Figure 12 Comparison between the experimental breakup rate and predicted results using the breakup rate model of Han Zhou et al. (2019) 45, c10 = 11,β = 2. (a) System No.1, N=330 ~480 rpm; (b) System No.1-3, N=330 rpm; (c) System No.1,4-5, N=480 rpm.
In our previous research45, an empirical correlation of the drop breakup rate was constructed based on the dimensionless analysis. The correlation is expressed as:
And:
Where σ drop is the drop restoring stress, representing the ability resisting the drop deformation.σ v,c, and σ v,d represent the viscous stress of the continuous phase and the dispersed phase respectively. τ t is the disruptive stress, which can be calculated using Equation 5 in Section 3.2.
Equation 17 was adopted to predict the breakup rate in this study. The calculated results were plotted in Figure 12. It can be seen that a good agreement between the predicted value and the experimental breakup rate is obtained, which further proved the accuracy and expansibility of Equation 17. Moreover, it should also be pointed out that Equation 17 presents the monotone property of the breakup rate with increasing the drop diameter. Considering that the drop breakup time is getting larger with the increase of drop size, while the breakup probability of the drop has an upper limit of 100%. Thus, the monotone property of Equation 17 can only be strictly valid when the breakup probability of the drop is relatively low. Based on the experimental breakup rate in Figure 12 and the correlation of the breakup time in Equation 12, the breakup possibility (P b) in this study can be calculated using Equation 20. The results are then plotted in Figure 13. It can be seen that the values of P b are all lower than 10%, which further proved the applicability of the breakup model used in this study.