DOI: 10.1002/srin.200800135
Breakup of Gas Bubbles Rising in Molten Metals
K. Wichterle
VSB-Technical University of Ostrava, 70833 Ostrava Poruba, Czech Republic, kamil.wichterle@vsb.cz
A theory on the breakup of rising bubbles is developed on the basis of long-term experiments with bubbles rising in different liquids. The
probability of bubble breakup is expressed in terms of half-life as a dimensionless function of the bubble volume and liquid properties. The results
are applied to develop a mathematical model of bubbles rising in a column of high density liquid under a low external pressure. The model
predicts that in typical steelmaking equipment the size of bubbles approaching the liquid level depends mostly on the external pressure and it is
quite independent of the original size of the bubbles.
Keywords: gas bubbles in liquid, mathematical model, vacuum degassing
Submitted on 6 August 2008, accepted on 29 January 2010
Introduction
Larger bubbles rising in a liquid become unstable and of
oscillating shape and sometimes they split. The probability
of bubble breakup increases with the bubble size. Currently,
the breakup is observed during the bubble formation and it
is less significant during the bubble rise. However, when
the bubble volume increases for different reasons, e.g. due
to decreasing pressure, increasing temperature, boiling,
desorption or chemical reactions, the breakup may occur all
the time and it controls the bubble size. This paper presents a
general mathematical model of bubble breakup for rising
expanding bubbles. As an example, the model is applied to
the vacuum degassing treatment of liquid metals.
State-of-the-art. One important process of steelmaking
technology is argon-vacuum degassing [1–3]. Typically 200 t
of molten steel is placed in a ladle. Argon bubbles are
introduced at the ladle bottom to provide agitation by gas-lift
effect, to strip other dissolved gases and to remove immiscible
slag particles. The typical height of the steel level is 5 m. An
external pressure of about 50 Pa (vacuum) is kept at the level.
Bubble movement under these conditions is quite specific.
The change from the ferrostatic pressure at the bottom, which
is 0.4 MPa, to this vacuum means that the bubble volume
expands by 4 decimal orders during its floating to the ladle
surface level. According to these conditions, breakup of
increasing bubbles might be extremely important here.
Direct observation of bubbles in liquid steel is quite
complicated; measuring methods applicable either in
industrial scale or in laboratory models are quite limited
[4–7]. Therefore, modelling with other liquids is an essential
way of the process investigation. Experimental modelling by
using more user-friendly liquid metals like Wood metal
[8–17] or mercury [18] was done in certain laboratories.
Surprisingly, chemical engineering similarity analysis
[19, 20] indicates that when modelling the bubble-liquid
interactions, the simplest air-water system is more similar to
liquid steel than these metals, which is shown in Table 1.
356 ß 2010 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
steel research int. 81 (2010) No.
Hundreds of experimental, theoretical and numerical studies
on bubbles rising in water and other common liquids have
been published as well as a number of monographs on the
subject [21–28]. In relation to metallurgy ladles, degassing
equipment, tundish, and continuous casting, the application
of cold models is very popular. Few laboratories have
presented hydrodynamic models with volumes of more than
1 m3 [29–31], most bench scale studies took place in
volumes smaller than 100 l [32–45]. Vacuum is applied very
rarely [46]. Under such circumstances rising of bubbles does
not take more than few seconds and expansion of bubbles
and consequential breakup could be neglected. Therefore,
there is a lack of data on breakup which is particularly
important in industrial metallurgy ladles; however it is also
significant in large-scale airlift equipment [47–50].
Investigation of bubble breakup is mostly oriented either
to the problems of bubble formation in orifices or to the
breakup of bubbles subjected to external forces in ambient
flow in pipes, sparged columns and in agitated vessels
[51–65]. However, little attention is paid to the problem of
breakup during the free rising of bubbles in liquid at rest.
Experimental
Rising bubbles levitating in diverging downstream liquid
flow can be observed for quite a long period [66]. We have
developed a similar equipment which enables to observe the
behaviour of freely rising bubbles qualitatively and
quantitatively under defined conditions. Breakup of rising
medium size bubbles with diameters d0 ¼ 2.5
11 mm was
studied in our laboratory in water and glycerol solutions [67]
and recently in butyl alcohol and in water with electrolyte or
polymer additives [68]. Apparently the large bubbles are
essentially unstable. Detailed analysis shows that there is a
certain fuzzy region between the stable and broken bubbles.
It can be characterized by the half-life of the bubbles which
can be determined by observation of a statistically mean-
ingful number of bubbles.
www.steelresearch-journal.com
Process Metallurgy steel research int. 81 (2010) No. 5

Table 1. Properties of liquid metals and common low viscosity liquids.

temperature density dynamic kinematic surface tension length scale time scale instability
viscosity viscosity parameter
liquid T r m n s (s/(rg))1/2 (sg3/r)1/4 K
o 3 2
3
C kg/m Pa  s m /s N/m m s m s-1/4
molten steel 1500 7200 5  10
3 0.7  10
6 1.4 4.45  10
3 0.021 0.15  106

water 25 1000 1.0  10
3 1.0  10
6 0.073 2.73  10
3 0.017 0.86  106
mercury 25 13500 1.5  10
3 1.1  10
6 0.46 1.86  10
3 0.014 2.83  106
Wood metal 80 10600 3  10
3 0.3  10
6 0.40 1.96  10
3 0.014 2.42  106
tin 250 7000 0.8  10
3 1.1  10
6 0.48 2.64  10
3 0.016 0.95  106
hexane 25 650 0.35  10
3 0.5  10
6 0.018 1.68  10
3 0.013 3.92  106

When starting with N(0) bubbles, the number N(t) of for particular materials are presented in Table 1. Here again,
surviving bubbles decays exponentially according to water is a fair model for studying bubbles in liquid steel.
N ðtÞ Analysis
¼ expð
r tÞ: (1)
N ð0Þ
The breakup rate was characterized by the half-life of Statistics evaluation of breakup events provided a simple
rising bubbles model of the process. It is applied here for prediction of
bubble size during motion under decreasing pressure.
ln 2 Let us consider a given volume Q0 of gas infused into a
t1=2 ¼ : (2)
r liquid as a large number of uniform size bubbles of volume
V0. The number of bubbles is N0 ¼ Q0/V0. The volume of gas
Generally, it can be assumed that t1/2 depends on the
is not constant when the hydrostatic pressure of the ambient
bubble size, and on the liquid’s properties, such as density r
liquid decreases from the viewpoint of the rising bubbles.
and viscosity m, and on the characteristics of the interface.
Other reason for the volume change may be time change of
As the experiments with glycerol solutions indicate, the
external pressure during vacuum treatment, thermal expan-
effect of viscosity is minor, and the interface effects are
sion of gas, desorption of dissolved gas etc. Anyhow, the
essential. Assuming that they could be characterized by a
resulting volume of gas is a certain function Q(t) and
single value, surface tension s, a dimensionless quantity can
accordingly, the volume of a single bubble is
be established as
V0 ðtÞ ¼ V0 QðtÞ=Q0 (9)
t1=2 r1=4 g3=4
Q1=2  (3) The equivalent bubble diameter (diameter of a sphere of
s 1=4
identical volume) is:
depending only on the Eötvös number


r g d2 6 V0 ðtÞ 1=3
Eo  (4) d0 ðtÞ ¼ : (10)
s p

An empirical power-law function Bubbles may split. Medium size ellipsoidal bubbles
usually provide two daughter bubbles of nearly identical
Q1=2 ¼ 5:9  109 Eo
6 ðR2 ¼ 0:88Þ: (5) size. Large, unstable bubbles release chaotically groups of
smaller daughter bubbles, nevertheless the size of grand-
fits approximately the experimental data [67]. According to
grand-. . .-daughter bubbles becomes more and more uni-
this result, the kinetic constant in (1) can be expressed as a
form and the size distribution of medium size bubbles in
function of bubble volume
resulting swarm is quite narrow as shown schematically in
r ¼ ðK V Þa (6) Figure 1.
This situation is considered as a starting point for the
where presented mathematical model. Accordingly, the volume of
a¼4 (7) thr first generation of daughter bubble is

The values of the instability parameter K V1 ðtÞ ¼ V0 ðtÞ=2 (11)

0:25  1:5625 and for the i-th generation of daughter bubble it is
6 ln 2 0:125 r g
K¼ g (8)
p 5:9  109 s Vi ðtÞ ¼ V0 ðtÞ=2i (12)

www.steelresearch-journal.com ß 2010 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 357
steel research int. 81 (2010) No. 5 Process Metallurgy

gas holdup, where the bubble interactions are less signifi-

cant. Then, the volume fraction of mother bubbles decreases
dm0
¼
r m0 (18)
dt
When the volume of gas in the system increases according
to (9), application of (6) gives


dm0 QðtÞ a
¼
K V0 m0 : (19a)
dt Qð0Þ
The first generation of daughter bubbles can split as well
and its balance is


dm1 dm0 V0 QðtÞ a
¼

K m1 ; (19b)
dt dt 2 Qð0Þ
Generally, for the i-th generation (i ¼ 1,2,3. . .) it is


dmi QðtÞ a  mi
1 mi 
¼ K V0
: (19c)
dt Qð0Þ 2ði
1Þa 2i a
We shall consider a simple starting point
m0 ¼ 1 and mi ¼ 0 for i ¼ 1; 2; 3 . . . at t ¼ 0 (19d)
Figure 1. Breakup of bubbles of increasing volume.
To formally simplify following formulas, we introduce
the variables
The respective number of bubbles, Ni, in the i-th
generation occupy the volume Zt
a
a QðsÞ
t  ðK V0 Þ d s; (20)
Qi ðtÞ ¼ Ni ðtÞ Vi ðtÞ (13) Qð0Þ
0
and the total gas volume is
X and
Qi ðtÞ ¼ QðtÞ (14) e ¼ 2
a : (21)
i

Then the volume fraction of the i-th generation bubbles is Then, the mathematical model of the process is the
following set of ordinary differential equations
Qi ðtÞ
mi ðtÞ ¼ (15) dm0
QðtÞ ¼
m0 (22a)
dt
Mean (Sauter) equivalent diameter of all bubbles can be
and
defined as
P dmi
6 Ni ðtÞ Vi ðtÞ ¼ ei
1 mi
1
ei mi ; for i ¼ 1; 2; 3 . . . (22b)
d0 ðtÞ dt
dA ¼ Pi ¼P ; (16)
Ni ðtÞ Ai ðtÞ mi ðtÞ 2i=3 with the condition
i i

where Ai(t) is the surface area of i-th generation bubble. m0 ¼ 1 for t ¼ 0: (22c)
Average bubble volume is defined as
Its solution is simply
p V0 ð0Þ QðtÞ
VA  dA3 ¼
3 (17) X
i
6 P i=3
mi ¼ bi;j expð
ej tÞ (23)
Qð0Þ mi ðtÞ 2 j¼0
i

When the kinetics of bubble breakup is known, these where

values can be predicted by the following theoretical model.
b0;0 ¼ 1
Cascade of bubble breakup. Assume that the breakup of i

Y  i

Y  (24a)
ekþ1 1
bubbles in a swarm follows the relation (6) determined for a bi;0 ¼
bi;i ¼
1
ek 1
ek
single bubble. It is plausible at least for the systems with low k¼1 k¼1

358 ß 2010 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.steelresearch-journal.com
Process Metallurgy steel research int. 81 (2010) No. 5

with the correction factor

2 t 3
1a
Z

QðtÞ 41 QðsÞ a 5
C ds (27)
Qð0Þ t Qð0Þ
0

which becomes C ¼ 1 when the total gas volume does not

change. Evidently, the mean bubble size for larger t does
not depend on the initial conditions (mother bubble size).

Breakup cascade for bubble rising in hydrostatic (ferro-

Figure 2. Breakup cascade for equal bubble size as a function of static) column. Bubbles rising in a larger column expand due
dimensionless time t in decadic logarithme scale. to decreasing hydrostatic pressure. In particular, if gas is
released in a depth H of a liquid column of density r (signi-
ficantly higher than the gas density), then the gas volume Q
and generally depends on the bubble position and on the external pressure at
the liquid level. It is known [21–28] that rising velocity, v, of
i
j

Y Y
i
3
 medium size bubbles in low viscosity liquids is nearly
ek
1 1
bi;j ¼
(24b) independent on Reynolds and Eötvös number and in water it is
k¼1
1
ek k¼0 1
ek usually 0.2–0.3 m/s. Considering v to be nearly constant, the
change of volume of an ideal gas with time is given by
The distribution of mother and daughter bubbles is plotted  b
in Figure 2 for the values a ¼ 4 and e ¼ 0.0625 from (7) and QðtÞ p0 þ r g H
¼ (28)
(21). Qð0Þ p0 þ r g H
r g v t
The respective time development of the Sauter mean
diameter, according to (8), is shown in Figure 3. where
Apparently, there is an asymptote b¼1 for isothermal process (29a)

VA Qð0Þ b ¼ 1=g for adiabatic process (29b)

¼1
V0 ð0Þ QðtÞ (25) Let us transform this relation using the dimensionless
for the start-up period t << 0:1 parameter
p0
when breakup can be neglected. B ; (30)
rgH
The average bubble size slightly oscillates about a line
which characterizes the relation of external pressure to the
VA Qð0Þ 0:64 hydrostatic pressure. The dimensionless coordinate
¼
V0 ð0Þ QðtÞ t1=a (26a) tv
X ¼ (31)
for developed breakup at t >> 0:1: H
is the ratio of the bubble path length to the column height.
The last relation can be rewritten as Then the correction factor C in Equation (27) is expressed
by
0:64 "
VA ¼ C (26b)
ab
1 !#
1a
K t1=a ð1 þ B
X Þ X
C¼ 1
1
(32)
X ðab
1Þ Bþ1

If either t ! 0 or B >> 1, the volume change is negligible

and C ! 1.
Otherwise,
0:64
VA ¼ CðX ; B; a; bÞ (33)
K t1=a
where the function CðX ; B; a; bÞ rises with X as plotted in
Figure 4.
The important parameter B is very high for common
Figure 3. Sauter mean diameter of breaking bubbles as a function of laboratory experiments in small vessels and the assumption
time in log-log scale. of C ¼ 1 is acceptable in most cases here.

www.steelresearch-journal.com ß 2010 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 359
steel research int. 81 (2010) No. 5 Process Metallurgy

According to our estimate, the typical equivalent diameter

of bubbles leaving the level of liquid steel in a ladle under
vacuum degassing is about 30 mm. It is in accordance with
the experimental results, e.g. by Iguchi et al. [70].
This size is nearly independent on the ladle depth when at
least two breakup events occur during the bubble rise. In that
case, the conditions at the ladle surface essentially control
the bubble size irrespectively of the technique of gas
introduction, temperature variation and the chemical
reaction process.

Figure 4. Correction factor C for a ¼ 4 as a function of X for different Conclusion

B, ––– isothermal expansion - - - - adiabatic expansion.
The size of bubbles rising as a swarm in a large column
Other situation is in large airlift equipment [47–50], e.g. in where breakup occurs can be estimated using the developed
pachuca tanks for leaching of ores where H  20 m and model based on experimental data for single bubble rise and
B  0.5. breakup probability under constant pressure conditions.
The extreme cases occurs just in metallurgy during Dimensional analysis offers predictions both for common
vacuum degassing of liquid steel (r ¼ 7200 kg/m3) stirred low-viscosity liquids and for liquid metals. It can also be
by argon bubbles, where p0 may be as low as 100 Pa and H as applied for estimating the heat and mass transfer processes in
high as 5m which gives B  0.0005 For small B, the formula various metallurgical applications, including treatment by
(32) can be simplified as oxygen, argon, hydrogen, carbohydrates, etc. Concerning
 1 physical modelling of the systems with significant expan-
ða
1Þ a sion, namely under vacuum, water models assuming normal
C¼ for X ! 1 and B << 1: (34)
B ambient pressure can be still applied; in that case, other
portions of gas should be subjoined at different liquid levels
A higher value of C means that the bubble breakup is to the stream of bubbles introducted at the bottom to simulate
slower than gas expansion. When bubbles approach the the bubble expansion.
liquid level, the expansion is fast and size of bubbles
depends mainly on the external pressure, p0. If the liquid
column is high enough, according to (26b) the breakup Nomenclature
process becomes independent of initial conditions and the
mean bubble volume should be simply related to the local a empirical exponent of breakup rate correlation (6)
pressure, p, expansion exponent (31)
b
 1
0:64 ða
1Þ r g v a B dimensionless parameter (30)
VA ¼ Eötvös number (4)
K p (35) Eo
H liquid column depth
for X ¼ 1 and B << 1: K instability parameter (6)
Bubbles approaching the liquid surface level – m volume fraction of given bubbles
example. The values of mean bubble diameters, estimated N number of bubbles
by Eq. (34) with the constants (16-17) calculated for water p pressure
and for liquid steel [18] are presented in Table 2. Q gas volume
While for water at external pressure p ¼ 100 000 Pa the r kinetics constant of breakup
mean bubble size (bubbles at the sea level) is by our model t time
dA  9 mm, the diameter of bubbles leaving water at a low t1/2 half-life of breakup
pressure (100 Pa) space is dA  16 mm. v bubble rise velocity
The diameters of gas bubbles in liquid steel are predicted V single bubble volume
to be approximately two times larger than in water. X dimensionless coordinate (31)
g Poisson constant
Table 2. Size of bubbles approaching the liquid surface level from e parameter (21)
deep column as a function of external pressure.
Q1/2 dimensionless half-life of breakup (3)
External 100 000 10 000 1 000 100 m dynamic viscosity of liquid
pressure, p0 [Pa]
r liquid density
Sauter water 9.1 11.0 13.3 16.1 s surface tension
diameter, t dimensionless time (20)
dA [mm] liquid steel 17.8 21.6 26.1 31.7
C factor of breakup retardation (32)

360 ß 2010 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.steelresearch-journal.com
Process Metallurgy
Indexes
A average (Sauter)
0 initial
i daughter bubbles of i-th generation
w water
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge financial support by the grant
No.104/07/1110 from the Grant Agency of the Czech
Republic.
References
[1] Y. Sadhai, R. I. L. Guthrie: in: Advances in Transport Processes, Vol.
4 (eds: A. S Mujumdar, R. A. Mashelkar), Wiley Eastern, New
Delhi, 1986, pp. 1–48.
[2] Y. Sadhai, S. Chakraborty: in: Advances in Transport Processes in
Metallurgical Systems, (Y Sahai, G. R. StPierre, eds.), Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 1992, pp. 165–462.
[3] T. Tatsuoka, C. Kamata, K. Ito: ISIJ Int. 37 (1997), 557.
[4] C. Catana, V. S. Gotsis, E. Dourdounis, G. N. Angelopoulos,
D. C. Papamantellos, K. Mavrommatis: Steel Research, 73 (2002),
No. 12, 513.
[5] K. T. Muller, L. Holappa, D. Neuschütz: Steel Research Int, 74
(2003), No. 1, 61.
[6] M. Iguchi, H. Kawabata, Y. Ito, K. Nakajima, Z. Morita: ISIJ Int, 34
(1994), No. 12, 980.
[7] Z. J. Han, L. Holappa: ISIJ Int, 43 (2003), 1698.
[8] M. Iguchi, Y. Demoto, N. Sugawara, Z. Morita: ISIJ Int, 32 (1992),
998.
[9] Z. H. Lin, R. I. L. Guthrie: Metall. Mater. Trans. B 25 (1994), 855.
[10] Y. K. Xie, F. Oeters: Steel Research, 63 (1992), 93.
[11] Y. K. Xie, S. Orsten, F. Oeters: ISIJ Int, 32 (1992), 66.
[12] Y. K. Xie, F. Oeters: Steel Research, 65 (1994), 315.
[13] H. Tokunaga, M. Iguchi, H. Tatemichi: ISIJ Int, 35 (1995), 21.
[14] M. Iguchi, H. Tokunaga, H. Tatemichi: Metall. Mater. Trans. B 28
(1997), 1053.
[15] K. Mishima, T. Hibiki, Y Saito:, et al. Nuclear Inst. and Methods in
Physics Res. A, 424 (1999), 229.
[16] M. Iguchi, H. Tokunaga: Metall. Mater. Trans. B 33 (2002), 695.
[17] M. Thunman, S. Eckert, O. Hennig, J. Björkvall, D. Sichen: Steel
Research Int, 78 (2007), No. 12, 849.
[18] Y. K. Xie, S. Orsten, F. Oeters: ISIJ Int, 32 (1992), 66.
[19] R.I.L.: Guthrie Engineering in process metallurgy, Oxford University
Press, N.Y, 2002.
[20] K. Wichterle, M. C. Ruzicka: in: Scale-up in Metallurgy,
(M. Lackner, ed.) ProcessEng Engineering GmbH, ISBN: 978-3-
902655-10-3 in press: 2010.
[21] R. Clift, J. R. Grace, M. E. Weber: Bubbles, Drops and Particles,
Academic Press, New York, 1978.
[22] L. van Wijngaarden: Mechanics and Physics of Bubbles in Liquids,
Martinus Nijhoff Publ, The Hague, 1982.
[23] J. R. Grace, M. E. Weber: in: Handbook of Multiphase Systems,
Part 1 (G. Hetsroni, ed.), Hemisphere, New York, 1982, pp. 204–
223.
[24] L.-S. Fan, K. Tsutschiya: Bubble Wake Dynamics in Liquids and
Liquid-Solid Suspensions, Butterworth, Boston, 1990.
[25] R. P. Chabra, D. DeKee: Transport Processes In Bubbles, Drops And
Particles, Hemisphere, New York, 1992.
[26] R. P. Chabra: Bubbles, Drops And Particles in Non/Newtonian
Fluids, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1993.
[27] S. S. Sadhal, P. S. Ayyaswamy, J. N. Chang: Transport Phenomena
with Drops and Bubbles, Springer, New York, 1997.
www.steelresearch-journal.com ß 2010 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
steel research int. 81 (2010) No. 5
[28] Z. Zapryanov, S. Tabakova: Dynamics of Bubbles, Drops and Rigid
Particles, Kluwer Acad. Publ, Dordrecht, 1999.
[29] J. Wang, M. Y. Zhu, H. B. Zhou, Y. Wang: J. Iron Steel Res. Int. 15
(2008), 26.
[30] B. L. Smith: Applied Math. Modelling 22 (1998), 773.
[31] M. A. S. C. CastelloBranco, K. Schwerdtfeger: Metall. Mater. Trans.
B 27 (1996), 231.
[32] J. Szekely, H. J. Wang, K. M. Kiser: Metall. Trans. 13 (1976), 287.
[33] S. T. Johansen, D. G. C. Robertson, K. Woje, T. A. Engh: Metall.
Trans. B 19 (1988), 745.
[34] M. Zhou, J. K. Brimacombe: Metall. Trans. B 25 (1994), 681.
[35] S. M. Pan, J. D. Chiang, W. S. Hwang: J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 6
(1997), 113.
[36] S. V. Komarov, N. Sano: ISIJ Int, 38 (1998), 1045.
[37] J. H. Wei, J. C. Ma, Y. Y Fan:, et al. Ironmaking & Steelmaking, 26
(1999), 363.
[38] S. M. Pan, J. D. Chiang, W. S. Hwang: J. Mater. Eng. and Perform. 8
(1999), 236.
[39] K. S. Lee, W. O. Yang, Y. G. Park, K. W. Yi: Metals and Materials, 6
(2000), 461.
[40] J. H. Wei: Journal of Shanghai University (Eng), 6 (2002), 1.
[41] D. Guo, G. A. Irons: Metall. Mater. Trans. B 33 (2002), 377.
[42] D. Guo, G. A. Irons: Metall. Mater. Trans. B 31 (2000), 1447.
[43] Y. J. Kang, L. Yu, S. C. Du: Ironmaking & Steelmaking, 34 (2007),
253.
[44] K. Michalek, J. Morávka, K. Gryc: Acta Metallurgica Slovaca, 14
(2008), 224.
[45] C. Zhang, S. Eckert, G. Gerbeth: Metall. Mater. Trans. B 40 (2009),
700.
[46] M. Iguchi, T. Chihara: Metall. Mater. Trans. B 29 (1998), 755.
[47] J. H. Grevet, J. Szekely, N. E. El-Kaddah: Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer
25 (1982), 487.
[48] K. Pougatch, M. Salcudean: Ocean Eng, 35 (2008), 1173.
[49] J. P. Giovannettone, E. Tsai, J. S. Gulliver: Chem. Eng. J. 149 (2009),
301.
[50] K. Wichterle, L. Obalov:á Chem. Papers 53 (1999), 384–389.
[51] D. I. Meiron: J. Fluid Mech. 198 (1989), 101.
[52] Y. F. Zhao, G. A. Irons: Metall. Trans. B 21 (1990), 997.
[53] Y. Y. Sheng, G. A. Irons: Metall. Mater. Trans. B B 26 (1995), 625.
[54] P. A. Bowyer: J. Geophys. Res. 106 (2001), 14179.
[55] P. M. Wilkinson, A. V. Schayk, J. P. M. Spronken: Chem. Eng. Sci.
48 (1993), 1213.
[56] L. Chen, S. V. Garimella, J. A. Reizes, E. Leonardi: J Fluid
Mechanics, 387 (1999), 61.
[57] W. O. Mochizuki, M. Kiya: Experiments in Fluids, 33 (2002),
620.
[58] T. F. Wang, J. F. Wang, Y. Jin: I&EC Research, 44 (2005), 7540.
[59] N. C. Keim, P. Moller, W. W Zhang:, et al. Phys. Rev. Letters 97
(2006), No 14, Article No: 144503
[60] S. Bordel, R. Mato, S. Villaverde: Chem. Eng. Science 61 (2006),
3663.
[61] I. E. L. Neto, D. Z. Zhu, N. Rajaratnam: Int. J. Multiphase Flow 34
(2008), 1130.
[62] A. Alexiadis, P. Gardin, J. F. Domgin: Metall. Mater. Trans. B 35
(2004), 949.
[63] A. A. Kulkarni, J. B. Joshi: I&EC Research 44 (2005), 5873–5931.
[64] F. Risso, J. Fabre: J. Fluid Mech. 372 (1998), 323–355.
[65] H. Zhao, W. Ge: Chem. Eng. Science 62 (2007), 109–115.
[66] J. M. T. Vasconcelos, S. P. Orvalho, S. S. Alves: AIChE J. 48 (2002),
1145–1154.
[67] K. Wichterle, J. Wichterlová, L. Kulhánkov:á Chem. Eng. Commun.
192 (2005), 550–556.
[68] K. Smutná, L. Kulhánková, K. Wichterle, M. Večeř: in: Proceedings
36th International Conference SSCHE, Tatranské Matliare 2009
[CDROM 49,1-7]
[69] K. Wichterle: Modeling of gas bubble breakup in liquid steel, in: 16th
Congress CHISA, Proc.Eng.Publisher, Prague, 2004, [CDROM,
E.7.7].
[70] M. Iguchi, H. Kawabata, K. Nakajima, Z. I. Morita: Metall. Mater.
Trans. B 26 (1995), 67–74.
361