4.7 Article

Geometrical configuration of hydrocyclone for improving the separation performance

期刊

ADVANCED POWDER TECHNOLOGY
卷 33, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apt.2021.103419

关键词

Hydrocyclone; Flat-bottom structure; Flow field; Separation efficiency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper investigates the effect of hydrocyclone structure on flow field characteristics and separation performance, and proposes three novel hydrocyclones based on traditional types. The results show that different hydrocyclone structures have different impacts on separation performance, and hydrocyclones with a flat-bottom structure can reduce the misplacement of fine particles.
The inherent defect of particle misplacement in traditional hydrocyclones is the main reason for the deterioration of separation accuracy and has obtained wide attentions. This paper presents three novel hydrocyclones based on the traditional cylindrical-conical type and cylindrical type. The effect of the hydrocyclone structure on the flow field characteristics and separation performance is investigated by a validated two fluid model. The numerical results show that a higher turbulence intensity deteriorates the separation performance of CCB type (cylindrical-conical-flat bottom type) and C type (cylindrical type), while a greater tangential velocity and velocity gradient improve the separation accuracy of MS type (multi-stage cylindrical type). Hydrocyclones with a flat-bottom structure reduces the misplaced fine particles due to the effect of the internal swirling flow and the axial circulation flow in the spigot. The MS type has the lowest imperfection value and the cut size of 76.5 lm implying a sharpness separation sharpness and an appropriate separation result. CC type has the minimum cut size of 62.21 mu m, while the maximum cut size of 120.68 mu m for C type. (C) 2022 The Society of Powder Technology Japan. Published by Elsevier B.V. and The Society of Powder Technology Japan. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据