THE EFFECT OF BOTTOM ROUGHNESS ON

THE MINIMUM AGITATOR SPEED REQUIRED

TO JUST FULLY SUSPEND PARTICLES IN A
STIRRED VESSEL

A. Ghionzoli1,2, W. Bujalski2, R. K. Grenville3, A. W. Nienow2, R. W. Sharpe2 and

A. Paglianti4,

1
Laboratory of Process Equipment, Department of Chemical Engineering, Industrial Chemistry and
Materials Science, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
2
Department of Chemical Engineering, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
3
Du Pont Engineeering, Wilmington, DE, USA.
4
Department of Chemical, Mining and Environmental Engineering, University of Bologna, Bologna,
Italy.

Abstract: In this work, the effect of the vessel bottom roughness on the suspension of solid
particles in stirred tank reactors is investigated. The experiments were performed in a baffled
vessel, which was mechanically stirred with a 458 pitched blade turbine. In order to evaluate
the influence of the bottom roughness on particle suspension, four bottoms of different
roughness and 8 different sets of spherical particles were used. The density of the solid particles,
rs, ranged from 2500 kg m23 to 8743 kg m23 and they were characterized by narrow size distri-
butions with a mean diameter, dp, from 128 mm up to 1850 mm. Measurement of the minimum
impeller speed for ‘just complete suspension’, Njs, showed that the roughness of the bottom
had a significant influence. The precise effect depends on the particle size compared to the
size of the roughness elements and to the Kolmogoroff microscale, lK.
Keywords: particle suspension; mixing; bottom roughness; settling velocity, Kolmogoroff
scale, lK.

Correspondence to:
Professor A. Paglianti, INTRODUCTION
Department of Chemical,
Mining and Environmental For solid– liquid systems in stirred tanks, one
Engineering, Viale
Risorgimento 2, I-40136
of the most important parameters is the agita-
Bologna, Italy. tor speed at which all the particles are just
E-mail: fully suspended, Njs. Understanding the
alessandro.paglianti@ suspension mechanism is also important. In
mail.ing.unibo.it
general, two main mechanisms have been
DOI: 10.1205/cherd06152 considered (Nienow, 1997a): either processes
in which suspension depends only on the
0263–8762/07/ interaction between the particles and turbu-
$30.00 þ 0.00 lent isotropic eddies of the size of the particles
Chemical Engineering
or those in which it depends on the interaction
Research and Design between particles and large-anisotropic
eddies. In the former case, the process is
Trans IChemE, influenced primarily by the mean specific
Part A, May 2007
energy dissipation rate, (1̄T )js , to some
# 2007 Institution extent independent of impeller type while in
of Chemical Engineers the latter case, (1̄T )js is strongly dependent
on the impeller type.
In the last 50 years, many papers have
been published on this topic and these
papers have been reviewed in detail
(Nienow, 1997a). This review showed that
most of the published papers gave results
similar to those of Zwietering (1958). His
work implies that the large scale eddies are
most important in that different impeller/tank
configurations have very different (1̄T )js
values. This difference has been signified by
the parameter, S (Nienow, 1997a; Zwietering,
1958) that allows Njs for each impeller/tank
configuration to be estimated from
N js ¼ S½g(rs  rl )=rl 0:45 dp0:2
X 0:13 n0:1 =D0:85 (1)
Neither theoretical approach nor the S par-
ameter considers the impact of the roughness
of the tank bottom to be significant. However,
recently, Thorpe and Stevenson (2003)
attempted to relate the particle suspension
phenomena in stirred tanks to that proposed
for hydraulic conveying in pipelines and also
compared literature correlations for the two
configurations. These authors concluded
that just suspended conditions occur at a
certain level of shear stress at the base of
the vessel on the particle due to turbulence,
relative to the shear stress required to bring

685 Vol 85 (A5) 685–690

686 GHIONZOLI et al.
it into motion by overcoming the friction between it and the
base. If the latter aspect is important, it follows that, as the
roughness of the vessel base changes both shear stresses,
it should also impact on the process of solid suspension.
Therefore, it was decided to choose an impeller/tank con-
figuration for which S is available and that is popular in indus-
try for solid/liquid systems because it has a low (1̄T )js, and
measure Njs for different levels of base roughness. It was
also hoped to establish a criterion to predict the effect, if
any, of the bottom roughness on the pick-up of solid particles
in stirred tanks.
EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS
Vessel and Impeller
All the experiments were carried out in a cylindrical vessel,
schematically shown in Figure 1, which was vertically
mounted and open topped. The geometrical characteristics
of the vessel and of the impeller used in present work are
shown in Table 1.
In all cases, the vessel was filled with distilled water to a
height, H, equal to the tank diameter, T, and the impeller
was a 458 pitch, six-bladed turbine, diameter D ¼ 1/3T,
placed with a clearance, C ¼ 1/4T off the base. The vessel
was equipped with four equally-spaced baffles of 0.1T. A
very narrow space was left between the wall and the baffles
to facilitate the motion of fluid near the walls. The base of the
vessel was flat and made of Perspex. Some of the exper-
iments were done with the Perspex bottom surface, as in
many of the earlier studies, which can be considered a
smooth bottom. The others were performed with abrasive
sheets glued on the base. These sheets consisted of grains
of aluminum oxide on a paper backing. In Table 2, the main
characteristics of the abrasive sheets used are shown.
Figure 1. Geometrical configuration of the stirred vessel.
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2007, 85(A5): 685– 690
Table 1. Vessel and impeller characteristics.
Tank diameter, T (mm) 202
Liquid height, H (mm) 202
Volume, V (m3) 0.0065
Impeller type PBT-6b
Clearance, C (mm) 50.5
Impeller diameter, D (mm) 67.41
Baffles width, B (mm) 20.2
Solid Particles
Eight different types of particles were used covering three
densities, (bronze, lead glass and soda glass particles) and
a range of sizes from 128 mm to 1850 mm. Table 3 lists the
details including the density difference based on the use of
distilled water at room temperature.
Power Measurements
The power input was measured for the vessel filled with
distilled water. The power absorption of the impeller was
obtained by measuring the torque exerted onto the shaft.
The shaft torque was measured using a Visco-Mix DUO,
a torque meter produced by Coesfeld Mess-Technik
(Dortmund, Germany).
Impeller Speed Njs: Visual Observation
The minimum impeller speed for ‘just complete suspension’,
Njs, was determined visually as was done by Zwietering (1958)
and most other workers (Nienow, 1997a). For the transparent
Perspex bottom, a light was set beneath it and the observer
looked from the side. Since the rough bottoms were not trans-
parent, in that case, the vessel was illuminated and viewed
from the side and it was enclosed in a square water trough in
order to prevent distortion. However, observation was rela-
tively easy because the last point of suspension was in the
fillets between the base and the cylindrical wall. According to
Zwietering’s criterion, Njs is the minimum speed when the
particles do not remain at rest on the bottom for longer than
one or two seconds before being lifted up so that the suspen-
sion can be considered just complete.
EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND DATA
ANALYSIS
Power Measurements
The power measurements were carried out in water in
order to check the effect of the bottom roughness on the
power draw of the impeller and Figure 2 shows the power
number, Po calculated from it. For any one base, Po was
essentially constant in the fully turbulent region with the fall
occurring at Reynolds number of about 45 000 due to surface
Table 2. Rough bottom characteristics.
Abrasive sheet Average grit size, e (mm)
P120 127
P60 268
P36 524
 THE EFFECT OF BOTTOM ROUGHNESS ON THE MINIMUM AGITATOR SPEED 687

Table 3. Solid particles specifications.

Density difference Average size

Particles Acronym (kg m23) (mm)

Glass powder GP128 1500 128

Lead glass ballotini LGB215 1950 215
Lead glass ballotini LGB300 1950 303
Lead glass ballotini LGB460 1950 460
Blue lead glass BLGB655 1950 655
ballotini
Spherical bronze SBP655 7743 655
powder (89/11)
Lead glass ballotini LGB1090 1950 1090
Lead glass ballotini LGB1850 1950 1850

aeration. Also, Po was the same within experimental error for

all four bases, with a value of 1.7, close to the value reported
earlier (Nienow, 1998). It can be concluded the base rough-
ness has a negligible effect on the turbulent power number.

Solid Suspension Measurements---Effect of the

Bottom Roughness
The minimum impeller speed for just complete suspension,
Njs, was determined in 32 different combinations where either
the vessel bottom or the particle types were varied. The
amount of solid particles stirred in the vessel, X, was also
varied. The lower limit was the minimum that allowed an
accurate assessment of Njs and depended on both the par-
ticle type and the bottom used while the upper limit was
held to 2% by weight at most. Generally, about 10 concen-
trations were used for each bottom/impeller combination.
All the experiments were repeated twice by the same obser-
ver and by comparing the measurements taken under the
same conditions, it was found that the reproducibility of the
results was 1.5% on average and the maximum difference
was less than 5%.
Figure 3 shows four examples of Njs as a function of
concentration X covering the smallest to the largest particles
used. Inspection of these figures shows that with the smallest
particles [Figure 3(a)], the smooth base required the highest
speed whilst with the biggest particles [Figure 3(d)], the
roughest base required the highest. Indeed, in general, the
order of the speeds for the different bases varied with particle
size. However, in each case in Figure 3 and for the other par-
ticles (data not shown), the effect of concentration was very
similar and was very close to that given in equation (1).

Figure 3. Some examples of Njs versus concentration for different

particles with base roughness as a parameter: (a) GP 128; (b) LGB
300; (c) BLGB 655; (d) LGB 1850.

In order to see the effect of bottom roughness on solid

Figure 2. Effect of bottom roughness on power number.
suspension, S was first calculated for the Perspex base tank
using equation (1) to give SS for a smooth base. Figure 4
shows the values of SS obtained as function of particle size.
Size does appear to be having a small effect but the average
SS value of 4.4 + 10% is in good agreement with that reported
earlier for this geometry (Ibrahim and Nienow, 1996).
Subsequently, the parameter, DS/SS ¼ (SR 2 SS)/SS was

Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2007, 85(A5): 685–690
688 GHIONZOLI et al.
calculated where SR referred to a certain rough base with SR
and SS each referring to the same particle size. This
approach allowed the effect of the bottom roughness only
to be developed while neglecting the small influence of par-
ticle size that was revealed by the data of Figure 4.
Figure 5 shows the effect of the particle size on DS/SS as a
function of particle size. The data allows the identification of
two different regimes, dependent on the sign of DS/SS. All the
data for the three different bottom roughnesses follow a similar
trend. Thus, for the smallest particle sizes (128 mm), DS/SS has
negative values, i.e., the soda glass powder, the smallest par-
ticles used, seems to be suspended much more easily from
rough bottoms, with the rougher bottoms being more effective.
With increasing particles size, DS/SS increases to take positive
values and reach a maximum; i.e., particle suspension is more
and more hindered. Eventually, DS/SS decreases and
approaches the zero reference line. Thus, with the biggest
particles, the influence of the rough surface is least.
The effect of the different levels of roughness as indicated in
Figure 5 can be considered in more detail. Thus, the least
rough bottom (P120) gives the highest increase in DS/SS for
particles with a mean diameter of 303 mm, the middle rough-
ness (P60) shows a maximum in DS/SS at 460 mm and the
roughest one (P36) has a maximum at 1090 mm. Moreover,
P120 does not have significant effect on suspension of par-
ticles bigger than 460 mm, while P36 approaches a zero
value of DS/SS much more slowly and its influence is still
notable for particles of 1850 mm. Finally, the maximum value
of DS/SS for the roughest bottom (P36) is much higher than
that for the least rough (P120) and for the middle roughness
(P60) an intermediate value is found. Thus, with decreasing
bottom roughness, it would seem that, as might be expected,
the influence on solid suspension becomes less strong.
Based on the analysis of Figure 5 linking the maxima in
DS/SS to the different degrees of roughness and the particle
size, it was decided to combine the latter two parameters into
a dimensionless roughness, dp/e, where e is the mean grit
size of the bottom (see Table 2). The resulting data have
been plotted in this way in Figure 6. It can be seen that this
method of handling the data has substantially brought it all
together and that for all the bottoms, the ratio DS/SS reaches
a peak at a value of dp/e of about 2.
DISCUSSION
All the analysis of the data so far shows that the bottom
roughness has a significant effect on solid suspension, but
Figure 4. Effect of particle size on the Zwietering constant SS for a
smooth base.
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2007, 85(A5): 685– 690
Figure 5. Effect of the bottom roughness on DS/SS.
it does not give any physical insight into the phenomenon.
In order to achieve a better understanding of the results, it
is useful to consider several studies which have been carried
out both on the effect of eddy size on solid suspension in a
stirred tank and on the effect of roughness on turbulence
structure in a channel.
Firstly, the interaction between the small eddies in the iner-
tial sub-range of turbulence and the particles plays an import-
ant role in the pick-up mechanism, as pointed out by Baldi
et al. (1978). According to those authors, only eddies with a
size (defined by the local 1T ) of the order of the particles
are involved in causing solid suspension. If the eddies are
smaller than dp, they do not contain sufficient energy to lift
the particles, while if the eddies are larger, they approach
the base too seldom to lift them completely.
However, the eddy sizes depend not only on local 1T from
Kolmogoroff’s theory. Close to the bottom, where the particles
are settled, eddy sizes are also influenced by the wall rough-
ness. Cui et al. (2003), who studied the flow in a channel with
spaced ribs to create roughness showed, using large-eddy
simulation, that surface roughness elements have a great
influence on the flow structure near the wall; in particular,
the flow structures depend on the roughness height. Thus,
the results by Cui et al. (2003) suggest a possible reason
for the influence of the roughness of the bottom on the
suspension of particles; the eddy sizes close to the bottom
surface have a length scale of the order of the roughness
elements and, depending on their size, they affect, in different
ways, the suspension of the particles.
However, in addition, there is also evidence that the level
of turbulence in a stirred vessel, expressed as 1̄T , affects
Figure 6. Effect of the dimensionless roughness, dp/e, on DS/SS.
 THE EFFECT OF BOTTOM ROUGHNESS ON THE MINIMUM AGITATOR SPEED 689

the interactions between particles and fluid, as it provokes a

change in the flow field around the particle compared to the
case without turbulence. This change is indicated by the
different settling velocity, us, of particles in a turbulent fluid
compared to the terminal settling velocity, ut, in a still one.
This difference has been explained by Magelli et al. (1990)
and Brucato et al. (1998). They examined the suspension
of millimetre and submillimetre particles and found that the
ratio between the particle settling velocity in a turbulent fluid
and that in the fluid at rest varied in the range 0.2 –1 and
0.15–1 respectively. They were then able to attribute this
difference to changes in the particle drag coefficient, CD,
which determines us and ut in the two flow fields. In particular,
they expressed the effect of turbulence on CD in terms of lK Figure 7. Effect of ratio lK/dp on DS/SS.
and showed that when the turbulence scale, lK, is small
enough in comparison with the particle size, i.e., lK/
dp , 0.1, the turbulence causes an increase in the particle and being suspended from it by the flow near the bottom.
drag coefficient. On the contrary, when the ratio lK/dp is Here the turbulence interacts with the particles, enhancing
greater than 0.1, i.e., when the particle diameter is less the drag coefficient and decreasing their settling velocity rela-
than 10 lK, the eddies have no significant influence on the tive to a quiescent system. With increasing lK/dp, and there-
particles motion, i.e., the drag coefficient is not affected by fore increasing lK for a fixed particle size, the settling velocity
turbulence. increases until it reaches us, i.e., when it is equal to the
Therefore, because of the similarity between particle settling velocity in the quiescent fluid. However, as previously
suspension and settling velocity, it is interesting to analyse pointed out, close to the bottom of the vessel, the roughness
how the parameter DS/SS is related to the ratio between elements increase locally the size of the eddies (Cui et al.,
the Kolmogoroff microscale, lK, and the particle diameter, 2003), even though in this work, 1̄T remains essentially the
dp. The Kolmogoroff length scale is given by same. Therefore, according to this hypothesis, for a fixed par-
ticle size, an increase of the bottom roughness causes an
lK ¼ (n3 =1T )1=4 (2) increase of the size of the dissipating eddies close to the
bottom of the vessel. As a result, the settling velocity rises
where n is the liquid kinematic viscosity and 1T is the local and therefore the value DS/SS rises too. Support for this
specific energy dissipation rate. It would seem appropriate analysis comes from the fact that for the least rough bottom
to use a value of 1T for the base of the vessel but this is (P120), the mean increment of DS/SS, with respect to the
not known. However, local 1T values are proportional to the smooth bottom, is about 1.3%, for the next roughness
mean value, 1̄T and that parameter was used previously (P60), it is 13% and for the roughest (P36), it is about 20%.
(Magelli et al., 1990; Brucato et al., 1998). 1̄T is equivalent Such arguments, though more empirically-based, have
to the specific power dissipation throughout the vessel been used in the terminal velocity-slip velocity theory of
given by solid –liquid mass transfer (Nienow, 1997b).
If lK/dp . 0.1 so that the particle size is relatively small
1̄T ¼ P=rV ¼ PoN 3 D5 =V (3) relative to lK, its settling velocity is the same as its terminal
velocity in the still fluid. This is equivalent to saying that the
Because of the low solid concentration, the power number for particles move with the large anisotropic eddies, again an
the solid –liquid mixture has been considered equal to the argument that has been used for estimating mass transfer
power number of the single-phase (Figure 2). coefficients in solid–liquid systems (Nienow, 1997b).
Following the approach of Magelli et al. (1990) and Brucato
et al. (1998), in Figure 7, the dimensionless parameter, DS/
SS, has been plotted against the dimensionless parameter,
lK/dp. The experimental results show that at lK/dp  0.1 –
0.2, DS/SS is approximately constant for each and depends
significantly on the roughness of the base whilst for greater
values, DS/SS for all the bases converge and follow the
same downward trend. The observation of a change in beha-
vior at values of lK/dp of this order is in good agreement with
earlier work (Magelli et al., 1990; Brucato et al., 1998), an
example of which is shown in Figure 8 for the convenience
of the readers.
Building further on the above analysis, it suggests that the
influence of the turbulence on solid suspension varies
according to whether the value of lK/dp is . or . 0.1. If
lK/dp , 0.1, the suspension of solid particles depends on
the interactions between turbulent eddies and the solid par-
ticles. The latter are in dynamic equilibrium, falling from the Figure 8. Effect of ratio lK/dp on the ratio between settling velocity,
bulk of the tank towards the bottom under the action of gravity us, and terminal velocity, ut, (from Magelli et al., 1990).

Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2007, 85(A5): 685–690
690 GHIONZOLI et al.
Therefore, in that range of lK/dp, the speed of just
suspension, Njs, should not be influenced by the impact of
the roughness on the turbulent eddy sizes. However, as
suggested by Thorpe and Stevenson (2003), the protruding
roughness elements can provide particles with an upward
impulse, thus making the pick up easier. This could explain
why in this range of lK/dp, for the smaller particles, the
rough bottoms help solid suspension sufficiently to give
DS/SS values that are negative.
Finally, it is worth noting, again as proposed by Thorpe and
Stevenson (2003), that there is also probably some impact of
the base roughness on the ability of particles to move across
it and be lifted due to particle-base frictional stresses. Analys-
ing such effects is difficult but the maximum in DS/SS at
dp/e  2 might be linked also to that mechanism. Particles
of just that approximate size might fit best in the interstices
and be most difficult to move whilst much bigger ones than
that level of roughness would ‘sit’ on top of the protruding
elements. Smaller particles would not be so restricted
and for very tiny ones, the enhancement noted above could
dominate leading to negative values of DS/SS.
A recent paper by Uby (2006) has also considered the
implications of earlier work on slurry transport in pipes and
channels for solid suspension on stirred vessels. His analysis
suggested that for very tiny particles, a rough surface created
some turbulence in the otherwise laminar boundary layer and
this led to lower velocities being required to transport such
particles in rough pipes compared to smooth. Thus, he con-
cluded, as shown here, that Njs would be higher in smooth
based vessels than in rough for small particles, i.e., negative
values of DS/SS.
CONCLUSIONS
Experimental results showing the influence of bottom
roughness, e, on the just-completely suspended speed, Njs,
of different particles have been presented. They indicate
that suspension of the small particles, with diameter less
than 10 lK is helped by the roughness, i.e., Njs is less than
with a smooth bottom. With increasing size, dp, rough bot-
toms begin to hinder suspension and this trend is followed
until dp/e  2 for all particle sizes and bottom roughnesses.
Eventually, with further increases in dp/e, the influence of
the rough surface became weaker and weaker. It was also
found that with decreasing bottom roughness, the effect on
solid suspension becomes less strong.
Interaction between the roughness elements, the particles
and the turbulent field is proposed as a means to explain this
behaviour. Studies on the settling velocity of particles in stir-
red vessels and on the effects of rib roughness in pipe flow
are useful for giving a physical interpretation of the mechan-
isms involved in particle pick-up from a rough bottom. The
importance of the Kolmogoroff length scale, lK, compared
to dp has also been established with a critical value of
lK/dp  0.1 as in other aspects of solid –liquid mixing.
However, this behaviour also presents some similarities
with that predicted by the numerical calculations of Sommer-
feld (2003) on the effect of wall roughness on particle trans-
port. His predictions showed that for small particles, wall
roughness induces a reduction of the particle-wall collision
frequency, whereas it leads to a drastic increase of this
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2007, 85(A5): 685– 690
characteristic for large particles. It also showed that the wall
collision frequency has a great influence on the horizontal
component of the particle velocity resulting overall in, for
small particles, an increase in this component near the wall
and for large particles, a decrease.
Clearly, as proposed by Thorpe and Stevenson (2003),
particle-base interactions are important for the understanding
of solid suspension in stirred vessels and this study is the first
to specifically address that issue by looking at base rough-
ness coupled with a number of different types of particle.
However, though this corroboration of their hypothesis
suggests that the Zwietering analysis has a fundamental
weakness as it is lacking any consideration of this mechan-
ism, the differences between the rough and the smooth
bases is not so marked that the Zwietering approach can
no longer be recommended. It is still probably the best
method available for determining this vital operating par-
ameter, Njs, for solid –liquid agitated systems. On the other
hand, this study certainly suggests that more work might
usefully be undertaken involving the use of more extreme
shapes such as plates or needles where the change in the
stress balance might be much greater.
REFERENCES
Baldi, G., Conti, R. and Alaria, E., 1978, Complete suspension of par-
ticles in mechanically agitated vessels, Chem Eng Sci, 33: 21–25.
Brucato, A., Grisafi, F. and Montante, G., 1998, Particle drag coeffi-
cients in turbulent fluids, Chem Eng Sci, 53: 3295– 3314.
Cui, J., Patel, V.C. and Lin, C.L., 2003, Large-eddy simulation of
turbulent flow in a channel with rib roughness, Int J Heat Fluid
Flow, 24: 372–388.
Ibrahim, S. and Nienow, A.W., 1996, Particle suspension in the
turbulent regime: the effect of impeller type and impeller/vessel
configuration, Trans IChemE, Part A, 74: 679– 688.
Magelli, F., Fajner, D., Nocentini, M. and Pasquali, G., 1990, Solids
distribution in vessel stirred with multiple impellers, Chem Eng
Sci, 45: 615–625.
Nienow, A.W., 1997a, The suspension of solid particles, in Harnby,
N., Edwards, M.F. and Nienow, A.W. (eds). Mixing in the Process
Industries (2nd edition) (paperback revision) 364– 393 (Butterworth
Heinemann, London, UK).
Nienow, A.W., 1997b, The mixer as a reactor—liquid/solid systems,
in Harnby, N., Edwards, M.F. and Nienow, A.W. (eds). Mixing in the
Process Industries (2nd edition) (paperback revision), 394– 411.
(Butterworth Heinemann, London, UK).
Nienow, A.W., 1998, Hydrodynamics of stirred bioreactors, in Pohor-
ecki, R. (ed.). Fluid Mechanics Problems in Biotechnology App
Mech Rev, 51: 3 –32.
Sommerfeld, M., 2003, Analysis of collision effects for turbulent gas--
particle flow in a horizontal channel: Part I Particle transport
Int J Multiphase Flow, 29: 675– 699.
Thorpe, R.B. and Stevenson, P., 2003, Suspension of particles from
the bottom of pipes and stirred tanks by gassed and ungassed
flows, Can J Chem Eng, 81: 351–359.
Uby, L., 2006, New regimes and correlations for just suspended
speed, Proc 12th Eur Conf on Mixing, Bologna, 27– 30 June,
AIDIC, Milan, 249– 255.
Zwietering, Th.N., 1958, Suspending of solid particles in liquid by
agitators, Chem Eng Sci, 8: 244 –253.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Financial support from Du Pont Engineering, Wilmington,
Delaware, USA is gratefully acknowledged.
The manuscript was received 15 September 2006 and accepted
for publication after revision 8 February 2007.