku Kogaku 35, 924.
93. Nagata, S., Nishikawa, M., and Takimoto, T. (1971). Heat transfer to helical coils
immersed in mixing vessel. Kagaku Kogaku 35, 1028.
94. Nagata, S., Nishikawa, M., and Katsube, T. (1971). Mixing of highly viscous non-
Newtonian liquids. Kagaku Kogaku 35(7), 794–800.
95. Nagata, S., Nishikawa, M., Kayama, T., and Nakajima, M. (1972). Heat transfer to cooling
coil acting as rotating impeller in highly viscous liquids. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 5, 187–192.
96. Nagata, S., Nishikawa, M., and Kayama, T. (1972). Heat transfer to vessel wall by helical
ribbon impeller in highly viscous liquids. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 5, 83–85.
97. Nagata, S., Nishikawa, M., Itaya, M., and Ashiwake, K. (1975). Study of heat transfer for
aerated mixing vessel and aerated tower. Kagaku Kogaku Ronbunshu 1, 460.
98. Nagata, S., Nishikawa, M., Hattori, M., and Kayama, T. (1976). Heat transfer to half-
ellipsoidal impeller in highly viscous non-Newtonian liquids. Heat Transfer-Japanese Res.
5(1), 15–25.
99. Godleski, E. S. and Smith, J. C. (1962). Power requirements and blends times in the
agitation of pseudoplastic fluids. AIChE J. 6, 617–620.
100. Chapman, F. S. and Holland, F. A. (1965). A study of turbine and helical-screw agitators
in liquid mixing. Trans. IChemE 43, 131–140.
101. Gluz, M. D. and Pavlushenko, I. S. (1966). Heat transfer during mixing of non-Newtonian
liquids. Zh. Prikl. Khim 39(11), 2475–2483.
102. Gluz, M. D. and Pavlushenko, I. S. (1966). Homogenizing time during mixing of non-
Newtonian liquids. Zh. Prikl. Khim 39(12), 2719–2724.
103. Pavlushenko, I. S. and Gluz, M. D. (1966). Dimensionless equation of transfer processes
in mixing of non-Newtonian liquids. Zh. Prikl. Khim 39(10), 2288–2295.
104. Beckner, J. L. and Smith, J. M. (1966). Anchor-agitated: Power input with Newtonian and
pseudo-plastic fluids. Trans. IChemE 44, 224–236.
105. Peters, D. C. and Smith, J. M. (1967). Fluid flow in the region of anchor agitator blades.
Trans. IChemE 45, 360–366.
106. Peters, D. C. and Smith, J. M. (1969). Mixing in anchor agitated vessels. Can. J. Chem.
Eng. 47, 268–273.
107. Mizushina, T., Ito, R., Murakami, Y., and Kiri, Y. (1966). Experimental study of the heat
transfer to the cooling coil in an agitated vessel. Kagaku Kogaku 30, 827.
108. Mizushina, T., Murakami, Y., and Tanaka, S. (1966). Experimental study of the heat
transfer of non-Newtonian fluids to the wall of an agitated vessel. Kagaku Kogaku 30(9),
819–826.
109. Mizushina, T., Ito, R., Hiraoka, S., Ikuta, Y., Konaka, Y., and Watanabe, J. (1967).
Transport phenomena at the wall of agitated vessel—Heat Transfer. Kagaku Kogaku 31,
1208–1212.
110. Mizushina, T., Ito, R., Hiraoka, S., and Watanabe, J. (1970). Uniformalization of
temperature field in agitated reactors. Kagaku Kogaku 34(11), 1205–1212.
111. Hagedorn, D. and Salamone, J. J. (1967). Batch heat transfer coefficients for pseudoplastic
fluids in agitated vessels. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 6, 469–475.
112. Hall, K. R. and Godfrey, J. C. (1968). The mixing rates of highly viscous Newtonian and
non-Newtonian fluids in a laboratory sigma-blade mixer. Trans. IChemE 46, 205–212.
113. Hall, K. R. and Godfrey, J. C. (1970). Power consumption by helical ribbon impellers.
Trans. IChemE 48, 201.
114. Bourne, J. R. and Bulter, H. (1969). An analysis of the flow produced by helical ribbon
impellers. Trans. IChemE 47, 11–17.
115. Bourne, J. R. and Butler, H. (1969). Power consumption of helical ribbon impellers in
viscous liquids. Trans. IChemE 47, 263–270.
116. Hoogendoorn, C. J. and den Hertog, A. P. (1967). Model studies on mixers in the viscous
flow region. Chem. Eng. Sci. 22, 1689–1699.
117. Skelland, A. H. P. and Dimmick, G. R. (1969). Heat transfer between coils and non-
Newtonian fluids with propeller agitation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 8, 267–274.
118. Mitsuishi, N. and Hirai, N. (1969). Power requirements in the agitation of non-Newtonian
fluids. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 2, 217–224.
119. Mitsuishi, N., Miyairi, Y., and Katamine, T. (1973). Heat transfer to Newtonian liquids in
an agitated vessel. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 6, 409.
120. Coyle, C. K., Hirschland, H. E., Michel, B. J., and Oldshue, J. Y. (1970). Heat transfer
to jackets with close clearance impellers in viscous materials. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 48,
275–278.
121. O’Shima, E. and Yuge, K. (1970). Circulation time distribution of viscous liquids in a
mixing vessel with helical ribbon type, anchor type and helical screw type impellers.
Kagaku Kogaku 34, 779–785.
166 R. P. CHHABRA
122. Martone, J. A. and Sandall, O. C. (1971). Heat transfer to Bingham plastic slurries in
agitated vessels. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 10, 86–91.
123. Perez, J. E. and Sandall, O. C. (1974). Gas absorption by non-Newtonian fluids in agitated
vessels. AIChE J. 20, 770–775.
124. Sandall, O. C. and Patel, K. G. (1970). Heat transfer to non-Newtonian pseudoplastic
fluids in agitated vessels. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 9, 139–144.
125. Rieger, F. and Novak, V. (1972). Scale-up method for power consumption of agitators in
the creeping flow regime. Chem. Eng. Sci. 27, 39.
126. Rieger, F. and Novak, V. (1973). Power consumption of agitators in highly viscous non-
Newtonian liquids. Trans. IChemE 51, 105–111.
127. Novak, V. and Rieger, F. (1975). Homogenization efficiency of helical ribbon and anchor
agitators. Chem. Eng. J. 9, 63–70.
128. Netusil, J. and Rieger, F. (1993). Power consumption of screw and helical ribbon agitators
in highly viscous pseudoplastic fluids. Chem. Eng. J. 52, 9–12.
129. Chavan, V. V. and Ulbrecht, J. (1972). Power correlation for helical ribbon impellers in
inelastic non-Newtonian fluids. Chem. Eng. J. 3, 308–311.
130. Chavan, V. V. and Ulbrecht, J. (1973). Internal circulation in vessels agitated by screw
impellers. Chem. Eng. J. 6, 213–223.
131. Chavan, V. V. and Ulbrecht, J. (1973). Power correlation for close clearance helical
impellers in non-Newtonian liquids. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 12, 472.
132. Chavan, V. V. and Ulbrecht, J. (1973). Power correlation for off-centered helical screw
impellers in highly viscous Newtonian and non-Newtonian liquids. Trans. IChemE 51, 349.
133. Chavan, V. V., Jhaveri, A. S., and Ulbrecht, J. (1972). Power consumption for mixing of
inelastic non-Newtonian fluids by helical screw agitators. Trans. IChemE 50, 147–155.
134. Chavan, V. V., Ford, D. E., and Arumugam, M. (1975). Influence of fluid rheology on
circulation, mixing and blending. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 53, 628–635.
135. Chavan, V. V. (1983). Close clearance helical impellers: A physical model for Newtonian
liquids at low Reynolds number. AIChE J. 29, 177–186.
136. Chavan, V. V. and Mashelkar, R. A. (1980). Mixing of viscous Newtonian and non-
Newtonian fluids. Adv. Transport Process 1, 210–252.
137. Edney, H. G. S. and Edwards, M. F. (1976). Heat transfer to non-Newtonian and aerated
fluids in stirred tanks. Trans. IChemE 54, 160–166.
138. Ford, D. E. and Ulbrecht, J. J. (1975). Blending of polymer solutions with different
rheological properties. AIChE J. 21, 1230–1233.
139. Ford, D. E. and Ulbrecht, J. J. (1976). Influence of rheological properties of polymer
solutions upon mixing and circulation times. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 15, 321–326.
140. Ford, D. E., Mashelkar, R. A., and Ulbrecht, J. J. (1976). Mixing times in Newtonian and
non-Newtonian fluids. Process Technol. Int. 7, 803–807.
141. Kale, D. D., Mashelkar, R. A., and Ulbrecht, J. (1974). High speed agitation of non-
Newtonian fluids: Influence of elasticity and fluid inertia. Chem. Ing. Tech. 46(1), 69.
142. Quaraishi, A. Q., Mashelkar, R. A., and Ulbrecht, J. (1976). Torque suppression in
mechanically stirred liquids and multiphase liquid systems. J. Non-Newt. Fluid Mech. 1,
223–245.
143. Quaraishi, A. Q., Mashelkar, R. A., and Ulbrecht, J. (1977). Influence of drag reducing
additives on mixing and dispersing in agitated vessels. AIChE J. 23, 487–492.
144. Yagi, H. and Yoshida, F. (1975). Gas absorption by Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids
in sparged agitated vessels. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 14, 488–492.
145. Sawinsky, J., Havas, G., and Deak, A. (1976). Power requirement of anchor and helical
ribbon impellers for the case of agitating Newtonian and pseudo-plastic liquids. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 31, 507–509.
146. Hiraoka, S., Yamada, I., and Mizoguchi, K. (1979). Two-dimensional model analysis of
flow behaviour of highly viscous non-Newtonian fluid in agitated vessel with paddle
impeller. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 12, 56.
147. Hocker, H. and Langer, G. (1977). Zum Leistungsverhalten begaster Ruhrer in
Newtonschen und nicht-newtonschen flussigkeiten. Rheol. Acta 16, 400–412.
148. Hocker, H., Langer, G., and Werner, U. (1981). Power consumption of stirrers in non-
Newtonian liquids. Ger. Chem. Eng. 4, 113–123.
149. Ranade, V. R. and Ulbrecht, J. (1978). Influence of polymer additives on the gas–liquid
mass transfer in stirred tanks. AIChE J. 24, 796–802.
150. White, J. L., Chankraiphon, S., and Ide, Y. (1977). Rheological behaviour and flow
patterns around agitators in polymer solutions. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 21, 1–18.
151. Ide, Y. and White, J. L. (1974). Rheological phenomena in polymerization reactors:
Rheological properties and flow patterns around agitators in polystyrene–styrene
solutions. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 18, 2997–3018. Also see ibid 19, 719–727.
152. Rautenbach, R. and Bollenrath, F. M. (1979). Heat transfer in stirred vessels to high-
viscosity Newtonian and non-Newtonian substances. Ger. Chem. Eng. 2, 18–24.
153. De Maerteleire, E. (1978). Heat transfer to a helical cooling coil in mechanically agitated
gas–liquid dispersions. Chem. Eng. Sci. 33, 1107–1113.
154. Carreau, P. J., Guy, C., and Corneille, J. L. (1966). Heat transfer to agitated non-
Newtonian fluids. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 44, 3–8.
155. Carreau, P. J., Patterson, W. I., and Yap, C. Y. (1976). Mixing of viscoelastic fluids with
helical-ribbon agitators I—Mixing time and flow pattern. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 54, 135–142.
156. Patterson, W. I., Carreau, P. J., and Yap, C. Y. (1979). Mixing with helical ribbon
agitators Part II: Newtonian fluids. AIChE J. 25, 508–516.
157. Yap, C. Y., Patterson, W. I., and Carreau, P. J. (1979). Mixing with helical ribbon
agitators Part III. Non-Newtonian fluids. AIChE J. 25, 516–521.
158. Guerin, P., Carreau, P. J., Patterson, W. I., and Paris, J. (1984). Characterization of helical
impellers by circulation times. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 62, 301–309.
159. Carreau, P. J., Paris, J., and Guerin, P. (1992). Mixing of Newtonian and non-Newtonian
liquids: Screw agitator and draft coil system. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 70, 1071–1082.
160. Carreau, P. J., Chhabra, R. P., and Cheng, J. (1993). Effect of rheological properties on
power consumption with helical ribbon agitators. AIChE J. 39, 1421–1430.
161. Carreau, P. J., Paris, J., and Guerin, P. (1994). Heat transfer to Newtonian and non-
Newtonian liquids in a screw agitator and draft coil system. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 72, 966–974.
162. Cheng, J., Carreau, P. J., and Chhabra, R. P. (1995). On the effect of wall and bottom
clearance on mixing viscoelastic fluids. AIChE Sym. Ser. 91(304), 115–122.
163. Nishikawa, M., Kamata, N., and Nagata, S. (1976). Heat transfer for highly viscous
liquids in mixing vessel. Heat Transfer-Japanese Res. 5(4), 84–92.
164. Nishikawa, M., Kunioka, S., Fujieda, S., and Hashimoto, K. (1982). Heat transfer to non-
Newtonian liquid in aerated mixing vessel. Kagaku Kogaku Ronbunshu 8, 494.
165. Nishikawa, M., Nakamura, M., and Hashimoto, K. (1981). Gas absorption in aerated
mixing vessels with non-Newtonian liquid. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 14, 227.
166. Poggemann, R., Steiff, A., and Weinspach, P.-M. (1980). Heat transfer in agitated vessels
with single-phase liquids. Ger. Chem. Eng. 3, 163–174.
167. Solomon, J., Elson, T. P., Nienow, A. W., and Pace, G. W. (1981). Cavern sizes in agitated
fluids with a yield stress. Chem. Eng. Commun. 11, 143–164.
168. Prud’homme, R. K. and Shaqfeh, E. (1984). Effect of elasticity on mixing torque
requirements for Rushton turbine impellers. AIChE J. 30, 485–486.
169. Collias, D. J. and Prud’homme, R. K. (1985). The effect of fluid elasticity on power
consumption and mixing times in stirred tanks. Chem. Eng. Sci. 40, 1495–1505.
168 R. P. CHHABRA
170. Ayazi Shamlou, P. and Edwards, M. F. (1985). Power consumption of helical ribbon
mixers in viscous Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids. Chem. Eng. Sci. 40, 1773–1781.
171. Ayazi Shamlou, P. and Edwards, M. F. (1986). Heat transfer to viscous Newtonian and
non-Newtonian fluids for helical ribbon mixers. Chem. Eng. Sci. 41, 1957–1967.
172. Bertrand, J. and Couderc, J. P. (1982). Agitation de fluides pseudoplastiques par un
agitateur bipale. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 60, 738–747.
173. Bertrand, J. and Couderc, J. P. (1985). Etude numerique des ecoulements generes par une
ancre dans le cas de fluides visqueux, Newtoniens ou pseudoplastiques. Entropie 125/126,
48–59.
174. Bertrand, J. and Couderc, J. P. (1985). Evaluation of the power consumption in agitation
of viscous Newtonian or pseudoplastic liquids by two bladed, anchor or gate agitators.
175. Elson, T. P. (1990). X-ray flow visualisation of flow patterns during the mixing of yield
stress, Newtonian and dilatant fluids. Chem. Eng. Commun. 94, 143–158.
176. Elson, T. P., Cheesman, D. J., and Nienow, A. W. (1986). X-ray studies of cavern sizes and
mixing performance with fluids possessing of yield stress. Chem. Eng. Sci. 41, 2555–2562.
177. Ismail, A. F., Nagase, Y., and Imon, J. (1984). Power characteristics and cavity formation
in aerated agitations. AIChE J. 30, 487–489.
178. Nienow, A. W., Wisdom, D. J., Solomon, J., Machon, V., and Vlcek, J. (1983). The effect
of rheological complexities on power consumption in an aerated, agitated vessel. Chem.
Eng. Commun. 19, 273–293.
179. Kuboi, R. and Nienow, A. W. (1986). Intervortex mixing rates in high-viscosity liquids
agitated by high speed dual impellers. Chem. Eng. Sci. 41, 123.
180. Wichterle, K. and Wein, O. (1981). Threshold of mixing of non-Newtonian liquids. Int.
Chem. Eng. 21, 116–120.
181. Wichterle, K., Kadlec, M., Zak, L., and Mitschka, P. (1984). Shear rates on turbine
impeller blades. Chem. Eng. Commun. 26, 25–32.
182. Desplanches, H., Llinas, J. R., and Chevalier, J.-L. (1980). Transferts thermiques entre un
serpentin et des fluides newtoniens ou non-newtoniens agites par une turbine a pales
inclines dans une cuve. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 58, 160–170.
183. Desplanches, H., Bruxelmane, M., and Chevalier, J.-L. (1990). Transfert de chaleur entre
un serpentin et une solution agitee Newtonienne en regime intermediate—Grandeurs
caracteristiques, methodes d’estimation et criteres d’extrapolation. Entropie 26, 3–13.
184. Desplanches, H., Gaston-Bonhomme, Y., and Chevalier, J. L. (1994). Boiling of viscous
liquids in a stirred tank. Part 1. Newtonian liquids. Int. Chem. Eng. 34, 225–233. Also see
ibid 234–239.
185. Kuriyama, M., Arai, K., and Saito, S. (1983). Mechanism of heat transfer to pseudoplastic
fluids in an agitated tank with helical ribbon impeller. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 16, 489–494.
186. Kamiwano, M., Saito, E., and Kaminoyama, M. (1988). Flow pattern and apparent
viscosity of pseudoplastic liquid in a stirred vessel. Kagaku Kogaku Ronbunshu 14, 316.
187. Etchells, A. W., III, Ford, W. N., and Short, D. G. R. (1987). Mixing of Bingham Plastics
on an Industrial Scale. I. Chem. E. Symp. Ser.: Fluid Mixing III, No. 108, 1–10.
188. Kai, W. and Shengyao, Y. (1989). Heat transfer and power consumption of non-
Newtonian fluids in agitated vessels. Chem. Eng. Sci. 44, 33–40.
189. Zeppenfeld, R. and Mersmann, A. B. (1988). A new fluid dynamic model for mixing of
Newtonian and power-law liquids in the transient regime. Chem. Eng. Technol. 11,
162–170.
190. Koloni, T., Plazl, I., and Zumer, M. (1989). Power consumption, gas holdup and
interfacial area in aerated non-Newtonian suspensions in stirred tanks of square cross-
section. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 67, 526.
191. Galindo, E., Arguello, M. A., Velasco, D., Albiter, V., and Martinez, A. (1996). A
comparison of cavern development in mixing a yield stress fluid by Rushton and Intermig
impellers. Chem. Eng.Technol. 19, 315–323.
192. Kaminoyama, M., Saito, E., and Kamiwano, M. (1990). Flow analogy of pseudoplastic
liquid in geometrically similar stirred vessels based on numerical analysis. J. Chem. Eng.
Jpn. 23, 214.
193. Kaminoyama, M., Akabane, K., Arai, K., Saito, F., and Kamiwano, M. (1994). Numerical
analysis of flow of a Bingham fluid in an anchor impeller. Int. Chem. Eng. 34, 263–269.
194. Jomha, A. I., Edwards, M. F., and Woodcock, L. V. (1990). New method for predicting
the power requirement for mixing shearthickening suspensions. Chem. Eng. Sci. 45,
1389–1396.
195. Sestak, J., Zitny, R., and Houska, M. (1986). Anchor agitated systems: Power input
correlation for pseudoplastic and thixotropic fluids in equilibrium. AIChE J. 32, 155–158.
196. Wang, K. and Yu, S. (1989). Heat transfer and power consumption of non-Newtonian
fluids in agitated vessels. Chem. Eng. Sci. 44, 33.
197. Sinevic, V., Kuboi, R., and Nienow, A. W. (1986). Power numbers, Taylor numbers and
Taylor vortices in viscous Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids. Chem. Eng. Sci. 41,
2915–2923.
198. Oliver, D. R., Nienow, A. W., Mitson, R. J., and Terry, K. (1984). Power consumption in
the mixing of Boger fluids. Trans. IChemE 62, 123–127.
199. Shervin, C. R., Raughley, D. A., and Romaszewski, R. A. (1991). Flow visualization and
scale up studies for the mixing of viscoelastic fluids. Chem. Eng. Sci. 46, 2867–2873.
200. Skelland, A. H. P. and Kanel, J. S. (1990). Minimum impeller speeds for complete
dispersion of non-Newtonian liquid–liquid systems in baffled vessels. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
29, 1300–1306.
201. Takahashi, K., Arai, K., and Saito, S. (1980). Power correlation for anchor and helical
ribbon impellers in highly viscous liquids. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 13, 147–150.
202. Takahashi, K., Arai, K., and Saito, S. (1982). An extended power correlation for anchor
and helical ribbon impellers. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 15, 77–79.
203. Takahashi, K., Sasaki, M., Arai, K., and Saito, S. (1982). Effects of geometrical variables
of helical ribbon impellers on mixing of highly viscous Newtonian liquids. J. Chem. Eng.
Jpn. 15, 217–224.
204. Takahashi, K., Yokota, T., and Konno, H. (1984). Power consumption of helical ribbon
agitators in highly viscous pseudoplastic liquids. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 17, 657–659.
205. Takahashi, K., Yokota, T., and Konno, H. (1988). Mixing of pseudoplastic liquid in an
agitated vessel equipped with a variety of helical ribbon impellers. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 21,
63–68.
206. Takahashi, K. (1988). Mixing of non-Newtonian liquids with helical ribbon impellers. In
‘‘Encyclopedia of Fluid Mechanics’’ (N. P. Cheremisinoff, ed.), Vol. 7, pp. 869–886. Gulf,
Houston.
207. Tran, Q. K., Horsley, R. R., Reizes, J. A., and Ang, H. M. (1992). The mixing of pseudo-
plastic yield stress slurries. Proc. 11th Int. Cong. Rheol., Brussels, 631–633.
208. Tanguy, P. A., Lacroix, R., Bertrand, F., Choplin, L., and Brito de la Fuente, E. (1992).
Finite element analysis of viscous mixing with a helical ribbon-screw impeller. AIChE J.
38, 939–944.
209. Tanguy, P. A., Bertrand, F., and Brito de la Fuente, E. (1994). Mixing of Viscoplastic
Fluids with Anchor Impellers. I. Chem. E. Symp. Ser. No. 136, 525–532.
210. Tanguy, P. A., Bertrand, F., Labrie, R., and Brito de la Fuente, E. (1996). Numerical
modelling of the mixing of viscoplastic slurries in a twin-blade planetary mixer. Trans.
IChemE 74A, 499–504.
170 R. P. CHHABRA
211. Tanguy, P. A., Thibault, F., and Birto de la Fuente, E. (1996). A new investigation of the
Metzner-Otto concept of anchor mixing impellers. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 74, 222–228.
212. Tanguy, P. A., Thibault, F., Brito-De La Fuente, E., Espionosa-solares, T., and
Tecante, A. (1997). Mixing performance induced by coaxial flat blade-helical ribbon
impellers rotating at different speeds. Chem. Eng. Sci. 52, 1733–1741.
213. Tanguy, P. A. and Brito de la Fuente, E. (1999). Non-Newtonian mixing with helical
ribbon impellers and planetary mixers. In ‘‘Advances in the Flow and Rheology of Non-
Newtonian Fluids’’ (D. A. Siginer, D. DeKee, and R. P. Chhabra, eds.), Part A, pp. 301–
330. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
214. Tanguy, P. A., Thibault, F., Dubois, C., and Ait-Kadi, A. (1999). Mixing hydrodynamics
in a double planetary mixer. Trans. IChemE 77A, 318–324.
215. Espinosa-Solares, T., Brito de la Fuente, E., Tecante, A., and Tanguy, P. A. (1997). Power
consumption of a dual turbine-helical ribbon impeller mixer in ungassed conditions.
Chem. Eng. J. 67, 215–219.
216. Bertrand, F., Tanguy, P. A., and Brito-de la Feunte, E. (1996). A new perspective for the
mixing of yield stress fluids with anchor impellers. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 29, 51–58.
217. Bertrand, F., Tanguy, P. A., Brito de la Fuente, E., and Carreau, P. (1999). Numerical
modeling of the mixing flow of second order fluids with helical ribbon impellers. Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 180, 267–280.
218. Brito de la Fuente, E., Choplin, L., and Tanguy, P. A. (1997). Mixing with helical ribbon
impellers. Trans. IChemE 75A, 45–52.
219. Brito de la Fuente, E., Espinosa, T., Tecante, A., Thibault, F., and Tanguy, P. A. (1997).
Mixing non-Newtonian fluids under gassed and ungassed conditions with a double
geometry impeller. Recente Progres en Genie des Procedes 11(51), 153–160.
220. Brito de la Fuente, E., Leuliet, J. C., Choplin, L., and Tanguy, P. A. (1992). On the effect
of shearthinning behaviour on mixing with a helical ribbon impeller. AIChE Symp. Ser.
88(286), 28–32.
221. Brito de la Fuente, E., Nunez, M. C., and Tanguy, P. A. (1997). Non-isothermal mixing of
rheologically complex fluids with close-clearance impellers: Effect of natural convection.
Chem. Eng. Technol. 20, 203–207.
222. Dubois, C., Thibault, F., Tanguy, P. A., and Ait-Kadi, A. (1996). Characterization of
viscous mixing in a twin intermeshing conical helical mixer. Fluid Mixing 5, 249–258.
223. Zhou, G., Tanguy, P. A., and Dubois, C. (2000). Power consumption in a double planetary
mixer with non-Newtonian and viscoelastic materials. Trans. IChemE 78A, 445–453.
224. Rauline, D., Le Blevec, J.-M., Bousquet, J., and Tanguy, P. A. (2000). A comparative
assessment of the performance of the kenics and SMX static mixers. Trans. IChemE 78A,
389–396.
225. Leuliet, J. C., Brito de la Fuente, E., and Choplin, L. (1992). Melanges de Fluides
elastiques avec un agitateur a ruban helicoidal. Entropie 28(171), 53–58.
226. Amanullah, A., Hjorth, S. A., and Nienow, A. W. (1997). Cavern sizes generated in highly
shearthinning viscous fluids by SCABA 3SHP1 impellers. Trans. IChemE 75C, 232–238.
227. Amanullah, A., Hjorth, S., and Nienow, A. W. (1998). A new mathematical model to
predict cavern diameters in highly shearthinning power law fluids using axial flow
impellers. Chem. Eng. Sci. 53, 455–469.
228. Hjorth, S. (1997). On the laminar to turbulent transition in mixing vessels. Recente Progres
en Genie des Procedes 11(51), 43–50.
229. Bouwmans, I., Bakker, A., and van den Bakker, H. E. A. (1997). Blending liquids of
differing viscosities and densities in stirred vessels. Trans. IChemE 75A, 777–783.
230. Foroquet-Murh, L. and Midoux, N. (1994). Nucleate boiling of non-Newtonian fluids in a
stirred tank reactor. Chem. Eng. Process. 33, 459–464.
231. Delaplace, G., Dieulot, J.-Y., Brienne, J.-P., and Leuliet, J.-C. (1999). Determination
experimentale et prediction des temps de circulation et de melange pour un systeme
d’agitation helicoidal. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 77, 447–457.
232. Delaplace, G., Torrez, C., Andre, C., Leuliet, J.-C., and Fillaudeau, L. (2000). ‘‘CFD
Simulation of Foodstuff Flows in an Agitated Vessel’’. Proc. Ist Int. Conf. Simulation in
Food & Bioindustries, published by the Society for Computer Simulation International,
pp. 179–186.
233. Delaplace, G. and Leuliet, J.-C. (2000). A new expression of the Ks factor for helical
ribbon agitators. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 78, 393–394.
234. Delaplace, G., Leuliet, J. C., and Relandeau, V. (2000). Circulation and mixing times for
helical ribbon impellers. Review and experiments. Exp. Fluids 28, 170–182.
235. Delaplace, G., Leuliet, J.-C., and Ronse, G. (2000). Power requirement when mixng a shear-
thickening fluid with a helical ribbon impeller type. Chem. Eng. Technol. 23, 329–336.
236. Ozcan-Taskin, N. G. and Nienow, A. W. (1995). Mixing viscoelastic fluids with axial flow
impellers: Flow fields and power consumption. Trans. IChemE 73C, 49–56.
237. Ruan, R., Almaer, S., Zou, C., and Chen, P. L. (1997). Spectrum analysis of mixing power
curves for neural network prediction of dough rheological properties. Trans. ASAE 40,
677–681.
238. Reilly, C. D. and Burmester, S. S. H. (1994). Homogenization of liquids with different
densities and viscosities. AIChE Symp. Ser. 90(299), 175–180.
239. Jaworski, Z., Pacek, A. W., and Nienow, A. W. (1994). On flow close to cavern boundaries
in yield stress fluids. Chem. Eng. Sci. 49, 3321–3324.
240. Masiuk, S. and Lacki, H. (1993). Power consumption and mixing time for Newtonian and
non-Newtonian liquids mixing in a ribbon mixer. Chem. Eng. J. 52, 13–17.
241. Moore, I. P. T., Cossor, G., and Baker, M. R. (1995). Velocity distribution in a stirred
tank containing a yield stress fluid. Chem. Eng. Sci. 50, 2467.
242. Hirata, Y., Nienow, A. W., and Moore, I. P. T. (1991). LDA studies of velocity
distributions and cavern sizes in a yield stress fluid agitated by a Rushton turbine.
In ‘‘Proc. 7th European Mixing Conf.’’ (M. Bruxelmane and G. Froment, eds.), pp.
167–172.
243. Mavros, P., Xuereb, C., and Bertrand, J. (1996). Determination of 3-D flow fields
in agitated vessels by laser-doppler velocimetry: Effect of impeller type and liquid viscosity
on liquid flow pattern. Trans. IChemE 74A, 658.
244. Youcefi, A., Anne-Archard, D., Boisson, H. C., and Sengelin, M. (1997). On the influence
of liquid elasticity on mixing in a vessel agitated by a two-bladed impeller. J. Fluids Eng.
(ASME) 119, 616–622.
245. Shimizu, K., Minekawa, K., Hirose, T., and Kawase, Y. (1999). Drop breakage in stirred
tanks with Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluid systems. Chem. Eng. J. 72, 117–124.
246. Torrez, C. and Andre, C. (1998). Power consumption of a Rushton turbine mixing
Newtonian and shear-thinning fluids: Comparison between experimental and numerical
results. Chem. Eng. Technol. 21, 599–604.
247. Torrez, C. and Andre, C. (1999). Simulation of a Rushton turbine mixing yield stress
fluids: Application of the Metzner-Otto concept. Chem. Eng. Technol. 22, 701–706.
248. Wang, J.-J., Feng, L.-F., Gu, X.-P., Wang, K., and Hu, C.-H. (2000). Power consumption
of inner–outer helical ribbon impellers in viscous Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids.
Chem. Eng. Sci. 55, 2339–2342.
249. Rai, C. L., Devotta, I., and Rao, P. G. (2000). Heat transfer to viscous Newtonian and
non-Newtonian fluids using helical ribbon agitator. Chem. Eng. J. 79, 73–77.
250. Nouri, J. M. and Hockey, R. M. (1998). Power number correlation between Newtonian
and non-Newtonian fluids in a mixing vessel. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 31, 848–852.
172 R. P. CHHABRA
251. Mishra, V. P., Kumar, P., and Joshi, J. B. (1998). Flow generated by a disc turbine in
aqueous solutions of polyacrylamide. Chem. Eng. J. 71, 11–21.
252. Fangary, Y. S., Barigou, M., Seville, J. P. K., and Parker, D. J. (2000). Fluid trajectories in
a stirred vessel of non-Newtonian liquid using positron emission particle tracking. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 55, 5969–5979.
253. Vlaev, S. D., Gyurov, P., Vlaev, D., and Mann, R. (1997). Regime maps and a network of
zones regime selection algorithm for gas–liquid mixing in complex-rheology fluids. Recent
Progres en Genie des Procedes 11(51), 193–200.
254. Curran, S. J., Hayer, R. E., Afacan, A., Williams, M. C., and Tanguy, P. A. (2000).
Experimental mixing study of a yield stress fluid in a laminar stirred tank. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 39, 195–202.
255. Bohme, G. and Stenger, M. (1988). Consistent scale up procedure for the power
consumption in agitated non-Newtonian fluids. Chem. Eng. Technol. 11, 199–205.
256. Heim, A. (1980). Model of momentum and heat transfer in mixers with close-clearance
agitators. Int. Chem. Eng. 20, 271–289.
257. Chowdhury, R. and Tiwari, K. K. (1979). Power consumption studies of helical ribbon
screw mixers. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 18, 227–231.
258. Ducla, J. M., Desplanches, H., and Chevalier, J. L. (1983). Effective viscosity of non-
Newtonian fluids in a mechanically stirred tank. Chem. Eng. Commun. 21, 29–36.
259. Pollard, J. and Kantyka, T. A. (1969). Heat transfer to agitated non-Newtonian fluids.
260. Ryan, D. F., Janssen, L. P. B. M., and van Dierendonck, L. L. (1988). Circulation time
prediction in the scale up of polymerization reactors with helical ribbon agitators. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 43, 1961–1966.
261. Ottino, J. M. (1990). Mixing, chaotic advection and turbulence. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.
22, 207–253.
262. Ottino, J. M. (1990). ‘‘The Kinematics of Mixing’’. Cambridge University Press, London.
263. Ottino, J. M. (2000). The art of mixing with an admixture of art: Viewing creativity
through P.V. Danckwerts’s early work. Chem. Eng. Sci. 55, 2749–2765.
264. Ottino, J. M., DeRoussel, P., Hansen, S., and Khakhar, D. V. (2000). Mixing and
dispersion of viscous liquids and powdered solids. Adv. Chem. Eng. 25, 105–204.
265. De Roussel, P., Khakhar, D. V., and Ottino, J. M. (2001). Mixing of viscous immiscible
liquids. Part 1: Computational models for strong,weak and continuous flow systems.
Chem. Eng. Sci. 56, 5511–5529. Also see ibid 5531–5537.
265a. Wille, M., Langer, G., and Werner, U. (2001). The influence of macroscopic elongational
flow on dispersion processes in agitated tanks. Chem. Eng. Technol. 24, 119–127.
266. Stroock, A. D., Dertinger, S. K. W., Ajdari, A., Mezic, I., Stone, H. A., and
Whitesides, G. M. (2002). Chaotic mixer for microchannels. Science 295, 647–651.
267. Pandey, D. K., Prakash, O., and Gupta, S. N. (1977). Differential viscosity correlation for
heat transfer to non-Newtonian fluids in a jacketed agitated vesseel. Indian J. Technol. 15,
223–228.
268. Blasinski, H. and Kuneewicz, C. (1981). Heat transfer during the mixing of pseudoplstic
fluids with ribbon agitators. Int. Chem. Eng. 21, 679–683.
269. Calabrese, R. V. and Stoots, C. M. (1989). Flow in the impeller region of a stirred tank.
Chem. Eng. Prog. 85(5), 43–50.
270. Kovacs, T., Tragardh, C., and Fuchs, L. (2001). Fourier spectrum to recover deterministic
and stochastic behaviour in stirred tanks. AIChE J. 47, 2167–2176.
271. Mavros, P., Xuereb, C., and Bertrand, J. (1997). Effect of radial or axial impeller and
liquid viscosity on energy dissipation in agitated vessels. Recente Progres en Genie des
Procedes 11(51), 51–58.
272. van der Molen, K. and van Maanen, H. E. A. (1978). Laser–Doppler measurements of
the turbulent flow in stirred vessels to establish scaling rules. Chem. Eng. Sci. 33,
1161–1168.
273. Venneker, B. C. H. and van den Akker, H. E. A. (1997). CFD calculations of the turbulent
flow of shear-thinning fluids in agitated tanks. Recent Progres en Genie des Procedes
11(51), 179–186.
274. Zalc, J. M., Alvarez, M. M., Muzzio, F. J., and Arik, B. E. (2001). Extensive validation of
computed laminar flow in a stirred tank with three Rushton turbines. AIChE J. 47, 2144–
2154.
275. Derksen, J. (2001). Assessment of large eddy simulations for agitated flows. Chem. Eng.
Res. Des. 79A, 824–830.
275a. Brodkey, R. S. (1985). Fundamentals of turbulent mixing and kinetics. In ‘‘Mixing of
Liquids by Mechanical Agitation’’ (J. J. Ulbrecht and G. K. Patterson, eds.), pp. 29–58.
Gordon and Breach, New York.
276. Delaplace, G., Torrez, C., Leuliet, J.-C., Belaubre, N., and Andre, C. (2001). Experimental
and CFD simulation of heat transfer to highly viscous fluids in an agitated vessel equipped
with a non-standard helical ribbon impeller. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 79A, 927–937.
277. Ali, A. M., Yuan, H. H. S., Dickey, D. S., and Tatterson, G. B. (1981). Liquid dispersion
mechanisms in agitated tanks: Part 1. Pitched blade turbine. Chem. Eng. Commun. 10,
205–213. Also see ibid 215–222.
278. Gardner, J. and Tatterson, G. (1992). Characterization of mixing in shaker table
containers. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 39, 794–797.
279. Tatterson, G. B. and Stanford, T. G. (1981). Liquid dispersion mechanisms in agitated
tanks. Part III. Low viscosity discrete phase into high viscosity continuous phase. Chem.
Eng. Commun. 6, 371–376.
280. Garrison, C. M. (1983). How to design and scale mixing pilot-plants. Chem. Eng. 90(2), 63–70.
281. Zlokarnik, M. (1998). Problems in the application of dimensional analysis and scale-up of
mixing operations. Chem. Eng. Sci. 53, 3023–3030.
282. Bowen, R. L. (1985). Agitation intensity: Key to scaling up flow-sensitive liquid systems.
Chem. Eng. 92(3), 195.
283. Carpenter, K. J., Lines, P. C., Aldington, R. J., Keron, A., and Hindson, W. A. J. (1994).
Two examples of designing full scale reactors for multi-stage synthesis involving non-
Newtonian mixtures. AIChE Sym. Ser. 90(299), 101–105.
284. Kelkar, J. V., Mashelkar, R. A., and Ulbrecht, J. (1973). Scale-up method for the power
consumption of agitators in the creeping flow regime. Chem. Eng. Sci. 28, 664–666.
285. Rushton, J. H., Costich, E. W., and Everett, H. J. (1950). Power characteristics of mixing
impellers. Chem. Eng. Prog. 46, 395–404. Also see ibid 467–476.
286. Bates, R. L., Fondy, P. L., and Corpstein, R. R. (1963). An examination of some
geometric parameters of impeller power. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 2, 310–314.
287. Grenville, R. K. et al. (1995). Paper presented at Mixing XV 15th Biennial North
American Mixing Conference, Banff, Canada (June 18–23).
288. Skelland, A. H. P. (1983). Mixing and agitation of non-Newtonian fluids. In ‘‘Handbook
of Fluids in Motion’’ (N. P. Cheremisinoff and R. Gupta, eds.), pp. 179–209. Ann Arbor
Science, Ann Arbor, MI.
289. Ibrahim, S. and Nienow, A. W. (1995). Power curves and flow patterns for a range of
impellers in Newtonian fluids: 40 < Re < 5 105. Trans. IChemE 73A, 485–491.
290. Karcz, J. and Major, M. (1998). An effect of baffle length on the power consumption in an
agitated vessel. Chem. Eng. Process. 37, 249–256.
291. Pahl, M. H., Brenke, A., and Luo, Y. (1996). Power consumption of multiple shaft
agitators. Chem. Eng. Technol. 19, 503–509.
174 R. P. CHHABRA
292. Papastefanos, N. and Stamatoudis, M. (1989). Effect of impeller and vessel size on
impeller power number in closed vessels for Reynolds numbers between 40 and 65,000.
Chem. Eng. Commun. 80, 69–79.
293. Papastefanos, N. and Stamatoudis, M. (1989). Effect of vessel and impeller geometry on
impeller power number in closed vessels for Reynolds numbers between 40 and 65,000.
294. Seichter, P., Kognal, J., and Rieger, F. (1981). Process characteristics of screw impellers
with a draught tube for Newtonian liquids—The power input. Collect. Czech. Chem.
Commun. 46, 2007–2020.
295. Strek, F. and Karcz, J. (1993). Experimental studies of power consumption for agitated
vessels equipped with non-standard baffles and high speed agitator. Chem. Eng. Process.
32, 349–357.
296. Sumi, Y. and Kamiwano, M. (2001). Development and mixing characteristics of a
multistage impeller for agitating highly viscous fluids. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 34, 485–492.
297. Theliander, H. (1995). Mixing in closed vessels—Suspension of solid particles and power
demand. Chem. Eng. Commun. 132, 169–186.
298. Xanthopoulos, C. and Stamatoudis, M. (1986). Turbulent range impeller power numbers
in closed cylindrical and square vessels. Chem. Eng. Commun. 46, 123–128.
299. Xanthopoulos, C. and Stamatoudis, M. (1988). Effect of impeller and vessel size on
impeller power number in closed vessels for Reynolds numbers above 75,000. Chem. Ing.
Technik. 60(7), 560–562.
300. Hiraoka, S., Kato, Y., Ozaki, N., Murakami, Y., and Lee, Y. S. (2001). Power
consumption and mixing time in an agitated vessel with double impeller. Chem. Eng. Res.
Des. 79A, 805–810.
301. Jahoda, M. and Machon, V. (1994). Homogenization of liquids in tanks stirred by
multiple impellers. Chem. Eng. Technol. 17, 95–101.
302. Hentrich, P., ed. (2000). ‘‘Handbook of Mixing Technology’’. Ekato, Schopfheim, Germany.
303. Bakker, A. and Gates, L. E. (1995). Viscous mixing. Chem. Eng. Prog. 101(12), 25–34.
304. Doraiswamy, D., Grenville, R. K., and Etchells, A. W., III (1994). Two-score years of the
Metzner-Otto correlation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 33, 2253–2258.
305. Kraume, M. and Zehner, P. (2001). Experience with experimental standards for
measurements of various parameters in stirred tanks: A comparative test. Chem. Eng.
Res. Des. 79A, 811–818.
306. Seichter, P. (1971). Efficiency of the screw mixers with a draft tube. Trans. IChemE 49,
117–123.
307. Seichter, P. (1981). Process characteristics of screw impellers with a draught tube for
Newtonian liquids—Pumping capacity of the impeller. Collect. Czech. Chem. Commun. 46,
2021–2031.
308. Seichter, P. (1981). Process characteristics of screw impellers with a draught tube for
Newtonian liquids—Time of homogenization. Collect. Czech. Chem. Commun. 46, 2032–
2042.
309. Rehr, E. O. and Bohm, R. (1970). Ruhren nicht-Newtonscher flussigkeiten-II. Mitteilung:
Der leistungsbedarf furden bandschecken-und ander-rurhen. Chem. Technol. 22, 136–146.
310. Cheng, J. and Carreau, P. J. (1994). Mixing in the transition flow regime with helical
ribbon agitators. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 12, 418–430.
311. Forschner, P., Krebs, R., and Schneider, T. (1991). ‘‘Scale up Procedures for Power
Consumption of Mixing in Non-Newtonian Fluids’’. Proc. 7th European Conference on
Mixing, Brugge, Belgium, pp. 161–165.
312. Barnes, H. A. and Nguyen, Q. D. (2001). Rotating vane rheometry—A review. J. Non-
Newt. Fluid Mech. 98, 1–14.
313. Costell-Perez, M. E., Steffe, J. F., and Moreira, R. G. (1991). Simple determination of
power law flow curves using a paddle type mixer viscometer. J. Texture Stud. 22, 303–316.
314. Keentok, M., Milthorpe, J. F., and O’Donovan, E. (1985). On the shearing zone around
rotating vanes in plastic liquids: Theory and experiment. J. Non-Newt. Fluid Mech. 17,
23–35.
315. Kemblowski, Z. and Kristiansen, B. (1986). Rheometry of fermentation liquids.
Biotechnol. Bioeng. 28, 1474–1483.
316. Leong-Poi, L. and Allen, D. G. (1992). Direct measurement of the yield stress of
filamentous fermentation broth with the rotating vane technique. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 40,
403–412.
316a. Furling, O., Choplin, L., and Tanguy, P. A. (2001). On-line (in situ) viscosity
follow-up of concentrated slurries using during make down. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 79A,
915–920.
316b. Lai, K., Steffe, J. F., and Ng, P. (2000). Average shear rates in the rapid viscoanalyser
(RVA) mixing system. Cereal Chem. 77, 714–716.
316c. Cantu-Lozano, D., Rao, M. A., and Gasparetto, C. (2000). Rheological properties of
non-cohesive apple dispersion with helical and vane impellers: Effect of concentration and
particle size. J. Food Process Eng. 23, 373–385.
316d. Aerts, L. and Verspaille, M. (2001). Absolute rheometry in the brabender viscograph by
mixer viscometry calibration. Starch-Starke 53, 59–63.
317. Knoch, A. (1999). Influence of non-Newtonian flow behaviour on mixing process
characteristics. Chem. Eng. Technol. 22, 112–118.
318. Prokopec, L. and Ulbrecht, J. J. (1970). Ruhrleistung eines schraubenruhrers mit leitrohr
beim mischen nicht-Newtonschen flussigkeiten. Chem. Ing. Tech. 42, 530–534.
319. Ulbrecht, J. J. (1974). Mixing of viscoelastic liquids by mechanical agitation. Chem. Eng.
(June), 347–353.
319a. Boger, D. V. (1977). A highly elastic constant-viscosity fluid. J. Non-Newt. Fluid Mech. 3,
87–91.
320. Kelkar, J. V., Mashelkar, R. A., and Ulbrecht, J. (1972). On the rotational viscoelastic
flows around simple bodies and agitators. Trans. IChemE 50, 343–352.
321. Bartels, P. V. and Janssen, L. P. (1983). ‘‘Effect of Viscoelasticity on Mixing Flows in
Stirred Tanks’’. Proc. IX Mixing Conference, Henniker, NH.
322. Hicks, R. W., Morton, J. R., and Fenic, J. G. (1976). How to design agitators for desired
process response. Chem. Eng. 83(April 26), 102–110.
323. Fasano, J. B., Bakker, A., and Penney, W. R. (1994). Advanced impeller geometry boosts
liquid agitation. Chem. Eng. 101(8), 110–116.
324. Gates, L. E., Hicks, R. W., and Dickey, D. S. (1976). Application guidelines for turbine
agitators. Chem. Eng. 83(Dec. 6), 165–170.
325. Anne-Archard, D. and Boisson, H. C. (1997). Numerical simulation of Newtonian and
viscoelastic 2-D laminar mixing in an agitated vessel. Recent Progres en Genie des Procedes
11(51), 145–152.
326. Myers, K. J., Ward, R. W., and Bakker, A. (1997). A digital particle image velocimetry
investigation of flow field instabilities of axial flow impellers. J. Fluids Eng. (ASME) 119,
623–632.
327. Aubin, J., Mavros, P., Fletcher, D. F., Bertrand, J., and Xuereb, C. (2001). Effect of axial
agitator configuration (up-pumping, down-pumping, reverse rotation) on flow patterns
generated in stirred vessels. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 79A, 845–856.
328. Mavros, P., Mann, R., Vlaev, S. D., and Bertrand, J. (2001). Experimental visualization
and CFD simulation of flow patterns induced by a novel energy-saving dual-configuration
impeller in stirred vessels. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 79A, 857–866.
176 R. P. CHHABRA
329. Jaworski, Z., Dyster, K. N., and Nienow, A. W. (2001). The effect of size, location and
pumping direction of pitched blade turbine impellers on flow patterns. Chem. Eng. Res.
Des. 79A, 887–894.
330. Nagata, S., Nishikawa, M., Tada, H., Hirabayashi, H., and Gotoh, S. (1970). Power
consumption of mixing impellers in Bingham plastic liquids. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 3, 237–243.
331. Giesekus, H. (1965). Some secondary flow phenomena in general viscoelastic fluids. Proc.
4th Int. Conf. Rheol. 1, 249–266.
332. Abid, M., Xuereb, C., and Bertrand, J. (1992). Hydrodynamics in vessels stirred with
anchors and gate agitators: Necessity of a 3-D modelling. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 70A, 377–
384.
333. Nagata, S., Yanagimoto, M., and Yokoyama, T. (1956). Studies on the mixing of highly
viscous liquids. Memoirs Fac. Eng. Kyoto Univ. (Japan) 18, 444–460.
334. Kappel, M. (1979). Development and application of a method for measuring the mixture
quality of miscible liquids. Part I, II, III. Int. Chem. Eng. 19, 196–215; 431–444 and
571–590.
335. Cheng, D. C.-H., Schofield, C., and Jane, R. J. (1974). Proc. Ist Engineering Conf. Mixing
& Centrifugal Separation, BHRA Fluids Eng., Cranfield, Paper # C2-15.
336. Manna, L. (1997). Comparison between physical and chemical methods for the
measurement of mixing times. Chem. Eng. J. 67, 167–173.
337. Grenville, R. K. and Tilton, J. N. (1996). A new theory improves the correlation of blends
time data from turbulent jet mixed vessels. Trans. IChemE 74A, 390–396.
338. Ottino, J. M. and Macosko, C. W. (1980). An efficiency parameter for batch mixing of
viscous fluids. Chem. Eng. Sci. 35, 1454–1457.
339. Bakker, A. and Fasano, J. B. (1994). A computational study of the flow pattern in an
industrial paper pulp chest with a side entering impeller. AIChE Sym. Ser. 89(293),
118–124.
340. Bakker, A., Fasano, J. B., and Leng, D. E. (1994). Pinpoint mixing problems with lasers
and simulation software. Chem. Eng. 101(1), 94–100.
341. Kelly, W. J. and Humphrey, A. E. (1998). Computational fluid dynamics model for
predicting flow of viscous fluids in a large fermentor with hydrofoil flow impellers and
internal cooling coils. Biotechnol. Prog. 14, 248–258.
342. Khayat, R. E., Derdouri, A., and Frayce, D. (1998). Boundary element analysis of three-
dimensional mixing flow of Newtonian and viscoelastic fluids. Ind. J. Numer. Methods
Fluids 28, 815–840.
343. Lafon, P. and Bertrand, J. (1988). ‘‘A Numerical Model for the Prediction of Laminar
Mixing’’. Proc. European Conference on Mixing (BHRA), pp. 493–500.
344. Oldshue, J. Y. (1989). Fluid mixing in 1989. Chem. Eng. Prog. 85(5), 33–42.
345. Ottino, J. M., Ranz, W. E., and Macosko, C. W. (1981). A framework for description of
mechanical mixing of fluids. AIChE J. 27, 565–577.
346. Pericleous, K. A. and Patel, M. K. (1987). The modelling of tangential and axial agitators
in chemical reactors. Physicochem. Hydrodyn. 8, 105–123.
347. Takigawa, T., Kataoka, K., Ema, H., Yoshimura, T., and Ohmura, N. (2000). Mixing-
effective motion of high viscosity fluid around a rotating elliptic-cylinder. J. Chem. Eng.
Jpn. 33, 420–426.
347a. Peixoto, S., Nunhez, J., and Duarte, G. (2000). Characterizing the flow of stirred vessels
with anchor type impellors. Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 17, 925–935.
348. Wunsch, O. and Bohme, G. (2000). Numerical simulation of 3-D viscous fluid flow and
convective mixing in a static mixer. Arch. Appl. Mech. 70, 91–102.
349. Yang, H.-H. and Manas-Zloczower, I. (1992). 3-D flow field analysis of a banbury mixer.
Int. Polymer Process. 7, 195–203.
350. Uhl, V. W. and Gray, J. B. (1966). ‘‘Mixing’’, Vol. 1, Chapter 5. Academic, New York.
351. Hewitt, G. F., Shires, G. L., and Bott, T. R. (1994). ‘‘Process Heat Transfer’’. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
352. Rohsenow, W. M., Hartnett, J. P., and Cho, Y. I. (1998). ‘‘Handbook of Heat Transfer’’,
3rd edn. McGraw Hill, New York.
353. Balakrishna, M. and Murthy, M. S. (1980). Heat transfer studies in agitated vessels. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 35, 1486–1494.
354. Dream, R. F. (1999). Heat transfer in agitated jacketed vessels. Chem. Eng. 106(1), 90–96.
355. Edwards, M. F. and Wilkinson, W. L. (1972). Heat transfer in agitated vessels Part I—
Newtonian fluids. Chem. Eng. 8, 310–319. Also see ibid 9, 328–335.
356. Strek, F. and Karcz, J. (1997). Heat transfer to Newtonian fluid in a stirred tank—A
comparative experimental study for vertical tubular coil and a jacket. Recent Progres en
Genie des Procedes 11(51), 105–112.
357. Cohen, D. (1998). How to select rotor–stator mixers. Chem. Eng. 105(8), 76–79.
358. Dickey, D. S. (2000). Facing the challenge of mixing problem fluids. Chem. Eng. 107(5),
68–75.
359. Dietsche, W. (1998). Mix or match: Choose the best mixers everytime. Chem. Eng. 105(8),
70–75.
360. Einekel, W.-D. (1980). Influence of physical properties and equipment design on the
homogenity of suspensions in agitated vessels. Ger. Chem. Eng. 3, 118–124.
361. Gladki, H. (1997). Keep solids in suspension. Chem. Eng. 104(10), 213–216.
362. Heywood, N. I. (1999). Stop your slurries from stirring up trouble. Chem. Eng. Prog.
95(9), 21–41.
363. Ho, F. C. and Kwong, A. (1973). A guide to designing special agitators. Chem. Eng.
80(July 23), 94–104.
364. Masucci, S. F. (1992). Effectively make emulsions and dispersions. Chem. Eng. 99(7),
112–115.
365. Munier, M. (1997). Performance of some agitators for gas–liquid dispersion. Recent
Progres en Genie des Procedes 11(51), 271–278.
366. Myers, K., Reeder, M. F., Bakker, A., and Dickey, D. S. (1997). In ‘‘Recent Progres en
Genie des Procedes’’, Vol. 11 (51), pp. 115–122.
367. Myers, K. J., Bakker, A., and Ryan, D. (1997). Avoid agitation by selecting static mixers.
Chem. Eng. Prog. 93(6), 28–38.
368. Myers, K. J., Reeder, M. F., Ryan, D., and Daly, G. (1999). Get a fix on high-shear
mixing. Chem. Eng. Prog. 95(11), 33–42.
369. Pasquali, G., Fajner, D., and Magelli, F. (1983). Effect of suspension viscosity on
power consumption in the agitation of solid–liquid systems. Chem. Eng. Commun. 22,
371–375.
370. Shaw, J. A. (1994). Understand the effects of impeller type, diameter and power on mixing
time. Chem. Eng. Prog. 100(2), 45–48.
371. von Essen, J. (1998). Gas–Liquid-mixer correlation. Chem. Eng. 105(8), 80–82.
372. Rzyski, E. (1993). Liquid homogenization in agitated tanks. Chem. Eng. Technol. 16,
229–233.
373. Muskett, M. J. and Nienow, A. W. (1987). Capital vs. Running costs: The economics of
mixer selection. I. Chem. E. Symp. Ser. No. (108): Fluid Mixing III, pp. 33–48.
373a. Schaffer, M., Marchilden, E., McAuley, K., and Cunningham, M. (2001). Assessment of
mixing performance and power consumption of a novel polymerisation reactor system.
Chem. Eng. Technol. 24, 401–408.
374. Nienow, A. W. and Elson, T. P. (1988). Aspects of mixing in rheologically complex fluids.
Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 66, 5–15.
178 R. P. CHHABRA
375. Ottino, J. M. and Khakhar, D. V. (2000). Mixing and segregation of granular materials.
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 32, 55–91.
376. Larson, R. G. (2000). Turbulence without inertia. Nature 405(6782), 27–28.
377. Groisman, A. and Steinberg, V. (2000). Elastic turbulence in a polymer solution flow.
Nature 405(6782), 53–55.
378. Gaston-Bonhomme, Y., Desplanches, H., and Chevalier, J. L. (1989). Ebullition nuclee de
liquides newtoniens et non-newtoniens a partir d’un serpentin en cuve agitee. Recents
Progres en Genie des Procedes 8a, 38.
379. Desplanches, H., Gaston-Bonhomme, Y., and Chevalier, J. L. (1990). Ebullition de
liquides visqueux en cuve agitee-lere partie: Liquides Newtoniens. Entropie 157–158, 65.
380. Gaston-Bonhomme, Y., Bouvenot, A., Desplanches, H., and Chevalier, J. L. (1992).
Ebullition de liquides visquex en cuve agitee-zone partie: Liquides non-Newtoniens.
Entropie 167, 19.

Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer With No-Newtonian Liquids in Mechanically Agitated Vessels

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer With No-Newtonian Liquids in Mechanically Agitated Vessels

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ADVANCES IN HEAT TRANSFER VOL.

Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer with

outset, it is therefore instructive and useful to consider some common

Type of mixing Examples Remarks Selected

Single-phase Blending of miscible petroleum More diﬃcult to mix/agitate [3–7]

concerned. Consequently, undoubtedly considerable research eﬀort has

In general, the scope of this chapter is thus not only to summarize, in a

III. Rheological and Thermo-physical Properties

available on this subject, e.g., see Refs. [31,32,34,38,39]. It is, however,

where n<1 denotes shearthinning behaviour, n>1 predicts shearthickening

¼ oB þ B _ for jj > oB ð2aÞ

_ ¼ 0 for jj < oB ð2bÞ

The yield-pseudoplastic ﬂuid behaviour is invariably approximated by

¼ oH þ mð_ Þn for jj > oH ð3aÞ

_ ¼ 0 for jj < oH ð3bÞ

It is appropriate to add here that considerable confusion exists in the

Characteristic time of fluid f

There does not appear to be an unique way of evaluating f for a viscoelastic

On occasions, the value of f is also deduced from shear stress–shear rate

whereas the consistency coeﬃcient, m, conforms to the usual exponential

where mo and E are evaluated using experimental results in the temperature

sus ¼ s þ ð1 ÞL ð8Þ

Cpsus ¼ Cps þ ð1 ÞCpL ð9Þ

where  is the fractional (by volume) concentration of the solids; subscripts

ksus 1 þ 0:5" ð1 "Þ

where " ¼ ks/kL.

expression due to Bruggemann [81] seems to correlate the results

IV. Non-Newtonian Effects in Agitated Vessels

(vi) design and selection of equipment. Accordingly, consideration will now

In order to carry out mixing to produce a uniform product (or to

in a mechanically stirred vessel is associated with low Reynolds number

FIG. 1. Schematics of the thinning of a ﬂuid element due to shear ﬂow.

FIG. 2. Schematics of the thinning of a ﬂuid element due to elongation ﬂow.

FIG. 3. Laminar shear mixing in a concentric cylinder conﬁguration.

FIG. 4. Schematics of mixing by cutting and folding of ﬂuid elements.

VI. Fluid Mechanics

As noted earlier and also revealed by an inspection of the extensive

Investigator Type of impeller and Systems Main objectives

FLUID MECHANICS AND HEAT TRANSFER

Investigator Type of impeller and Systems Main objectives

FLUID MECHANICS AND HEAT TRANSFER

Investigator Type of impeller and Systems Main objectives

FLUID MECHANICS AND HEAT TRANSFER

Investigator Type of impeller and Systems Main objectives

FLUID MECHANICS AND HEAT TRANSFER

Investigator Type of impeller and Systems Main objectives

FLUID MECHANICS AND HEAT TRANSFER

Investigator Type of impeller and Systems Main objectives

FLUID MECHANICS AND HEAT TRANSFER

Investigator Type of impeller and Systems Main objectives

FLUID MECHANICS AND HEAT TRANSFER

An even more common problem is the design of small scale experiments

FIG. 5. Typical tank (with a jacket)–impeller assembly.

to consider the issue of power consumption in low and high viscosity

where the Power number, Po, is deﬁned as,

Po ¼ f ðRe; FrÞ ð17Þ

Similarly, the Froude number is generally important only when severe

FIG. 7. Eﬀect of impeller design on Power number–Reynolds number relationship for

for scores of liquids encompassing a ﬁve orders of magnitude variation in

unfortunately the majority of highly viscous (Newtonian and non-

Rec ¼ 6370 Po0:33

on an envisaged system to deduce useful information about the large scale

sus ¼ s þ ð1 ÞL ð8Þ

Cpsus ¼ Cps þ ð1 ÞCpL ð9Þ

where is the fractional (by volume) concentration of the solids; subscripts

ksus 1 þ 0:5" ð1 "Þ

Vc2n ðns dco Þn