Originalarbeit

BHM
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00501-018-0761-5
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018,
corrected publication August 2018

ULF Cell—a Novel Design Principle for Pneumatic Froth

Flotation Apparatus Utilizing Uniform Laminar Flow
Janez Susa1 and Rüdiger B. Richter2,3

1
ARCANOE Consulting, Koper, Slovenia
2
Competence Center Waste Treatment, Disposal and NORM in Bauer Resources, BAUER Emirates Environment
Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi City, United Arab Emirates
3
Chair of Mineral Processing, Montanuniversitat Leoben, Leoben, Austria

Received July 5, 2018; accepted July 11, 2018; published online July 25, 2018

Abstract: ULF cell—a novel design principle for pneumatic
froth flotation apparatus utilizing uniform laminar flow is
presented in this paper and the key elements of this novel
device such as the contact chamber, the hydraulic lamina-
tor register and the clarifying zone are described in detail.
Since an understanding of the flow hydrodynamics within
the various “zones” of a flotation apparatus is of signifi-
cance for the technical performance and efficiency of the
flotation process, the aspects of flow hydrodynamics of the
contact chamber, hydraulic laminator register and clarify-
ing zone, are illuminated. An approach for flow modelling
is provided and a design review of the ULF cell was un-
dertaken, where also the Krofta-Supracell ‘net zero velocity
principle’ was compared to the Susa-ULF cell ‘constant in-
tegral radial velocity principle’. Flotation experiments pre-
sented in this paper have proven that the ULF cell can be
operated at a Reynolds number in the annular clarifying
section of up to Re ≈ 3000, which enables the apparatus to
handle ultra-fine particles due to the quiescent laminarized
flow. As a further result of the flotation tests performed it
could be demonstrated that a flotation cell should not ex-
ceed a height of about 1 m in its separation/clarifying zone,
which challenges the design of high flotation column appa-
ratus coupled with a small diameter.
Keywords: ULF cell, Uniform laminar flow, Pneumatic
flotation of ultrafine particles, Novel flotation device,
Flotation cell design criteria, Flotation kinetics, Flow
hydrodynamics in flotation cells
Dipl.-Ing. Dr. mont. R. B. Richter ()
Competence Center Waste Treatment, Disposal and NORM in
Bauer Resources,
BAUER Emirates Environment Abu Dhabi,
15th Road (Dawi Street), Villa No. 9,
Abu Dhabi City, United Arab Emirates
ruediger.richter@bauer.de
Die ULF-Zelle – Ein neues Designprinzip für pneumatische
Flotationsapparate durch Anwendung gleichförmiger
laminarer Strömung
Zusammenfassung: Ein neues Designprinzip für pneuma-
tische Flotationsapparate, „die ULF-Zelle“, das gleichför-
mige laminare Strömung nutzt, wird in diesem Artikel
vorgestellt, wobei insbesondere der Kontaktraum, das
hydraulische Laminator-Register und die patentierte in-
duktive Dispersionsdüse eingehend beschrieben werden.
Da ein technisches Verständnis der Strömungsdynamik
in den verschiedenen Bereichen des Flotationsapparates
von erheblicher Bedeutung zur Beurteilung der techni-
schen Leistungsfähigkeit und Effizienz des Prozesses ist,
wird dieser Aspekt ebenfalls näher beleuchtet. Ein Ansatz
für ein Strömungsmodell wird vorgestellt und eine De-
signbetrachtung durchgeführt. Ebenso wird der Unter-
schied zwischen dem „Netto-Null-Geschwindigkeits-Prin-
zip“ der Krofta-Supracell und dem „gleichförmig integralen
Radialgeschwindigkeitsprinzip“ der Susa ULF-Zelle aufge-
zeigt. Die Flotationsversuche, die in diesem Artikel präsen-
tiert werden, haben gezeigt, dass im Ringraum des Trenn-
und Klärbereiches der ULF-Zelle eine Reynoldszahl im Be-
reich bis Re ≈ 3000 auftritt, wodurch die beruhigte laminare
Strömung insbesondere für die Flotation von Feinstparti-
keln geeignet ist. Als weiteres Ergebnis der Versuchsreihen
konnte die erforderliche Höhe von pneumatischen Flota-
tionszellen berechnet werden, wobei die Höhe des Trenn-
und Klärbereiches nicht mehr als 1 m betragen sollte. Die-
ses Ergebnis stellt insbesondere die Designgeometrie sehr
hoher Säulenflotationen bei gleichzeitig geringem Durch-
messer in Frage.

BHM © Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, ein Teil von Springer Nature Susa & Richter
Originalarbeit
Schlüsselwörter: ULF-Zelle, Gleichförmige laminare
Strömung, Pneumatische Flotation von Feinstpartikeln,
Neuentwicklung eines Flotationsapparates,
Designkriterien für Flotationszellen, Flotationskinetik,
Strömungshydrodynamik in Flotationszellen
1. Introduction and Overview About
Pneumatic Cell Types
Froth flotation as a separation process uses the physical
and chemical properties of solid particulate matter such as
metallic minerals, coal and others in an aqueous pulp at-
tached to bubbles as a transport media. This process is
frequently supported by collecting agents and occasionally
by depressants and activators [1].
Particularly in Germany the initial objective for the de-
velopment of pneumatic flotation cells was to find a more
effective froth flotation technology for extremely fine parti-
cles, which commonly could not be processed by agitator
cells at that time. For this invention, a patent was awarded
in parallel to Prof. Wolfgang Simonis (1927–2009) and his
coworkers for their ‘free jet flotation cell’ (Freistrahlflota-
tion) in 1981 [2] and to Prof. Albert Bahr († 1992) for the
‘Bahr cell’ [3–5]. Other pneumatic cells were invented over
the years, including the Imhoflot V-cell in 1996 and Imhoflot
G-cell by Rainer Imhof [6, 7], the Jameson Cell by Jame-
son in 1988 [8, 9], the earlier patented version of the Uni-
form Laminar Flow (ULF) cell [10, 11], the Pneuflot of MBE
Coal & Minerals Technology GmbH and the “hybrid cell”
of Siemens Primetals [12]. An overview of the more recent
cell designs is shown in Fig. 1.
2. The ULF Flotation Apparatus: Key
Elements and Flow Conditions
The ULF flotation apparatus is geometrically constructed
to provide a uniform flow-pattern of fluid through all its
passages in a continuous operation, but more importantly
in the separation zone. Advanced hydrodynamics allow
a highly effective solid/liquid separation under laminar flow
conditions and high capacity per net flotation area of the
apparatus. The unique geometry of the ULF apparatus also
assures an effective flow control.
2.1 Technical Arrangement and Key Elements of
the ULF Flotation Apparatus
To achieve a laminar flow pattern, the laminating section (3)
of the cell (see Fig. 2) is designed to form equal entry and
exit areas of the respective annuli. The hydraulic diameter
of each annulus ensures laminar flow conditions (Re ≤ 2000)
in the laminating section at a superficial velocity of about
20 m/h1 (0.006 m/s) at the laminator exit area. A high capac-
ity per net flotation area is achieved via uniform hydraulic
1 For the sake of simplicity and better understanding, flow velocities are
sometimesreported in metersper hour.
Susa & Richter © Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, ein Teil von Springer Nature
and solids loading, accordingly. Fig. 2 shows the main el-
ements of the ULF flotation apparatus based on the first
flotation pilot plant, which was already built as a prototype
in 1995. Experiments to determine the optimum height for
the novel design principle herein were executed with this
device.
2.1.1 Contact Chamber
The bottom part of the contact chamber accommodates an
intake installation for supplying inlet water suspension and
an “Inductive Dispersing Nozzle” (IDN) (1) for ejection and
fine air bubbles generation. The inlet water suspension
enters the mixing chamber radially while being crossed by
a horizontal radial stream of air-water dispersion exiting the
IDN; the air bubbles of about 30–60 μm are being created
when 15–20% of water backflows into the IDN at 12–16 bar;
commencing the flotation treatment into the contact cham-
ber (2).The use of other gases other than air such as nitro-
gen [13] in combination with the right type of frother en-
ables the generation of much smaller bubbles making the
ULF cell an ideal device for the flotation of ultrafine (min-
eral) particles in the range of even less than 10 or 20 μm.
Following an intensive particle-bubble collision in the
contact chamber, a three-phase, gas-liquid-solid mix flows
up through the hydraulic laminator register (3) where it is
transformed into a quiescent laminarized flow and guided
thereafter into a radial stream direction in the separation
section (4) for solid-liquid separation. In the collection sec-
tion (5), the froth is collected, drained and removed. The
clarified water is conducted through the annular passage (6)
to the separation/clarifying zone (7). Finally, the clarified
water and in mineral separation applications, the tailing
residues, are discharged via an outlet installation with back-
flow arrangement (8).
2.1.2 Hydraulic Laminator Register
The purpose of the hydraulic laminator is to quiet down the
material flow in the cell and to ensure a uniform hydraulic
and separation load of the flotation apparatus. Essential for
smoothening of the three-phase flow in the flotation cell is
the geometric design of the laminator.
The hydraulic laminator consists of a register of con-
centric funnels (diffusers) with a spherical-cap shaped exit
area 4.85 times larger than the total inlet area (Fig. 2). Con-
sequently, the inlet vertical superficial velocity of the flow
is reduced by the same factor (4.85) at the laminator out-
let radial fluid superficial velocity. There is no difference
in flow velocity between the equally dimensioned lamina-
tor funnels and therefore no shear forces between the exit
annular streams.
In addition to the conditions necessary for the forma-
tion of stable aggregates, which are mentioned in Sect. 2.2,
Flow hydrodynamics, particularly in the contact chamber,
separation and clarifying zone of the flotation cell, it is ex-
tremely important that the already formed aggregates of
particles & bubbles commonly held together by weak ad-
hesive and surface tension forces do not disintegrate under
BHM
 Originalarbeit

Fig. 1: Consecutive develop-

ment of pneumatic flotation
cells, particularly applied in the
mineral industry [1]

turbulence and shear forces during the rest of the flotation
process for effective solid/liquid separation.
The following forces act on the particle-bubble aggre-
gates travelling through the laminator:
Force of hydrostatic buoyancy FB or lifting force FL, en-
abled by the flotation solid-air attachment mechanism
pointing vertically upwards
Force of bulk fluid flow FFF which points in the direction
of fluid flow in each diffuser
Force of gravity FG, pointing vertically downwards
Inertial force FW of aggregates pointing in the same di-
rection as the movement of the aggregates

BHM © Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, ein Teil von Springer Nature Susa & Richter
Originalarbeit
Fig. 2: Geometryand keyelementsoftheULF apparatus: an intakearma-
ture (installation) for supplying inlet water suspension and the “Inductive
Dispersing Nozzle” (IDN) for bubble generation (1), contact chamber (2),
lamination section (3), separation section (4), froth collector (5), annular
passage (6), annular separation/clarifying section (7), water discharge (8)
Fig. 3: The IDN for air bubble
generation comprises: driv-
ing water jet nozzle (1), deflec-
tivecone(2)andfunnel-shaped
housing encasing them (3) cre-
ating a radial annular channel
of the nozzle [10, 11]
The force of the hydraulic resistance of the aggregate
FR, pointing in the opposite direction of movement of
the aggregates
Mutual drag forces between particle-bubble aggregates
FD
The theoretical trajectory of the floating aggregate move-
ment is the result of action of the vector sum of abovemen-
tioned forces, called the dynamic buoyancy lifting force FDY,
which drives the aggregate towards surface of the flotation
cell.
2.1.3 Inductive Dispersing Nozzle (IDN)
The bottom part of the contact chamber accommodates
a cylindrical intake installation for supplying a peripheral
tangential inflow and the IDN nozzle (1), in the axial center
Susa & Richter © Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, ein Teil von Springer Nature
which generates and distributes fine air bubbles, necessary
for flotation process. The incoming water jet impacts the tip
of deflective cone which spreads it into the special designed
radial annular channel of IDN so that the full body of the wa-
ter jet is utilized for air suction. The IDN functions like the
water jet pump or conventional pipe-type G/L ejector with
a high power dissipation rate (εdis ≈ 85 × 106 W/m3) within the
radial annular channel, generating relatively small air bub-
bles with a diameter of about 30–60 μm. In comparison
to the former G/L nozzle types and ejectors, IDN produces
a much higher gas throughput, which has to be throttled in
order to control the quantity of air bubbles generated for
flotation purpose. The sucked air flow to water jet flow ra-
tio easily reaches V̇g / V̇l ≈ 3 or even more when IDN is
scaled-up, while ordinary G/L pipe-type ejectors reach only
V̇g / V̇l ≈ 1. The air to water ratio within the inductive dis-
persing nozzle (IDN) evidently confirms the essence of the
invention [11], which will be the subject of future article(s)
(Fig. 3).
2.2 Flow Hydrodynamics in the Contact Chamber
and the Hydraulic Laminator Register
The design flow conditions for the ULF flotation apparatus
have not been published yet. From a fluid dynamics point
of view, the ULF cell applies an upwards directed turbulent
bubbly three-phase gas-liquid-solid mixed flow Qcc in the
contact chamber (2) which is turned into a laminar flow in
the hydraulic laminator register (3) in order to float very fine
particles through a quiescent separation section (4) into the
froth zone (5) to the downwards directed annulus flow Qcz
through the clarifying section (7); (Fig. 2).
2.2.1 General Considerations of Flow Hydrody-
namics
Hydrodynamics in flotation apparatus such as in agitator
machines but also in agitator-less pneumatic cells com-
monly involves both macro-turbulent and micro-turbulent
effects [14, 15]. Their flow conditions are frequently charac-
terized by the Reynolds number Re, which is known as the
ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces [16–18]:
ρvL vL
Re = = (1)
η ν
Where ν is the kinematic viscosity in [m2/s] expressed
as the quotient of dynamic viscosity η in [Ns/m2] divided
by the density ρ of the fluid in [kg/m3]. L is a character-
istic travelled length of fluid also known as the hydraulic
diameter. Replacing L by the (mean) gas bubble diameter
db involved in the flotation process, Eq. 1 is expressing the
bubble Reynolds number Reb as below:
ρvdb vdb
Reb = = (2)
η ν
A suspension of mineral particles in water is generally
understood as a non-Newtonian fluid, in particular as ‘dila-
tant’, also often referred to as shear thickening fluid, which is
characterized by the phenomenon that the ostensible (kine-
BHM
 Originalarbeit

TABLE 1
Flow conditions characterized by their typical Reynolds number Re and associated collision probabilities Pc
Flow conditions Reynolds number Re Collision probability Pc Source
3 dp 2
Fully laminar flow (Stokes) [16] Re ≤ 1 Pc = ( )
2 db
(4) Gaudin 1957 [24]
Laminar (technical application) Re < 2300 – –
d 2
Transition flow (critical area) 2300 < Re < 4000 Pc = 3 ( 32 + 4
15
Reb0.72 ) ( dp ) (5) Lutrell 1986 [25]
b
d
Potential flow; fully turbulent Re > 4000 Pc = 3 ( dp ) (6) Sutherland 1948 [26]
b
(Newton)

matic) viscosity ν grows with the increase of shear stress 2.3 Flow Modelling of the ULF Cell
introduced into the fluid [19].
The ultimate objective of a (differential) flotation process The ULF apparatus basically works on Sir Isaac Newton’s
[20–22] is the selective removal of solid particles from an principle of inertia, aka “lex prima” [30], which states that
aqueous medium (pulp), which is accomplished by the ad- if the net force (the vector sum of all forces acting on an
hesion of air bubbles to the hydrophobic particles. The par- object) is zero, an object either remains at rest or continues
ticle floatability can be characterized by the flotation prob- to move at a constant velocity. This is known as uniform
ability Pf given by the product of probability of a particle motion. The first law can be stated mathematically, when
being collected by an air bubble (Pf), probability of particle- the mass is a non-zero constant, as:
bubble collision (Pc), probability of particle-bubble adhe- n
sion (Pa), and probability of formation of a stable particle- dv
∑ Fi = 0 ↔ =0 (4)
bubble aggregate (Ps), [1, 23]: i=1 dt

Pf = Pc ⋅ Pa ⋅ Ps (3)
Table 1 provides an overview of flow conditions charac-
terized by their typical Reynolds numbers Re and associ-
ated collision probabilities Pc.
Turbulent flow in a froth flotation process, within the
three-phase system liquid-solid-gas, is a vital requirement
in common flotation apparatus for aeration (dispersion of
bubbles) and promotion of the necessary particle-bubble
interactions such as collisions and adhesion in the so-called
contact zone [1], which in the ULF cell occurs in the con-
tact chamber (2) as shown in Fig. 2. However, the trans-
port of minerals (or other valuable solid matter) attached to
a gas bubble does not necessarily require a turbulent flow
as is the case in agitator cells because the already success-
fully generated and stable particle-bubble aggregates can
be shattered due to a too high local energy dissipation ε
owing to the turbulent transverse stress τ [14]. Addition-
ally, high turbulence in froth flotation of valuable minerals
with a very fine particle range (lower than 30 μm) causes
a misplacement of fine gangue particles into the froth due
to entrainment with the upwards flow [27, 28].
In general, ultra-fine particles also show a lower collision
probability Pc under turbulent flow conditions and there-
fore result in a poorer recovery rate. This is compensated
by smaller bubbles provided by the ULF cell technology
through the patented inductive dispersing nozzle. All the
above described effects led in the past to the development
of various types of agitator-less pneumatic cells but also
column flotation devices [1, 8, 29], which are capable of
providing a sufficient quiescent zone with a more or less
laminar flow above the turbulent contact zone, allowing
the particle-bubble aggregates to rise to the froth zone.
2.3.1 Macro Flow Modelling
The vertical upwards directed two-phase, macroscopic gas-
liquid flow, as occurring in the ULF flotation apparatus, can
be modelled as a bubbly flow in a vertical channel which
is characterized by small gas bubbles dispersed by means
of the inductive dispersing nozzle (IDN) into a liquid con-
tinuum. Typical lateral void distribution flow patterns were
mapped earlier by Serizawa and Kataoka [31] by plotting the
gas volumetric flux (V̇g / A) against the liquid volumetric
flux (V̇l / A) as shown in Fig. 4.
The forces interacting with a spherical gas bubble of the
volume Vb in an upwards directed bubbly flow can be de-
scribed by various forces such as the interfacial drag force
FD , the gravity force FG , inertia force FW , non-drag bubble
forces such as lift force FL and wall lubrication force [32]
considered as initial forces FI and the added mass term FA ,
with CA as the added mass factor:
dvb
ρg CA Vb = FI + FA + FD + FG + FL + FW (5)
dt
Where:
ρg = gas density
CA = added mass factor
t= time from when the pulp in the ULF cell
is injected tangentially, to a certain extent
a rotational flow is generated, which would
require adding the Coriolis force FC to Eq. 5:
⃗ ×→
F⃗C − 2ρg Vb (ω v b) (6)

BHM © Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, ein Teil von Springer Nature Susa & Richter
Originalarbeit

The wall lubrication force, as was shown by Antal et al.

[38] and Tomiyama [39] is:

F⃗W = −CW Vg ρl ∣v
⃗l − v
⃗g ∣2 n
⃗W (11)

2.3.2 Micro Flow Modelling

In the Schubert-Bischofberger Model [15, 40] the radius of

either turbulent or laminar eddies is a multiple of the Kol-
mogorov length scale given by:

 ν3
lD = 
 ( )
4
(12)
є

The Kolmogorov length scale lD is considered to be the

Fig. 4: Lateral void distribution patterns map for air-water flow in vertical smallest hydrodynamic scale in turbulent flows, but is ob-
cylindrical pipes re-drawn from [31] tained only at a Reynolds number Re = 1, which normally
will not be achieved in flotation. Commonly the Taylor mi-
dφ croscale represents the smaller eddy sizes that exist in most
⃗ =
ω = ∣ω∣ is the angular velocity (7)
dt of the dissipation, and the Kolmogorov length scale repre-
sents the smallest eddies that can exist in the flow.
Where:
dφ represents an infinitesimal angle [rad] covered in an
infinitesimal period of time [s]. 2.4 Design Review of the ULF Cell
As described by Rastelli et al. [33] the effects of rotation
in a flow is described by the Rossby number (Rossby bubble 2.4.1 Contact Chamber Design
number):
In a cylindrical contact chamber, assuming an inflow
vg − vl
Rob = (8) rate between 8 and 18 m3/h and an average back flow
ωdb
of about 18%, a turbulent flow regime will be generated
Where: with a Reynolds number (see Eqs. 1 and 2) in a range of
7500 < Re < 15,000. The friction factor f can be estimated
vg = velocity of the gas bubble by the Blasius empirical power law correlation (1913) [41];
vι = velocity of the liquid pulp which for a smooth pipe (tube) at Re < 105 can be expressed
[42, 43], as follows:
The interfacial drag force as a vector F⃗D after Ishi and
2τw 0.079
Mishima [34] in a two-fluid model can be expressed as: f = = (13)
ρv 2 Re1/4
3 CD
F⃗D = ⃗g − v
vg ρl (v ⃗ l ) ∣v
⃗g − v
⃗l ∣ (9) where Re = (dcvρ/μ) is the Reynolds number, dc the pipe
4 db (tube) diameter, ρ the density of the fluid, v the average
Where: velocity, μ the fluid viscosity and τw the time-averaged wall
⃗g − v
(v ⃗l )is the slip velocity given as the difference of shear stress. Rearranged, the Eq. 13 can be written:
the velocity of a gas bubble relative to the velocity of the √
liquid pulp and CD is the drag force coefficient. The drag 1/ f = 3.6 ⋅ log(Re/7) (14)
force on a single bubble also can either be increased or
decreased due to the influence of neighbouring bubbles, A requirement concerning the Bodenstein number Bo
particularly up-stream or downstream bubbles [35]. exists for the turbulent regime (104 < Re < 106) in tube or col-
The lifting force after Lucas et al. describes the move- umn reactors [44]:
ment of a gas bubble in the shear field of the surrounding √
ν ⋅ dc
liquid [36]: Bo = = 0.28 ⋅ f (15)
Dax
F⃗L = Cl ρl (v
⃗g − v
⃗l ) ×rot (v
⃗l ) (10) At the same time, the following relationship between the
Péclet number and the Bodenstein number exists:
Where:
L L
Cl is the lift force coefficient as a function of the Eötvös Pef = v ⋅ = Bo ⋅ (16)
number Cl = Cl (Ev) and Ev ∼ db . It was highlighted by Dax dc
Rastello et al. [37], that Cl can become even negative at The Péclet number Pef characterizes the fluid flow dis-
low Reynolds numbers (Re < 5). persion and is defined as the ratio of the transport rate by
convection to the transport rate by diffusion or dispersion

Susa & Richter © Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, ein Teil von Springer Nature BHM

[45]. In addition, this leads to the relationship between fluid
Péclet number and the Reynolds number in a cylindrical
contact chamber:
Pef = L/dc ⋅ log(Re/7) (17)
dc = tube or column internal diameter (m)
f= dimensionless friction factor [–]
ν= superficial velocity of liquid throughput [m/s]
L= characteristic length of apparatus with plug flow
tube or column length [m]
Dax = dispersion coefficient [m2/s]
In the ULF cell, the contact chamber has a length to di-
ameter ratio of Lc / dc = hcc / dcc = 1.0 m / 0.5 m = 2. The exper-
imental range of bubble-particle contact time is between
0.55 to 1.1 min at a superficial velocity between 54 and
108 m/h (0.015 and 0.03 m/s) in the contact chamber. Placing
the achieved experimental data into the abovementioned
equations, a fluid Péclet number of 6.0 < Pef < 6.5 can be
achieved. A fluid flow with Pef > 20 approximates plug flow,
whilst a Péclet number of around 6 describes dispersed flow
behaviour. On this basis, undeveloped plug flow (dispersed
flow) can be assumed on the top of the contact chamber. If
the length to diameter ratio would be higher than that, for
example: Lc / dc = 10, obviously the Péclet number would
take values between 30 < Pef < 33, which characterizes a de-
veloped plug flow velocity profile. This design criterion
would lead necessarily to very high flotation apparatus de-
signs or respectively to high flotation columns. Consid-
ering contact chamber diameter of dc = 0.5 m, the flotation
device would be 5 meters high, which would allow the
plug flow design characteristics of a Uniform Laminar Flow
Flotation Column. However, high flotation cell designs are
not necessarily favourable owing to the bubble coalescence
phenomenon. In contrast, it would be also possible to
reduce the contact chamber diameter to dc = 0.1 m. Con-
sequently, the contact chamber height would be Lc = 1.0 m
(same to the ULF) for Lc / dc = 10. However, this would re-
sult in an extremely high superficial velocity in the contact
chamber (at the same inflow capacity), and therefore would
generate jet-fountains, which is apparently not beneficial
for the flotation process.
Furthermore, the above presented calculations are
based on a pure water flow. In reality, we have a three-
phase system (gas/solid/liquid). Hence, air bubbles moving
up by natural buoyancy certainly would affect the average
velocity profile in contact chamber. On the other hand,
excess of very fine bubbles affects the “apparent viscos-
ity” of water, which becomes “lazy”, due to clouds of fine
bubbles. This phenomenon can be observed in “block
shaped” Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) plants [1], where
the hydraulic geometry is altered by injecting excess of
fine bubbles, which has a considerable cost impact on the
energy for air bubble generation.
Owing to that, the contact chamber design, as shown in
pilot unit (Fig. 2) is not ideal. A fully developed plug flow
would be desirable, so that each laminator inlet annulus
would get exactly the same portion of fluid. Further devel-
BHM © Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, ein Teil von Springer Nature
Originalarbeit
opment of the contact chamber solves this and will be the
subject of future article(s).
2.4.2 Design of the Hydraulic Laminator Register
and Separation Zone/Section
The number of concentric funnels (diffusers) in the lami-
nator register is determined by a design criterion, where
the theoretically calculated Reynolds numbers at the out-
let point of each annulus between two funnels (diffusers)
is Re ≤ 2000 (Dh is the hydraulic diameter between two dif-
fusers). Referring to Eq. 1, at the outlet an average super-
ficial fluid velocity of νla ≤ 20 m/h (0.006 m/s) exists, accord-
ingly:
Re = vla ⋅ Dh ⋅ ρ/η ≤ 2000; vla ≤ 20(m/h) (18)
Separation by flotation begins at the outlet of the lam-
inator, where due to radical bulk fluid velocity reduction,
the bulk fluid force acting on the agglomerate in the direc-
tion from the inlet to the outlet of laminator decreases and
together with the buoyancy lifting force generates the ver-
tical-to-radial directed dynamic buoyancy force, which pre-
vails over the bulk fluid inertial (near to radial) force, caus-
ing particle-bubble aggregates to move to the surface. The
dynamic buoyancy force is a quasi-constant and increases
slightly towards the surface of the cell due to the expansion
of attached air bubbles. The floating particle movement tra-
jectory assures a uniform hydraulic and separation load of
the ULF flotation cell under steady-state operating condi-
tions. Under continuous operation conditions of the flota-
tion cell a relatively compact and stable layer of floating
froth is generated, which is skimmed from the surface of
the flotation tank in order to be drained and thickened.
In order to achieve the internal continuity of the material
flow in the cell it is essential that the circular flow cross-sec-
tion, i. e. the area of the virtual cylinder jacket with diameter
of the extreme outer circumference dla of the laminator and
height of the distance between the edge of the laminator
and froth layer hsz, is substantially equal to the total lami-
nator exit area.
Furthermore, the separation zone is geometrically con-
structed in such a way that the exit area of the central dif-
fuser is equal to the area of the virtual cylinder jacket be-
tween the edge of central diffuser and froth layer. The area
of the next virtual cylinder in radial direction is twice that
of the previous one. The next one is even three times big-
ger and so on, until the outer circumference of the lami-
nator register. The entire exit area of the virtual spherical
cap laminator is equal to the virtual cylinder jacket area be-
tween the outer periphery of the laminator and the stable
froth layer and also equal to the annular passage area (6),
i. e. annular area between the extreme outer periphery of
the laminator and the outer wall of the flotation tank.
The described geometrical structure of the separation
zone satisfies the principle of “constant integral radial ve-
locity flow”. In steady-state operating conditions, bulk fluid
flow does not accelerate or dwindle in the radial direction.
In general, the mass balance of fluid velocity in the radial di-
rection is constant but this is merely a theoretical principle,
Susa & Richter
Originalarbeit
Fig. 5: Krofta-Supracell: “net zero velocity” c/a Susa-ULF cell “constant
integral radial velocity”
Fig. 6: Sketch of a flow in an annulus [48]
Fig. 7: Reynolds number at critical condition for an annulus flow at vari-
ous radius ratios k [48]
according to which the integral fluid velocity in the radial
direction is constant, (except for the local speed of a sin-
gle arbitrarily small body of water) and the principle is not
applicable to the local speed of the particle-bubble aggre-
gate floating towards the surface. The applied principle is
closely related to the “net zero velocity concept”, according
Susa & Richter © Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, ein Teil von Springer Nature
to which the Krofta2 dissolved air flotation device operates
[46, 47].
In both cases, it is the first Newton law [29]; in an inertial
reference frame, where an object either remains at rest or
continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon
by a net force. Applied to flow in flotation cells that means:
“If a water flow is stationary or moving uniformly, it does
not influence the floating aggregate by any force”. Fig. 5
demonstrates the difference between the Susa ULF cell and
the Krofta-Supracell.3
2.4.3 Design of the Annular Passage
The annular passage (6) is a free flow cross-section be-
tween the outer periphery (edge) of the laminator and the
outer wall of the flotation tank. It is basically a bottle neck
of the flotation cell, which means that when increasing the
hydraulic capacity (inlet flow) above the breaking point, the
separation process collapses and the particle-bubble ag-
gregates start to go downwards with the fluid stream.
The annular passage is geometrically constructed in
such a way that the surface annular transition between the
extreme outer periphery of the laminator and the outer wall
of the flotation tank is equal to the surface of the virtual
spherical cap laminator.
Flow cross-section annular passage increases in the di-
rection of the water flow and the velocity of the water at the
exit of annular passage (6) has a factor of 1.75 less than the
average speed of flow of water in the annular passage.
2.4.4 Design of the Clarifying Zone
The clarifying zone (7) is the space between the annular
passage, the inner wall of the flotation tank and the bottom
of the flotation tank. The water arriving in this zone has
extremely fine air bubbles and as the stream of water into
the annular passage (6) slows down, these excess bubbles
will rise to the surface.
The clarifying zone is shaped like an annular water col-
umn flow. The radius ratio k is the quotient of the radii
involved:
R1
k= (19)
R2
where R1 = k ⋅ R and R2 = R (see Fig. 6).
The theoretically calculated Reynolds number is in the
laminar range and so is the experimentally observed flow.
According to Dou et al. the velocity profile of flow in an
annular tube has a form of an asymmetrical hyperbola as
shown in Fig. 6 above, whilst Fig. 7 shows the Reynolds
number at critical condition for at various radius ratios k
[48].
2 Dr.-Ing. Milos Krofta (1912–2002), Austrian-born Slovenian engineer,
founder of the Lenox Institute of Water Technology and inventor of the
KROFTA SUPRACELLflotation applying the“netzero velocityprinciple”.
3 Krofta Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) devices are mostly applied for
pulp and paper water treatment purposes and commonly not for mineral
processing applications.
BHM
 Originalarbeit

The critical Reynolds number for power law fluids was The annular passage throughput is defined as:
stipulated by Hanks [49] in 1963:
Qan = Qcc − Qfroth (28)
n(2 + n)( 1+n )
2+n

Reg,c = 6464 (20)

(1 + 3n)2 The bulk average downward annular passage superficial
velocity (critical velocity is basically the flotation cell bottle
Where: Reg is the generalized Metzner-Reed Reynolds neck velocity) is annular passage throughput divided by
number and n is the flow behaviour index [50]. annular passage cross-section area:
Recently accurate calculations for a Newtonian flow in
Qan
concentric annuli were done by Dou et al. [48] in 2010: νanp = (29)
Aanp
⎡ (1 − k 2 ) ⎤
Kc R1 ⎢ ⎥ The clarifying zone throughput is:
Rec = 2 (1 − )⎢
⎢(1 + k ) −
2 ⎥
⎥ (21)
fmax R2 ⎢ ln (1/k) ⎥
⎣ ⎦
Qcz = Qan = Qcc − Qfroth = Qin + Qca + Qr − Qfroth (30)
For the pilot unit shown in Fig. 2: R2 = 0.75 m, R1 = 0.25 m
and k = 1/3, it can be calculated: The bulk downward average clarifying zone superficial
velocity is clarifying zone throughput divided by clarifying
1 − k2 zone annular cross-section area:
b= = 0.8091 (22)
ln ( k1 )
Qcz
νcz = (31)
f max which occurs at the outer wall of the ULF cell is around Acz
0.05497, meanwhile f min at the inner flotation cell wall is Experimental clarifying section/zone diameters are:
around –0.06808. The critical Reynolds number Rec is dfc = 1.5 m, dcc = 0.5 m, which results in the hydraulic diam-
around 3000 (under Kc = 385). eter of the clarifying section/zone annulus: dhyd = dfc – dcc
= 1.0 m. The Reynolds number for the annular formed
clarifying section is hereby defined as:
3. Experimental Part and Interpretation of ρ
Results Recz = νcz ⋅ dhyd ⋅ (32)
η
3.1 Mass Balance and Target Component
Balance Equations
3.2 Flotation Kinetics Experiments Performed
At continuous operation and steady-state conditions, the
overall mass balance equation and the target component The flotation kinetic experiments (in the clarification zone)
mass balance are valid (see Fig. 2): were carried out with biologically purified waste water
downstream of a Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP).
Qin + Qca = Qout + Qfroth (23) After biological treatment with active sludge, the waste
water contained 2–4 g/l activated sludge comprising super-
And accordingly: natant ultra-fine particles (90% less than 10 µm), which was
then further treated by the ULF pilot flotation plant.
Qin cin + Qca cca = Qout cout + Qfroth cfroth (24) In order to determine the optimum height of the flotation
cell (or the clarifying zone) under real continuous operation
Contact chamber throughput is given by (see Fig. 2): conditions, a series of measurements of flotation kinetics
were carried out. For this reason, on the side wall of the
Qcc = Qin + Qca + Qr (25) flotation tank, ten sample extraction pipes with small valves
were installed with a vertical distance of 100 mm between
The theoretical bulk average upward contact chamber each other (see Fig. 2). Probe pipe number C0 was aligned
superficial velocity is contact chamber throughput divided with the annular passage level. The total height of the clar-
by contact chamber cross-section area: ifying zone hcz was in a range of 100 up to 1000 mm. Fig. 8
shows the pilot test plant, which was used for the execution
QCC
νcc = (26) of the flotation experiments.
Acc Since the concentration, particle size and material char-
The bulk average laminator outgoing superficial velocity acteristics of biological activated sludge differs commonly
is contact chamber throughput divided by laminator spher- over a wider range over the time, within a period of one
ical cap surface area: month the same flotation kinetics experiment was repeated
every day. In particular, the flotation inflow was increased
Qcc
νla = (27) to the last stable point of flotation separation and then the
Ala plant was continuously run at constant inflow for several
hours to reach steady-state conditions. Samples taken and
concentrations of dry matter (not suspended matter) at par-

BHM © Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, ein Teil von Springer Nature Susa & Richter
Originalarbeit

Fig. 8: Pilot test unit (Susa ULF

cell), used for the execution of
the flotation experiments

ticular flotation inflow rate and outflow rate readings were 2 (from probe pipe 0 to probe pipe 2):
determined: Cin, C1–10, Cout, Cfroth [g/l]. The average clarify-
V2 Acz ⋅ h2
ing zone residence time, defined as: τ2 = = (33b)
Qcz Qcz
Vcz Acz ⋅ hcz
τcz = = (33) 3 (from probe pipe 0 to probe pipe 3):
Qcz Qin + Qca + Qr − Qfroth
V3 Acz ⋅ h3
was determined at the following locations, where the con- τ3 = = (33c)
centration was measured, accordingly: Qcz Qcz
1 (from probe pipe 0 to probe pipe 1): up to:
10 (from probe pipe 0 to probe pipe 10):
V1 Acz ⋅ h1
τ1 = = (33a)
Qcz Qcz V10 Acz ⋅ h10
τ10 = = (33d)
Qcz Qcz

TABLE 2
Results and calculated parameters achieved from experiment No. 20 (Experiment No. 20; Recz = 2987; κ20 =
0.93 l/min)
Sample hcz Cτ C0 = Cin C∞ = Cout Qcz Acz τ1−10 ln (X)
point depth of
clarifying
zone
3 2
/ (m) (g/l) (g/l) (g/l) m /h m Min /
CO 0.0 / / / / / 0 /
CI 0.1 1.990 2.636 0.759 16.91 1.57 0.557 –0.422
C2 0.2 1.424 2.636 0.759 16.91 1.57 1.114 –1.038
C3 0.3 1.242 2.636 0.759 16.91 1.57 1.671 –1.357
C4 0.4 0.965 2.636 0.759 16.91 1.57 2.228 –2.210
C5 0.5 0.899 2.636 0.759 16.91 1.57 2.785 –2.596
C6 0.6 0.835 2.636 0.759 16.91 1.57 3.342 –3.207
C7 0.7 0.820 2.636 0.759 16.91 1.57 3.899 –3.427
C8 0.8 0.785 2.636 0.759 16.91 1.57 4.457 –4.279
C9 0.9 0.777 2.636 0.759 16.91 1.57 5.014 –4.647
CIO 1.0 0.770 2.636 0.759 16.91 1.57 5.571 –5.140

Susa & Richter © Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, ein Teil von Springer Nature BHM
 Originalarbeit

Fig. 9: Depletion (conversion)

rate vs. time in minutes and
depth of clarifying zone in cm
for experiment no. 20. Linear
fit of experimental points re-
sults in flotation kinetic rate of
κ = 0.93 1/min

Typical results and calculated parameters achieved from order chemical reaction taking place in a plug flow reactor
experiment No. 20, as a typical example, are shown in Ta- [45]:
ble 2.
ct − c∞
− ln = κτ (34)
c0 − c∞
3.3 Derivation of the Optimum Height of Where:
a Flotation Cell
κ= Flotation kinetic rate constant
The flotation kinetic rate constant κ is not meant to be a ki- τ= Residence time
netic constant of a chemical reaction that only reflects the c= Concentration
nature and type of substances and how they react chemi-
cally. Instead, the flotation kinetic rate constant, measured The minimum necessary height of the separating/
under real continuous steady-state conditions, reflects the clarifying annular water column (clarifying zone/section)
entire physical properties and hydrodynamic conditions of can be derived from the obtained κ-flotation rates at 99%
the system. depletion rate. The annular clarifying zone has an annular
Based on a large number of experimental measure- cross-sectional area ACZ between outer and inner flotation
ments of flotation kinetics in the pilot unit (Fig. 2) it was cell wall, and an annular cylindrical body with the height
found that flotation kinetics correspond exactly to the first hcz of the clarifying zone.
The minimum necessary height of the clarifying zone is
very important flotation cell design parameter, because it
determines overall height of the flotation cell.

BHM © Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, ein Teil von Springer Nature Susa & Richter
Originalarbeit

Fig. 10: Diagram of depletion

(conversion) rate vs. time in
minutes and depth of clarify-
ing zone in cm for all 32 experi-
ments

Clarifying zone residence time is given by: 4. Discussion of Experimental Results

Vcz hcz ⋅ Acz hcz
τcz = = = (35) The experimental results of experiment No. 20 as a typical
Qcz νcz ⋅ Acz νcz example out of a total of 32 continuously running experi-
At 99% depletion (99% conversion), the left side of above ments are presented in Fig. 9.
Eq. 34 has the value = 4.60. Particularly experiment no. 20 has shown a flotation
kinetic rate κ = 0.93 1/min. The clarifying zone depth of
ct − c∞
− ln = 4.60 = κ ⋅ τcz (36) hcz = 89 cm can be read out in the diagram at 99% depletion
c0 − c∞
rate. The Reynolds number in the clarifying zone was cal-
This leads to the conclusion that the clarifying zone culated as Recz = 2987 (Eq. 32), which corresponds exactly
height is directly related to average flow velocity and flota- to Dou’s calculation of the critical Reynolds number for this
tion kinetic rate in clarifying zone: annular section of flotation cell: Recrit ≈ 3000. Remember,
that the inflow rate was pushed intentionally till the last
vcz
hcz = 4.60 (37) stable point before flotation collapses due to hydraulic
κ
overload. The existence of a stratified laminar flow in
the clarifying zone was observed during the experiments

Susa & Richter © Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, ein Teil von Springer Nature BHM

via the vertical glass sight window attached to the outer
perimeter of the ULF pilot cell.
The complete results of research, i. e. all 32 continuously
running experiments in the pilot flotation cell, are summa-
rized in Fig. 10.
Line A in Fig. 10 represents the lowest measured flota-
tion kinetic rate κ = 0.46 1/min. This experiment was car-
ried out without any addition of promoting reagents. In
fact, the kinetic rates in the lower quarter were all achieved
without or with only a minor addition of flotation addi-
tives. The line B represents exactly the first quarter value
κ = 0.73 1/min of measured flotation kinetic rates ranging
from the lowest to the highest. This value corresponds to
116 cm depth of the clarifying zone. The line C represents
average flotation kinetic rate κ = 0.95 1/min, which corre-
sponds to 86 cm depth of the clarifying zone. The line D
represents exactly the third quarter value κ = 1.17 1/min,
which corresponds to 70 cm depth of the clarifying zone.
The highest measured flotation kinetic rate κ = 1.51 1/min
corresponds to 55 cm depth of the clarifying zone. All di-
agram readings are at 99% depletion rate. Processing all
results with some statistics math throws out 120 cm to be
an absolutely save depth of clarifying section for the indus-
trial flotation cell design. Owing to that, as a rule, an indus-
trial flotation cell should not exceed a height of ca 1.2 m in
its separation/clarifying zone. A water column higher than
this would generate fine bubbles tending to merging into
larger bubbles (the coalescence effect), particularly in the
presence of dissolved salts, which is detrimental for flota-
tion.
Reynolds numbers’ ranges in the clarifying zone also
need to be discussed. The lowest Reynolds numbers
ranges were determined in a range of 1900 < Recz < 2500
if the pilot flotation cell was run with no or little addi-
tion of flotation reagents. Middle range running was
at 2600 < Recz < 3100, average Recz ≈ 2800, always giving
good and stable flotation. Top range of Reynolds num-
ber in the clarifying zone was by running the flotation cell
at Recz = 3850, which was far too high. For the purpose
of industrial cell design, we recommend save value of
Recz ≤ 2500.
Two important flotation performance parameters also
need to be discussed. Hydraulic loading rate (HLR) defined
as net flotation inflow rate divided by net flotation cell sur-
face area:
HLR = Qin / Afl (m3/m2 h); HLRaverage = 7.65 m3/m2 h;
HLRmax = 10.75 m3/m2 h
and separation loading rate (SLR) defined as net suspended
solids inflow rate divided by net flotation cell surface area:
SLR = Qin · cin / Afl (kg/m2 h); SLRaverage = 19.15 kg/m2 h;
SLRmax = 28.75 kg/m2 h
Flotation performance parameters of the pilot ULF running
continuously for one month (average of 32 experimental
measurements) are excellent. This can be attributed to the
good geometry and flow principle, based on fundamental
principles of physic and fluid dynamics.
BHM © Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, ein Teil von Springer Nature
Originalarbeit
Flotation cells of rotational symmetrical type, and the
cylindrical geometry with a rotary scraper for the float-
ing froth are known in the art, but mostly characterized by
chaotic fluid flow. Most of them are noted for the chaotic
flow pattern throughout their sections, which affects the ef-
ficiency of S/L separation and the capacity of each type of
flotation cell.
Operating hydraulic and separation loading rate (HLR
and SLR) of a flotation cell with chaotic flow characteristics
is relatively low, what also reduces solid-liquid separation
efficiency. Thereof the costs of installation and use of en-
ergy and chemicals per unit of treated inflow are relatively
high with all consequences.
The basic objective of development of the geometry of
the presented ULF flotation cell was to establish control
over the material flows in the cell to the greatest possible
extent. A controlled manner of flow according to the inven-
tion is achieved by smart and simple geometrical design,
which dramatically impacts hydraulic characteristics of the
ULF flotation cell.
5. Conclusion of Flotation Experiments
The results of the flotation trials presented in this paper
have proven that the ULF flotation cell can be operated at
a Reynolds number in the annular clarifying section of up to
Re ≈ 3000, which enables the apparatus due to the smart ge-
ometry and unique flow principle, based on quiescent lam-
inarized flow, to handle ultra-fine particles. Consequently,
the outcome concerning the critical Reynolds number in
the annular flow is also a practical confirmation of the ear-
lier findings of Prof. Dou (National University of Singapore)
[48]. It could be demonstrated that a flotation cell should
not exceed a height of ca. 1 m in its separation/clarifying
zone, which challenges the design of high flotation column
apparatus coupled with a small diameter.
6. Reservations
The authors reserve all rights for commercial use of infor-
mation provided in this report, especially in case of filing
application for or grant of patents.
Acknowledgements. The authors acknowledge Prof. Dr. Hua-Shu Dou,
Temasek Laboratories of the National University of Singapore for his kind advice
and helpful support in order to calculate the critical Reynolds number Rec for the
pilot ULF cell, in which the described experiments were performed.
References
Cited Literature
1. B. Yarar and R.B. Richter: “Flotation” in Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of
Industrial Chemistry, Wiley Online Library https://doi.org/10.1002/
14356007, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2016
2. S. Heintges, A. Alizadeh and W. Simonis: German Patent DE
3140966 A1 – Verfahren und Flotationszelle zur Flotation von Kohle
Susa & Richter
Originalarbeit
und Erz (Process and flotation cell for floating coal and ores),
application filed 15. October 1981, published 5. May 1983
3. A. Bahr: Flotation Plant, US Patent 4,208,276, application filed 26.
Jan. 1979, published 1980
4. A. Bahr, H. Lüdke, F.W. Merhoff and K. Legner: Vorrichtung zur Be-
gasung einer Flüssigkeit oder eines Flüssigkeit-Feststoff-Gemisches
(Device for introducing gas into liquids and solid-liquid mixtures),
DE Patent 3204415 A1, application filed 9. Febr. 1982, published 7.
Oct. 1982
5. H. Lüdke, A. Bahr, F.W. Merhoff and K. Legner: Flotation Arrange-
ment, US Patent 4,448,681, application filed 2. Sept. 1981; pub-
lished 1984
6. R. Imhof: European Patent EP1084753 A2, Pneumatic Flotation Sep-
aration Device, application filed 31. Aug. 2000; published 21. March
2001
7. R. Imhof: US Patent No. 7,108,136 B2, Pneumatic Flotation Separa-
tion Device, application filed 19. March 2001; published 19. Sept.
2006
8. G.J. Jameson: European Patent EP0261968 A2, Improved Column
Flotation Method and Apparatus, application filed 4. Sept. 1987,
published 30. March 1988
9. G.J. Jameson, G. Habort, N. Riches: “The development and appli-
cation of the Jameson Cell,” in: Fourth Mill Operators’ Conference,
Burnie, Tasmania, 10–14 March 1991 (The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne, 1991), pp. 45–50.
10. Dr.-Ing. J. Susa: US Patent No. 6,083,389, Flotation Plant, applica-
tion filed 16. April 1997; published 13. Nov. 1997
11. Dr.-Ing. J. Susa: US Patent No. 6,145,759, Suction-Effect Radial Dis-
charge Funnel-Shaped Nozzle, application filed 16. April 1997; pub-
lished 5. Nov. 1997
12. Siemens: “New Flotation Cell from Siemens (Press Release)”, Erlan-
gen / Germany, July 2007.
13. L.K. Wang, N.K. Shammas, W.A. Selke, D.B. Aulenbach (Eds.): Gas
Dissolution, Release, and Bubble Formation in Flotation Systems,
in Handbook of Environmental Engineering, Volume 12; Flota-
tion Technology, Springer Science and Business Media, (2010),
pp. 49–83. ISBN 978-1-60327-133-2 (e-book)
14. C. Bischofberger: (publ. in German Language) Beitrag zum Ein-
fluß der Hydrodynamik beim Flotationsprozeß (On the Influence
of Hydrodynamics on the Flotation Process), Freiberger Forschung-
shefte, A 719 (Grundstoff-Verfahrenstechnik/Aufbereitungstechnik),
Deutscher Verlag für Grundstoffindustrie, Leipzig, (1986), pp. 6–84
15. H. Schubert: On the turbulence-controlled micro processes in flota-
tion machines, Int. J. of Miner. Process. 56, (1999), pp. 257–276
16. G.G. Stokes: Mathematical and Physical Papers, Vol. III, no. 33,
Johnson Reprint Corp., New York, (1966)
17. O. Reynolds: An experimental investigation of the circumstances
which determine whether the motion of water shall be direct or sin-
uous and of the law of resistance in parallel channels. Proc. R. Soc.
Lond. 35, 1883, pp. 84–99
18. T.L. Bergman: F.P. Incorpera, D.P. DeWitt, A.S. Lavine: Fundamentals
of Heat and Mass Transfer, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 7th ed. (2011),
p. 408
19. R.B. Richter, H. Flachberger: Soil washing and thermal desorption:
reliable techniques for remediating materials contaminated with
mercury. BHM Berg- und Hüttenmännische Monatshefte, Vol. 155
(12), (2010), pp. 571–577
20. A.W. Fahrenwald: Differential Flotation, Pamphlet No. 4, Bureau of
Mines and Geology, Moscow, Idaho: University of Idaho, 1921
21. G.A. Hellstrand: US Patent 1,469,042, Differential Flotation of Ores,
1923
22. C.M. Nokes, C.G. Quiqley, R.T. Pring: US Patent 2,492,936, Differen-
tial Flotation of Sulfide Ores, 1948
23. J. Laskowski: Miner. Sci. Eng. 6, no. 4 (1974), pp. 223–235
24. A.M. Gaudin: Flotation, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 2nd Ed., New
York, Toronto, London, 1957
25. G.H. Lutrell: Hydrodynamic studies and mathematical modelling of
fine coal flotation, PhD.-Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, Blacksburg, VA., 1986
26. K.L. Sutherland: Physical chemistry of flotation XI. Kinetics of the
flotation process, J. Phys. Chem. 52 (1948), pp. 394–425
Susa & Richter © Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, ein Teil von Springer Nature
27. W.J. Trahar: A rational interpretation of role of particle size in flota-
tion, International Journal of Mineral Processing Volume 2 (1981),
pp. 289–327
28. P. Mavros: Mixing and Hydrodynamics in Flotation Cells, in: Inno-
vations in Flotation Technology (Mavos P. and Matis, K. A., Editors),
NATO advanced study institutes, Series E: Applied sciences, Vol.
208, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, 1992
29. G. Harbort: Is column flotation still relevant?—An overview of col-
umn flotation in Australia and globally, AusIMM Bulletin (2007),
pp. 54–58
30. I. Newton (1643–1727): Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathemat-
ica , London, 1687
31. I. Kataoka, A. Serizawa: Bubble Flow, 2010, http://www.thermopedia.
com/content/8/ (accessed 5 July 2018)
32. J. Magnaudet, I. Eames: Dynamics of high Re bubbles in inhomo-
geneous flows. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 32 (2000), pp. 659–708
33. M. Rastello, J.-L. Marié, M. Lance. Drag and lift forces on clean
spherical air bubbles in a rotating flow. International Conference
on Multiphase Flow, May 2010, Tampa, United States. 5 p., 2010.
<hal-00620791> https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-006207
34. M. Ishii, K. Mishima: Two-Fluid Model and Hydrodynamic Consti-
tutive Relations, Nuclear Engineering and Design 82 (2–3), (1984),
pp. 107–126
35. C. Li, S.C.P. Cheung, G.H. Yeoh, J.Y. Tu: A Study of Drag Force
in Isothermal Bubbly Flow, Journal of Computational Multiphase
Flows, Vol. 1, No. 4 (2009), pp 295–309 (SAGE open access)
36. D. Lucas, J.-Mei Shi, E. Krepper: Modelling of non-drag forces
for bubbly flows, without year, https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/253343806_MODELLING_OF_NON-DRAG_FORCES_
FOR_BUBBLY_FLOWS (accessed 5 July 2018)
37. M. Rastello, J.-L. Marié, M. Lance: Drag and lift forces on clean
spherical air bubbles in a rotating flow. International Conference
on Multiphase Flow, May 2010, Tampa, FA, (United States), 5 p.,
2010
38. S.P. Antal, R.T. Lahey, J.E. Flaherty: Analysis of phase distribution in
fully developed laminar bubbly two-phase flow, International Jour-
nal of Multiphase Flow,17 (5), (1991), pp. 635–652
39. A. Tomiyama: Struggle with computational bubble dynamics, Third
International Conference on Multiphase Flow, Lyon, France, June
8–12, 1998
40. H. Schubert, C. Bischofberger: On the microprocesses air disper-
sion and particle-bubble attachment in flotation machines as well
as consequences for the scale-up of macroprocesses. Int J Miner
Process 52(4), (1998), 245–259
41. H. Blasius: Das Ähnlichkeitsgesetz bei Reibungsvorgängen in Flüs-
sigkeiten, VDI Forschungsheft 131 (1913), pp. 1–41
42. K.T. Trinh: On the Blasius correlation for friction factors, with-
out year, https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1009/1009.0968.pdf (ac-
cessed 5 July 2018)
43. D.W. Green, R.H. Perry: Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, 8th
Edition, New York (etc.): McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2008
44. G.I. Taylor: Statistical theory of turbulence. Part II., Proceedings of
the Royal Society of London, Series A, Vol. 151, No. 873. (1935),
pp. 444–454
45. O. Levenspiel: Chemical Reaction Engineering, 3rd ed. New York:
Wiley, 1999
46. KWI: SupercellTM—Very high flowrate dissolved air flotation
(DAF) clarifier, company brochure, Budapest (without year), http://
kroftakft.hu/products/supercell.pdf (accessed 5 July 2018)
47. M. Krofta: US Patent No. 5,846,413, Three Zone Dissolved Air Flota-
tion Clarifier with improved Efficiency, application filed 26. April
1996; published 8. Dec. 1998
48. H.-S. Dou, B.C. Khoo, H.M. Tsai: Determining the critical condition
for flow transition in a full-developed annulus flow, J. of Petroleum
Science and Engineering, Vol. 71, (2010), pp. 41–47
49. R.W. Hanks: The laminar-turbulent transition in pipes, concentric
annuli, and parallel plates, AIChE Journal, 9, (1963), pp. 45–48
50. A.B. Metzner, J.C. Reed: Flow of Non-Newtonian Fluids—Correlation
of the Laminar, Transition, and Turbulent-Flow Regions, AIChE Jour-
nal, 1, (1955), pp. 434–440
BHM
 Originalarbeit

Further Reading
51. Archimedes of Syracuse (287BC–212BC) On Floating Bodies (two
volumes), 250 BC
52. G. Galilei (1564–1642): On Motion (in Latin: De Motu Antiquiora),
1590
53. O. Reynolds (1842–1912) On the dynamical theory of incompress-
ible viscous fluids and the determination of the criterion Philos.
Trans. R. Soc. 186, (1895), pp. 123–164

BHM © Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, ein Teil von Springer Nature Susa & Richter