4.2 Review

Recent Progress in Efficient Gas-Solid Cyclone Separators with a High Solids Loading for Large-scale Fluidized Beds

Journal

KONA POWDER AND PARTICLE JOURNAL
Volume -, Issue 38, Pages 94-109

Publisher

HOSOKAWA POWDER TECHNOL FOUNDATION
DOI: 10.14356/kona.2021001

Keywords

gas-solid cyclone; circulating fluidized bed; high solids loading; design

Funding

  1. Takuma research grant [17H03451]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review summarizes the recent progress in experimental and CFD studies on gas-solid cyclones, explaining the modified pressure drop model, scale-up methodology, and criteria for a single large cyclone vs. multiple cyclones. Future research perspectives are also discussed.
Circulating fluidized beds (CFB)s are important technical equipment to treat gas-solid systems for fluid catalytic cracking, combustion, gasification, and high-temperature heat receiving because their mass and heat transfer rates are large. Cyclones are important devices to control the performance of CFBs and ensure their stable operation; heat-carrying and/or solid catalyst particles being circulated in a CFB should be efficiently separated from gas at a reduced pressure loss during separation. In commercial CFBs, a large amount of solids (> 1 kg-solid (m(3)-gas)(-1) or > 1 kg-solid (kg-gas)(-1)) is circulated and should be treated. Thus, gas-solid cyclones with a high solids loading should be developed. A large number of reports have been published on gas-solid separators, including cyclones. In addition, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) technology has rapidly developed in the past decade. Based on these observations, in this review, we summarize the recent progress in experimental and CFD studies on gas- solid cyclones. The modified pressure drop model, scale-up methodology, and criteria for a single large cyclone vs. multiple cyclones are explained. Future research perspectives are also discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available