4.3 Article

Application of a water injection hydrocyclone on fine coal enhanced gravity separation

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/19392699.2022.2144841

关键词

Hydrocyclone; ultrafine classification; fine coal; enhanced gravity separation; flow field simulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study introduced Krebs hydrocyclone into the fine coal EGS process and examined its ultrafine classification effect and flow field characteristics. The results showed that Krebs hydrocyclone has excellent grading efficiency and separation performance in fine coal washing. This study provides an effective approach for the industrial application of enhanced gravity separators in the fine coal washing process.
This study introduced Krebs hydrocyclone into fine coal EGS process, examined the ultrafine classification effect of Krebs hydrocyclone by single-factor tests and orthogonal tests, and evaluated the fine coal EGS effect after ultrafine classification. Besides, the flow field characteristics in Krebs hydrocyclone were explored by simulation. The optimal grading efficiency of the verification test is 91.32%, and the content of ultrafine particles can be reduced to 1.01%, which prove the excellent ultrafine classification effect of Krebs hydrocyclone. The optimal combustible recovery and ash removal rate are 94.29% and 98.52%, respectively, and when the clean coal ash drops below 10%, the combustible recovery is more than 80%, which reveal that the sorting indexes of fine coal EGS after ultrafine classification are much better than that of unclassified coal. Both the static pressure and velocity in Krebs hydrocyclone have good symmetry and certain regularity. Due to the use of water as a separation medium, the introduction of Krebs hydrocyclone in the fine coal EGS process provides an effective and prospective approach for the industrial application of enhanced gravity separators in the fine coal washing process, especially in the face of increasingly serious environmental problems.

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

4.3
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