F
dr
F
c
See equations 1.1 through
1.3 Ior a description oI the
quantities shown here.
6
This Iorce balance acting on a particle is shown in Figure 1.5. Equations 1.1 through 1.3
show the mathematical description oI this Iorce balance, which is written in terms oI a
polar coordinate system and acts along a radial line passing through the cyclone axis,
which is considered to be the axis oI rotation. The equations are written in a reIerence
Irame rotating with the particle.
2
2
dt
r d
m F F
p dr c
=
(1.1)
where F
c
is the centriIugal Iorce, F
dr
is the drag Iorce on the particle acting in the radial
direction, m
p
is the particle mass and
2 2
dt r d is the acceleration oI the particle in the
radial direction.
r
u d
F
tp p
c
6
2 3
= (1.2)
where d is the particle diameter,
p
is the particle density,
tp
u is the component oI
particle velocity in the tangential direction and r is the radial distance oI the particle Irom
the axis oI the cyclone.
) ( 3
rp r dr
u u d F = (1.3)
where is the viscosity oI the gas. The quantity
rp
u is the radial velocity component oI
the particle itselI, which would be zero iI the particle was rotating indeIinitely at a
constant radius, r. The quantity
r
u is the radial component oI the velocity oI the gas and
represents the 'inward driIt talked about by Stairmand (1951).
Stairmand (1951) described the collection eIIiciency curve which indicates the
eIIiciency oI the cyclone Ior separating particles oI a given density over a range oI sizes.
7
See Figure 1.6. This curve is also known as the grade eIIiciency curve. The xaxis plots
particle size, usually in units oI microns. The scale oI the xaxis is drawn to encompass
the particle size range where the collection eIIiciency changes Irom zero to 100. The y
axis plots the collection or separation eIIiciency either as a Iraction or as a percent. One
point on the grade eIIiciency curve which is typically identiIied is the cut size. The cut
size is deIined as the particle size at which the separation eIIiciency is 50. The cut size
is identiIied in Figure 1.6. Theoretically, the grade eIIiciency curve consists oI a vertical
line segment at a particle size which is reIerred to as the 'theoretical cut size. For
particles smaller than the theoretical cut size, the collection eIIiciency is zero. For
particles larger than the theoretical cut size the collection eIIiciency is 100. The
theoretical grade eIIiciency curve is shown as a solid line in Figure 1.6. Actual grade
eIIiciency curves typically have an 'Sshape as shown in the dashed line oI Figure 1.6.
At particle sizes larger than the (actual) cut size, the collection eIIiciency is lower than
the theoretical value oI 100 because some oI the larger particles escape the cyclone due
to the eIIects oI turbulent eddies and the eIIects oI bouncing, according to Starimand. At
particle sizes smaller than the (actual) cut size, the collection eIIiciency is higher than the
theoretical value oI zero because some oI the smaller particles escape the cyclone as a
result oI particletoparticle collisions. Small particles can also agglomerate to Iorm
larger, heavier groups, which together have enough mass to be retained in the cyclone.
8
Figure 1.6 Diagram oI grade eIIiciency curve characteristics Irom Stairmand (1951)
Researchers over the years have produced a number oI predictive models that use
empirical inIormation related to the geometry and operating conditions oI speciIic
cyclone designs and are intended to estimate cyclone collection eIIiciency. Leith (1984)
summarized a number oI these models. His list included models by Stairmand (1951),
Barth (1956), Lapple and Shepherd (1940), Davies (1952), Lapple (1951) and Leith and
Licht (1972). Ogawa (1984) also reviewed a number oI predictive models including
Barth (1956), Lapple and Shepherd (1940) and Stairmand (1951). He also presented his
own theoretical predictions.
Leith and Iozia (1989a; 1989b; 1990) presented what they considered to be the
most accurate empirical model Ior cyclone separation eIIiciency and compared its
perIormance to several other empirical models. Leith, Ramachandran, Dirgo and
Feldman (1991) combined the empirical model Ior separation eIIiciency oI Leith and
theoretical grade eIIiciency curve (solid line)
100
0
50
size oI particles increasing
removal
at stated
particle
size
theoretical cut size
actual grade eIIiciency curve (dashed line)
zone oI reduced eIIiciency due
to eddying, bouncing, etc.
zone oI increased eIIiciency due to
collisions, agglomeration, etc.
Cut size: is the particle
size at which eII is 50
9
Iozia (1989b) with a new empirical model Ior cyclone pressure drop based on a study oI
98 cyclone designs. It is useIul to remember, however, what Leith stated in reIerence
(1984) that, '...while these theoretical calculations oI Iractional eIIiciency are useIul,
they, ... may predict perIormance substantially in error. Leith (1984) later stated 'The
best way to determine cyclone Iractional eIIiciency characteristics is to test the cyclone in
the laboratory. The phrase Iractional eIIiciency used by Leith reIers to the separation or
grade eIIiciency curve oI the cyclone as discussed in the previous paragraphs and
sketched in Figure 1.6.
Svarovsky (1992) studied a number oI commercial cyclones and showed a
relationship between cyclone diameter, Ilow rate, pressure drop and cut size and the
dimensionless Euler number and Stokes number. As explained earlier, the term cut size
reIers to the particle size that is recovered at 50 eIIiciency. Also see Figure 1.6 above.
The Euler number is considered to be a resistance coeIIicient that represents the ratio oI
static pressure drop between the inlet and outlet oI the cyclone to the dynamic pressure oI
the Ilow within the cyclone and is deIined below as


.

\

=
2
2
v
p
E
u
(1.4)
where
p
is the static pressure drop measured between the inlet and the gas outlet oI a
cyclone, o is gas density and v is the body velocity based on the Ilow rate and the cross
section oI the cylindrical body oI the cyclone as
2
4
D
Q
v
=
(1.5)
10
where Q is the gas Ilow rate and D is the cyclone body inside diameter. The Stokes
number is commonly used to characterize particle laden Ilows. It can be thought oI as the
relation between the particle response time,
d
and the system response time,
s
t and in
general can be written as
s
d
t
Stk
= (1.6)
where
c
d d
d
d
18
2
= (1.7)
where
p
is the particle density,
d
d is the particle diameter and
c
is the viscosity oI the
gas and
s
s
s
J
L
t = (1.8)
where L
s
is the characteristic length oI the system and J
s
is the characteristic velocity oI
the system. The Stokes number written Ior a particle oI size x
50
will be deIined as
D
v x
Stk
s
18
2
50
50
=
(1.9)
where n is the gas viscosity, o
s
is the solids density, the velocity v is deIined by Eqn.1.5
and x
50
is the cut size. Svarovsky (1992) Iound that Ior the cyclones he studied E
u
was
related to Stk
50
by Eqn.1.10 below.
50
12
Stk
E
u
=
(1.10)
Appendix C shows the cyclone data Svarovsky (1992) used and his curve Iit.
More recently, numerical approaches to cyclone eIIiciency estimation have been
proposed. Boysan, Ayers and Swithenbank (1982) and Boysan, Ayers, Swithenbank and
11
Ewan (1985) presented a somewhat simpliIied three dimensional method in which they
assumed that the Ilow Iield was axisymetric. They recognized that the standard kc
turbulence models, which assumed isotropy oI the Reynoldsstress terms, were not
applicable in the case oI highly swirling Ilows. (Please note that turbulence models are
discussed in more detail in Chapters II and III.) For turbulence closure they used an
algebraic Reynoldsstress model (RSM) to account Ior the nonisotropy oI the Ilow.
Once a solution Ior the gas Ilow Iield was obtained, they tracked particles through the
domain to estimate the collection eIIiciency curve. They showed Iairly good agreement
with the grade eIIiciency curves Ior the Stairmand High EIIiciency cyclone and High
Flow Rate cyclone data (Stairmand, 1951) as well as with collection eIIiciency data Ior a
cyclone that had three diIIerent exit pipe diameters.
GriIIiths and Boysan (1996) used a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
computer code to model the collection perIormance and pressure drop oI two small
cyclone aerosol samplers and a Stairmand type cyclone. They compared the CFD results
with experiments and three empirical theories. Full threedimensional models oI the
geometry were used. A steadystate solution to the continuity and momentum equations
was obtained. The turbulence model used was the RNGbased kc model originally
derived by Yakhot and Orszag (1986) with improvements by Yakhot and Smith (1992)
and Yakhot, Orszag, Tangham, Gatski and Speziale (1992). RNG stands Ior
renormalization group theory. It is not as computationally expensive as the Reynolds
stress model but is an improvement over the standard kc model Ior highly swirling Ilows.
The RNG kc model includes an additional term in the dissipation rate transport equation
which gives improved predictions Ior Ilows that have high amounts oI swirl and stream
12
wise curvature. The empirical model oI Barth (1956) predicted the collection eIIiciency
curves Ior the two small cyclones Iairly well but did not predict the perIormance oI the
Stairmand cyclone well. The Iozia and Leith (1989a; 1990) theory did a good job oI
predicting the perIormance oI the Stairmand design, but not Ior the two small samplers.
The CFD collection eIIiciency and pressure drop results compared well with the
experimental data Ior all three cyclones.
Hoekstra, Derksen and Van Den Akker (1999) compared computational results
using three diIIerent turbulence models with laserdoppler velocimetry (LDV)
measurements in a cyclone that had three diIIerent exit pipe diameters. The aim oI their
study was to evaluate the perIormance oI the standard kc model, the RNGkc model and
an RSM in predicting the gas Ilow Iield oI a cyclone separator. Their CFD model used
the assumption oI incompressible air, steady, axisymetric Ilow. They compared the
tangential, axial velocity proIiles predicted using the three diIIerent turbulence models
with the LDV measurements Ior the experimental cyclone, which was varied by using
three exit pipe diameters. They concluded that both the kc model and the RNGkc
model predicted unrealistic distributions oI axial and tangential velocities, and thereIore
were unsuitable Ior modeling cyclonic Ilow. The results using the RSM model were in
reasonable agreement with the experimental data.
Slack, Prasad, Bakker and Boysan (2000) modeled a Stairmand type cyclone in
three dimensions without assuming axisymetric Ilow. They compared the perIormance
oI a steadystate solution using an RSM turbulence model with the timeaveraged results
oI a large eddy simulation (LES) model. In the LES model, the large turbulent eddies are
computed explicitly while the small scale turbulent Ieatures are modeled. The LES
13
approach requires a Iiner grid than the RSM does. In this case the LES model used
approximately 640,000 computational cells while the RSM model used approximately
40,000 cells. Predictions oI the tangential and axial velocity proIiles Irom these two
approaches were compared with LDV measurements. The authors indicated that the
steadystate RSM results on a relatively coarse mesh provided a computationally
inexpensive method to simulate the approximate timeaveraged Ilow details in a cyclone
oI the Stairmand type. The computationally more expensive LES model was useIul in
revealing time dependent vortex oscillations.
1.3 Scope oI Work
The literature review in the previous section indicates that the use oI empirical
models to predict cyclone perIormance has limitations. Numerical methods have also
been proposed to model Ilow Iields in these devices. Cyclone Ilows are three
dimensional, unsteady and have nonisotropic turbulence characteristics because oI the
high swirl and streamwise curvature, whose eIIects need to be included to provide
accurate tangential and axial velocity proIiles. Absent in these studies have been
consideration oI the eIIects due to the inIluence oI the dust bin that is commonly an
integral part oI the cyclone system. Particle reentrainment is an important consideration
in the separation perIormance oI cyclones. This is because particles initially deposited in
the dust bin may migrate under the inIluence oI secondary Ilow Ieatures to locations
14
where they can eventually be carried out oI the system. Reentrainment can be
aggravated by high inlet velocities as well as the geometry oI the dust bin.
The scope the work presented in this paper is limited to the study oI a 150 mm
cyclone with geometry and test data presented by Ogawa (1984). The commercial
computational Iluid dynamics (CFD) program, Fluent is used Ior this study. The analysis
evaluates the eIIectiveness oI using a threedimensional, unsteady numerical model oI the
Ilow process with a Lagrangian particle tracking method to calculate the collection
eIIiciency oI the cyclone run at diIIerent operating conditions. The cyclone model
includes the dust bin geometry so that particle reentrainment and its eIIects on collection
eIIiciency can be reIlected in the results. Based on the knowledge gained in this study, a
computerbased cyclone separator design methodology will be presented. While pressure
drop is calculated and reported, it is not within the scope oI this project to perIorm
detailed studies oI pressure drop in cyclone separators.
15
CHAPTER II.
ANALYTICAL MODEL
2.1 Introduction
The equations needed to model the Ilow are the continuity equation and the
momentum equations. Figure 2.1 below shows a Cartesian coordinate system in an
inertial reIerence Irame where the equations are applied.
Figure 2.1 Cyclone coordinate system and velocity component description
y (x
2
or x
j
)
u
x
u
z
(u
3
or u
k
)
x
(x
1
or x
i
)
z (x
3
or x
k
)
u
y
(u
2
or u
j
)
u
x
(u
1
or u
i
)
16
The Ilow is treated as turbulent. ThereIore a turbulence model is needed. The
assumption oI turbulent Ilow can be checked by considering the Reynolds number oI the
system. The Reynolds number is the ratio oI inertia Iorces to viscous Iorces in a Ilow and
is shown below.
Dv
= Re (2.1)
where is the density oI the Iluid, D is a characteristic length scale oI the system, v is a
characteristic velocity oI the system and is the viscosity oI the Iluid. The Iluid is air.
The density used Ior the air in this study is 1.225 kg/m
3
and the viscosity is 0.00001789
kg/ms. The characteristic length scale Ior a cyclone is the diameter oI the cylindrical
body, D. The diameter, D Ior the cyclone in this study is 0.150 meters. The
characteristic velocity is oIten considered to be the velocity in the inlet duct as it enters
the cyclone, which is a measure oI the tangential velocity. The three inlet velocities
evaluated are 10.3, 15.1 and 19.7 m/s. Svarovsky (1994) used the body velocity which
was deIined above in eqn. 1.5. The body velocity is a measure oI the axial velocity in the
system. The body velocities corresponding the these three Ilow rates, using eqn. 1.5 are
1.1, 1.7 and 2.2 m/s respectively. Using this inIormation the Reynolds numbers were
calculated Ior these diIIerent conditions using eqn. 2.1. The Reynolds numbers based on
body velocity ranged Irom 12,000 to 22,000. The Reynolds numbers based on inlet
velocity varied Irom 106,000 to 202,000. For Ilow in a pipe with a sharpedged entrance,
the Reynolds number where turbulent Ilow begins, also call the critical Reynolds number
is approximately 2300 (Schlichting, 1979). Based on these results, the assumption oI
turbulent Ilow is reasonable.
17
The solid particles which are separated Irom the air Ilow in a cyclone represent a
second phase that must be modeled. For particleladen Ilows, the amount oI particulate
loading and volume Iraction oI the particulate phase can be used to determine how best to
model the process (Fluent 6.3 CFD User`s Guide hereaIter indicated as F6.3UG, 2006).
The Stokes number, discussed above, will also provide understanding as to how the
particles will behave. The volume Iraction oI the particulate phase is deIined below as
p
p
p
m
= (2.2)
where m
p
is the particle concentration in the Ilow and
p
is the particle density. Particle
concentrations typically Iound in cyclone applications can vary Irom 1.5 grams/m
3
(Ogawa, 1984) to 2,000 grams/m
3
(Leith, 1984). Using the higher concentration value
Ior this calculation and the density oI the particles used in this study, which is 2970 kg/m
3
the volume Iraction is
001 . 0
) ( 1000
) ( 1
*
) / ( 2970
) / ( 2000
3
3
= =
g
kg
m kg
m g
p
(2.3)
The discrete particle tracking scheme used in this study assumes that the particulate
volume Iraction is less than about 10 to 12 . For this case the volume Iraction is
about 0.1 , so the discrete tracking model is applicable. The volume Iraction Ior the gas
phase is
999 . 0 001 . 0 1 1 = = =
p g
(2.4)
The particulate loading is deIined as the mass density ratio oI the dispersed phase (the
particles) to that oI the carrier phase (the gas) and is written as
18
g g
p p
= (2.5)
Using the densities and volume Iractions listed above the particulate loading is calculated
as
4 . 2
225 . 1 * 999 . 0
2970 * 001 . 0
= = (2.6)
The material density ratio is deIined as
g
p
= (2.7)
which is typically greater than 1000 Ior gassolid Ilows, about 1 Ior liquidsolid Ilows
and less than 0.001 Ior gasliquid Ilows (F6.3UG). Calculating the material density ratio
Ior the Ilow being studied here is
2400
225 . 1
2970
= = (2.8)
Using the parameters and it is possible to estimate the average distance between
individual particles in the particulate phase. An estimate oI this distance, L compared to
a particle oI diameter d
p
given by Crowe et al. (1998) is
3 1
1
6

.

\
 +
=
p
d
L
(2.9)
where = . For this exercise . 001 . 0 = =
p
Using Eqn. 2.9 the distance to
diameter ratio is
1 . 8
001 . 0
001 . 0 1
6
3 1
=

.

\
 +
=
p
d
L
(2.10)
19
An interparticle space (another name Ior the
p
d L ratio) oI 8 indicates that the particles
can normally be treated as being isolated Irom each other. This indicates the that the
particulate loading is low. For low loading, the coupling between the phases is
predominantly oneway. The gas (which is the carrier Iluid) inIluences the particles via
drag and turbulence, but the particles have little inIluence on the gas. A Lagrangian
discrete particle tracking scheme is well suited to model this type oI Ilow.
The Stokes number Ior the Ilow being studied will now be considered. Using a
cut diameter oI 1.5 microns, which is the value Ogawa measured Ior the medium Ilow
rate case, the corresponding inlet velocity oI 15.1 m/s and the cyclone diameter oI 0.150
meters with the already listed material properties, the Iollowing value Ior Stokes number
is obtained as
002 . 0
) ( 150 . 0 * ) / ( 00001789 . 0 * 18
) / ( 1 . 15 * ) / ( 2970 * ) ( ) 6 5 . 1 (
18
3 2 2
2
50
50
=
= =
m s m kg
s m m kg m e
D
v x
Stk
p
(2.11)
For Stokes numbers, 0 . 1 << Stk , the particle will Iollow the Ilow closely. For 0 . 1 > Stk
the particles will move independently oI the Ilow. For this study, the Stokes numbers are
small enough that the particles oI interest are expected to closely Iollow the Ilow. The
Lagrangian discrete particle tracking scheme can handle Ilows with large and very small
Stokes numbers. Having gone through this exercise, a better understanding oI how the
particles will behave is gained.
From the above considerations, the Ilow can be modeled as turbulent as the
Reynolds numbers characterizing the Ilow are well over the critical pipe Reynolds
number oI 2300. The Lagrangian discrete particle tracking scheme to be used will be
appropriate to model the solid particle separation process because the particulate loading
20
is low and the particle volume Iraction is much less than 10 . The particles are expected
to Iollow the Ilow closely. The next sections look at the details oI the Ilow and particle
tracking calculations.
2.2 Flow Governing Equations
The continuity equation, assuming incompressible Ilow and with no mass source
terms, is shown in a Cartesian coordinate system Iorm below as equation 2.12 (Tannehill,
Anderson and Pletcher, 1997; Wilcox, 1994).
0 =
i
i
x
u
(2.12)
In equation 2.12,
i
u is the velocity component in the icoordinate direction and
i
x is the
distance in the idirection where i 1, 2, 3 in the case oI three dimensional problems.
The momentum equation Ior incompressible Ilow in a nonaccelerating reIerence Irame
may be written as equation 2.13 below Irom Wilcox (1994).
f
fi
i f
i
f
i
x
t
x
p
x
u
u
t
u
(2.13)
In equation 2.13, p is pressure, o is density, u
i
is velocity in the ith direction, x
i
and x
f
are
spatial coordinates in the ith and jth directions respectively, t is time and t
if
is the
viscous stress tensor deIined by
if if
s t 2 =
(2.14)
where n is the molecular viscosity and s
if
is the strainrate tensor deIined by
21


.

\

=
i
f
f
i
if
x
u
x
u
s
2
1
(2.15)
2.3 Turbulence
Turbulence is discussed in the Iollowing section. A brieI overview is presented,
which describes three approaches Ior handling turbulence. The turbulence model chosen
Ior this work as well as the reasons Ior its selection will also be discussed.
2.3.1 Introduction to Turbulence Models
J. O. Hinze (1975) described turbulence as Iollows: 'Turbulent Iluid motion is an
irregular condition oI Ilow in which various quantities show a random variation with time
and space coordinates so that statistically distinct average values can be discerned.
Wilcox (1994) explains that turbulence consists oI a continuous spectrum oI scales that
vary Irom smallest to largest over several orders oI magnitude. The idea oI a series oI
turbulent eddies is oIten used. Wilcox (1994) states that, 'A turbulent eddy can be
thought oI as a local swirling motion whose characteristic dimension is the local
turbulence scale. He explains that these eddies overlap in space and that the large ones
carry the smaller ones. The conversion oI energy in a turbulent Ilow Iollows a cascading
process where the kinetic energy is transIerred Irom the larger eddies to the smaller ones.
The energy in the smallest eddies is Iinally dissipated in heat. For illustration purposes
Figure 2.2 shows a Ilow visualization oI a turbulent boundary layer Irom a group oI
22
photos assembled by Van Dyke (1982). The photo shows streak lines produced in a
turbulent boundary layer on a Ilat plate by a smoke wire. The photograph is by Thomas
Corke, Y. Guezennec and Hassan Nagib (Van Dyke, 1982). The presence oI turbulent
eddies as well as the intermittent nature oI the outer part oI the boundary layer can be
seen. II, Ior example, a hot wire anemometer were used to measure the instantaneous
velocity oI the Ilow across the boundary layer, one would expect to see a velocity proIile
similar to the one that is sketched in red in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2 Turbulent boundary layer developing on a Ilat plate
Reynolds (1895) introduced a procedure by which, all instantaneous quantities
may be expressed as the sum oI mean and Iluctuating components. The instantaneous
velocity proIile sketched on the photo in Figure 2.2, could be represented as a
combination oI a mean velocity component and a Iluctuating velocity component as
shown below in Figure 2.3. In general, an instantaneous quantity, u
i
can be written as
Instantaneous
velocity, u
i
23
i i i
u U u + =
(2.16)
where U
i
is the mean component oI u
i
and
i
u
is the Iluctuating component oI u
i
. Then
using this expression Ior the instantaneous velocity, the timeaveraging oI the continuity
equation (2.12) and the momentum equation (2.13) may be carried out.
Figure 2.3 Relationships oI instantaneous, mean and Iluctuating velocity components
To make the timeaveraging process simpler, Wilcox (1994) shows that the
convective term oI the momentum equation, which is the second term on the leIt hand
side oI equation 2.13, can be rewritten in conservation Iorm as Iollows.
) ( ) (
i f
f f
f
i i f
f f
i
f
u u
x x
u
u u u
x x
u
u
(2.17)
Mean Velocity, U
i
Instantaneous Velocity, u
i
Fluctuating Component,
i
u
24
The term (
f f i
x u u ) in equation 2.17 above is zero because oI the continuity equation
2.12. Using the relationship in equation 2.17 and combining equations 2.13 and 2.14
results in the NavierStokes equation in conservative Iorm shown below (Wilcox, 1994).
) 2 ( ) (
fi
f i
i f
f
i
s
x x
p
u u
x t
u
(2.18)
Wilcox (1994) as well as Tannehill et al. (1997) show the steps in the Reynolds averaging
process carried out on equations 2.18 and 2.13 that result in the Reynolds time averaged
equations oI motion shown below.
0 =
i
i
x
U
(2.19)
) 2 ( ) (
fi
f i
i f i f
f
i
S
x x
P
u u U U
x t
U
= +
(2.20)
where the upper case symbols U
i
, U
f
, P, and S
fi
represent mean values oI the velocity
components in the ith and jth directions, pressure and strainrate tensor respectively and
the symbols
i
u and
f
u
represent the Iluctuating values oI velocity in the ith and jth
directions respectively. The appearance oI the term
f i
u u
represents the diIIerence in the
time averaged and the instantaneous momentum equations other than the replacement oI
the instantaneous velocity, pressure and strainrate values with mean values. The term
f i
u u
is a statistical correlation that resulted Irom the timeaveraging method which, in
general, is not equal to zero and which represents the mean value oI the product oI
velocity Iluctuations which, are related to turbulent eIIects in the Ilow. The purpose oI a
turbulence model is to provide a prescription Ior computing
f i
u u
. When a method Ior
25
computing
f i
u u
is available then it is possible to solve the continuity equation 2.19 and
the momentum equation 2.20 Ior the mean quantities oI the turbulent Ilow under
consideration. Equation 2.20 can be rearranged, again using the relationships shown in
equation 2.18, but in reverse, to write what is called the Reynoldsaveraged Navier
Stokes equation in its most recognizable Iorm as
) 2 (
i f fi
f i f
i
f
i
u u S
x x
P
x
U
U
t
U
(2.21)
where the quantity
f i
u u is known as the Reynoldsstress tensor (Wilcox, 1994) also
denoted as
f i if
u u =
(2.22)
By inspection
fi if
= which means that the Reynoldsstress tensor is a symmetric
tensor. A symmetric tensor has six independent components.
There have been a number oI approaches to modeling the Reynoldsstress tensor
shown in equation 2.22 above. Tannehill et al. (1997) divide the approaches into three
types oI models, which vary in their level oI complexity and also the level oI
computational power needed to solve the resulting turbulence equations. These three
general types oI models are described brieIly in the Iollowing sections.
2.3.2 Type I: Eddy Viscosity Models Using the Boussinesq Assumption
Boussinesq (1877) suggested that the apparent stresses in turbulent Ilows might
be related to the strain rate through a scalar turbulent 'eddy viscosity. Following the
26
Boussinesq assumption, the Reynoldsstress tensor can be written Ior an incompressible
Iluid as
if t f i
S u u 2 =
(2.23)
where
t
is the turbulent viscosity and the mean strainrate tensor,
if
S deIined as


.

\

=
i
f
f
i
if
x
U
x
U
S
2
1
(2.24)
Using an analogy with kinetic theory oI gases and the way in which the molecular
viscosity Ior gases can be evaluated, one might expect that the turbulent eddy viscosity
could be proportional to a characteristic eddy velocity and a characteristic eddy size or
length scale (Tannehill et al., 1997; Wilcox, 1994) . Turbulent viscosity could thereIore
be modeled as
t t t
l v =
(2.25)
where
t
v
is the characteristic velocity scale Ior the turbulence and l
t
is the characteristic
length scale Ior the turbulence. The Iunction oI a turbulence model that uses the
Boussinesq assumption is to prescribe appropriate values Ior
t
v
and l
t
.
One oI the simplest turbulence models that uses the Boussinesq assumption was
suggested by Prandtl in the 1920`s when he presented the idea oI a turbulent mixing
length, where l
mix
could be thought oI as the transverse distance over which the Iluid
particles could retain their original momentum. The characteristic velocity,
mix
v could
then be related to l
mix
as:
v
u
l v
mix mix
=
(2.26)
27
Substituting equation 2.26 into 2.25 results in the mixing length model:
v
u
l
mix t
=
2
(2.27)
The mixing length model assumes that the turbulent viscosity is a scalar and has been
used successIully Ior a number oI applications. However, the evaluation oI l
mix
varies
with the type oI Ilow being considered. One example oI good results Ior this model is Ior
Ilow very near a solid wall where:
v l
mix
=
(2.28)
where y is the distance Irom the wall and k is known as the von Karman constant, which
has been Iound Irom experimental results to be approximately equal to 0.41. The
importance oI the von Karman constant is that it is universal in nature. This constant is
Iound in the work oI both von Karman and Prandtl in the derivation oI a universal
velocity law Ior turbulent channel Ilow. This universal velocity distribution law can be
used to closely calculate the observed velocity proIiles Ior turbulent Ilow in ducts, except
Ior regions very close to the wall and very close to the duct centerline. See Schlichting
(1979).
While there are a number oI one equation as well as two equation models that use
the Boussinesq assumption, perhaps the best known turbulence model oI this type is the
two equation
k
model. Prandtl, in 1945, presented the notion oI computing the
turbulence characteristic velocity scale so that one would not need to assume that
v u l v
mix mix
= (equation 2.26 above). He used the kinetic energy per unit mass oI the
turbulence, k as the basis Ior his velocity scale where
28
) (
2
1
2
1
2 2 2
w v u u u k
i i
+ + = =
(2.29)
There are still two unknown quantities (the turbulent characteristic length and velocity
scales) that must be resolved and in two equations models, as the name implies, two
transport equations are used. A turbulence kinetic energy transport equation is used Ior
the velocity scale, which is k Irom equation 2.29. This transport equation usually assumes
the Iollowing Iorm (Wilcox, 1994):
(
(


.

\

+
f k
t
f f
i
if
f
f
x
k
x x
U
x
k
U
t
k
(2.30)
where
is the dissipation rate oI turbulent kinetic energy per unit mass and is commonly
modeled as
(
(


.

\

+
f
t
f f
i
if
f
f
x x k
C
x
U
k
C
x
U
t
2
2 1
(2.31)
where the Prandtl number Ior k, 0 . 1 =
k
. The Prandtl number Ior
is 3 . 1 =
. The
values Ior the two closure coeIIicients,
1
C and
2
C are 92 . 1 , 44 . 1
2 1
= =
C and C
respectively. The values Ior these coeIIicients and also Ior the two Prandtl numbers are
Irom Launder and Spalding (1972). The turbulent viscosity,
t
is related to k and
by
2
k C
t
=
(2.32)
where the value oI the coeIIicient,
09 . 0 =
C
, which is also Irom Launder and Spalding
(1972). The turbulent length scale, l is related to k and by
2
3
k C
l =
(2.33)
29
2.3.3 Type II: Models Based on the ReynoldsStress Equation
The Reynoldsaveraging process described above resulted in additional unknowns
due to the appearance oI the Reynoldsstress tensor. In order to close the system,
additional equations are needed. Wilcox (1994) shows how a diIIerential equation Ior the
Reynoldsstress tensor can be derived by taking moments oI the NavierStokes equation.
To do this the NavierStokes equations are multiplied by a Iluctuating property and then
the product is time averaged. Wilcox (1994) shows this process and on a termbyterm
basis and shows the resulting diIIerential equation, known as the Reynoldsstress
equation, which is written below as
(
k f i
k
if
k i
f
f
i
k
f
k
i
k
i
fk
k
f
ik
k
if
k
if
u u u
x x x
p
u
x
p
u
x
u
x
u
x
U
x
U
x
U
t
...
... 2
(2.34)
Equation 2.34 describes the transport oI terms in the Reynoldsstress tensor and as such it
generates six new equations that can be used to solve Ior the six independent component
terms oI the tensor. However, in the derivation process, twentytwo new unknowns have
also been generated. To use the Reynoldsstress equation, in practice or in other words to
close the system in practice, requires that modeling be done to reduce the number oI
unknowns so that the number oI unknowns is equal to the number oI available equations.
The terms in equation 2.34 can be rearranged into the Iollowing.
30
[ ]
ik f fk i k f i
k k
if
k
i
f
f
i
k
f
k
i
k
i
fk
k
f
ik
k
if
k
if
u p u p u u u
x x x
x
u
x
u
p
x
u
x
u
x
U
x
U
x
U
t
+ +
+
(
+


.

\

...
... 2
(2.35)
where the kinematic viscosity, is deIined as = . The term
fk
is the Kronecker
delta which is deIined as
o
if
) ( 0
) ( 1
f i if
f i if
=
(2.36)
To simpliIy the terms in equation 2.35 the Iollowing expressions are deIined:
k
if
k if
x
U C
=
(2.37)
where C
if
represents the transport oI Reynolds stresses due to convection.
k
i
fk
k
f
ik if
x
U
x
U
P
=
(2.38)
where P
if
represents the transport oI Reynolds stresses due to stress production.
k
f
k
i
if
x
u
x
u
= 2
(2.39)
where c
if
represents the transport oI Reynolds stresses due to dissipation.


.

\

=
i
f
f
i
if
x
u
x
u
p
(2.40)
where
if
=
k
if
k
if L
x x
D
,
(2.41)
31
where D
L,if
represents the transport oI Reynolds stresses due to molecular diIIusion.
[ ]
ik f fk i k f i
k
if T
u p u p u u u
x
D + +
=
,
(2.42)
where D
T,if
represents the transport oI Reynolds stresses due to turbulent diIIusion.
Substituting the above expressions Irom equations 2.37 to 2.42 into equation 2.35 the
Reynoldsstress equation can be written in the Iollowing Iorm:
if T if L if if if if
if
D D P C
t
, ,
+ + + = +
(2.43)
This model and the way in which it is implemented Ior practical use is discussed in
Chapter 3, section 3.3.
2.3.4 Type III: Models Not Based Completely on the ReynoldsStress Equation
A model that Ialls into this category is Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS),
which is a complete timedependent solution oI the NavierStokes and continuity
equations. No modeling assumptions are required but the computational requirements
make this model unpractical Ior engineering calculations at the present time. Another
example oI a type III turbulence model is the Large Eddy Simulation (LES). In the LES
model, the evolution oI the larger eddies is calculated directly. The eIIects oI the small
eddies are modeled. Simulations involving type III models are more computationally
expensive than the type I and II models and were not considered Ior this study. The
interested reader can consult Tannehill et al. (1997) as well as Wilcox (1994) Ior more
inIormation on these models.
32
2.3.5 The Turbulence Model Used Ior this Work
Previous researchers (Boysan et al. 1982; Ayers et al. 1985; Hoekstra et al., 1999;
& Slack et al., 2000) have shown that a Reynoldsstress model (RSM) is able to calculate
the turbulence characteristics oI cyclone Ilows to a reasonable degree. These researchers
have also shown that models using the eddy viscosity assumption are not adequate to
model the Ilow characteristics oI cyclones. While LES simulations were shown to be an
improvement over the RSM models (Slack, Prasad et al., 2000) the computational
expense was considered too high Ior the purposes oI this study. ThereIore the RSM
model has been chosen Ior this work. Section 3.3 describes the way RSM model is
implemented numerically.
2.4 Particle Dynamics Motion Equations
The equation oI motion Ior a single particle written in the xcoordinate direction
in Cartesian coordinates and on a per unit oI particle mass basis is
p
g p x
p g D
p
g
u u F
dt
u d
) (
) (
+ =
(2.44)
where the subscript p reIers to the particle and the subscript g reIers to the gas. The term
) (
p g D
u u F is the drag Iorce per unit particle mass. The second term on the righthand
33
side oI eqn.2.44 is the gravitational Iorce on the particle (per unit particle mass), where g
x
is the acceleration oI gravity. The coeIIicient, F
D
is deIined below as equation 2.45.
24
Re 18
2
D
p p
D
C
d
F
=
(2.45)
In the two equations above, u is the Iluid velocity, u
p
is the particle velocity, n is the
molecular viscosity oI the Iluid, o is the Iluid density, o
p
is the density oI the particle and
d
p
is the particle diameter. A particle Reynolds number, Re Ior a spherical particle is
deIined as
p p
u u d
= Re
(2.46)
where is the absolute viscosity oI the gas.
At small Reynolds numbers oI
1 . 0 Re
, the Ilow is known as Stokes Ilow and
the drag coeIIicient, C
D
is
Re
24
=
D
C
(2.47)
At Reynolds numbers above
3
10 Re
the value oI C
D
is approximately constant at about
0.4. In Reynolds number ranges between these extremes the value Ior C
D
varies in a
complex manner. Morsi and Alexander (September 26, 1972) developed Iunctions which
describe the variation oI C
D
Ior the regions where C
D
varies in a complex manner. These
Iunctions are used in the numerical particle tracking model used in this study. This is
discussed more in Chapter III.
34
2.5 Chapter Summary
The basic equations that are required to solve the Ilow Iield in a cyclone separator
were presented. The Ilow is turbulent and creates a problem oI closure with the
momentum equation. Osborne Reynolds (1895) presented an averaging method that
when applied to the continuity and momentum equations allows turbulence eIIects to be
treated in a statistical Iashion. The averaging process results in the appearance oI the
Reynoldsstress tensor. In general, some type oI modeling Ior turbulence is required to
close the governing equations. There are three classiIications oI turbulence models. The
Iirst type assumes that turbulence inIluences the Ilow by eIIectively increasing its
viscosity. The turbulent eddy viscosity is a Iunction oI a characteristic velocity related
term, the turbulent kinetic energy, k, and a characteristic length scale that can be a
Iunction oI k and c. The second type oI model is based on the use oI transport equations
Ior each oI the six component terms oI the Reynoldsstress tensor. This model accounts
Ior more oI the real eIIects observed in turbulent Ilows but also contains terms with
additional unknowns. Modeling needs to be used to reduce the number oI new unknowns
so that closure is obtained. The third type oI model is one in which all or part oI the
turbulent eIIects are solved Ior directly. These approaches require signiIicantly more
computational eIIort and at this time and are not considered practical Ior many
engineering calculations. The turbulence model used Ior this work is Irom the second
type, in which, a modeled Iorm oI the Reynoldsstress equation is solved. To calculate
the particle separation eIIiciency oI a cyclone requires the ability to track the paths oI
35
particles that are introduced into the Ilow. To provide Ior this, the equation governing the
motion oI a discrete particle was introduced.
36
CHAPTER III.
THE NUMERICAL MODEL AS IMPLEMENTED IN FLUENT
1
3.1 Introduction
The commercial CFD computer program, Fluent is used to solve the governing
equations discussed in Chapter II Ior the cyclone Ilow Iield in this study. The
implementation oI the governing equations and the way in which Fluent solves the
governing equations are outlined in this section.
3.2 Implementation oI the Flow Governing Equations
The continuity equation 2.19 is shown again below. It is unchanged Irom the
previous section.
0 =
i
i
x
U
(2.19)
The momentum equation in the Iorm oI the Reynoldsaveraged NavierStokes equation is
also unchanged Irom its Iorm presented in the previous section and is repeated below.
1
Fluent is a commercially available computational Iluid dynamics (CFD) computer
program.
37
) 2 (
i f fi
f i f
i
f
i
u u S
x x
P
x
U
U
t
U
(2.21)
3.3 Choice oI Turbulence Model and its Implementation
As indicated in the previous section, a Reynoldsstress model (RSM) (Launder,
1989a; Launder, 1989a; Gibson and Launder, 1978; Launder, Reece and Rodi, 1975)
was used in the present study and the way it is implemented in Fluent is described in this
section. For the RSM model the Reynoldsstress equation is used as the starting point
and is shown below as it was presented in the previous section.
if T if L if if if if
if
D D P C
t
, ,
+ + + = +
(2.43)
The Reynoldsstress equation does provide six additional equations, one Ior each oI the
six independent components oI the Reynoldsstress tensor. In the process, however, the
derivation oI the Reynoldsstress equation introduced an additional twentytwo new
unknown quantities. These new unknowns in equation 2.43 appear in the terms
if
,
if
and D
T,if
. The expressions Ior these terms were presented in the previous section and are
repeated below.
k
f
k
i
if
x
u
x
u
= 2
(2.39)


.

\

=
i
f
f
i
if
x
u
x
u
p
(2.40)
[ ]
ik f fk i k f i
k
if T
u p u p u u u
x
D + +
=
,
(2.42)
38
In the implementation oI the Reynoldsstress model in Fluent, the three terms listed
above need to be modeled. The Iollowing sections describe the models used in Fluent Ior
these terms. A number oI empirical constants are used in the Iollowing sections. Table
3.1 is presented below and lists the coeIIicients, their values, the equations in which they
Iirst appear and the reIerence describing the determination oI the value used.
Table 3.1 Turbulence model coeIIicient values and source reIerences
Symbol Value
Equation oI First
Appearance
ReIerence
k
0.82 (3.1)
(Lien &
Leschziner, 1994)
C
0.09 (3.2)
(Launder &
Spalding, 1972)
1.0 (3.4)
(Fluent 6.3 CFD
User`s Guide,
2006)
1
C
1.44 (3.4)
(Launder &
Spalding, 1972)
2
C
1.92 (3.4)
(Launder &
Spalding, 1972)
0.4187 (3.7)
(Fluent 6.3 CFD
User`s Guide,
2006)
Beginning with equation 2.42 D
T,if
is modeled in Fluent Irom Lien and Leschziner
(1994) as equation 3.1 shown below (Fluent 6.3 CFD User`s GuideF6.3UG, 2006):


.

\

=
k
f i
k
t
k
if T
x
u u
x
D
,
(3.1)
Lien and Leschziner (1994) derived a value oI 82 . 0 =
k
and the turbulent viscosity,
t
is computed using equation 3.2 shown below where the constant,
09 . 0 =
C
.
39
2
k
C
t
=
(3.2)
where k is the turbulence kinetic energy and is obtained Irom equation 3.3 below.
i i
u u k =
2
1
(3.3)
In equation 3.2 the scalar dissipation rate,


.

\

+
+ =
f
t
f
ii
f
f
x x k
C
k
P C
x
U
t
2
2 1
2
1
(3.4)
In equation (3.4), 92 . 1 , 44 . 1 , 0 . 1
2 1
= = =
C and C . P
ii
is Irom equation 2.38.
The pressurestrain term,
if
shown in equation 2.40 is modeled based on
proposals by Gibson and Launder (1978), Fu, Launder and Leschziner (1987) and
Launder (1989a; 1989b) in a decomposed Iorm as Iollows (F6.3UG, 2006).
w if if if if , 2 , 1 ,
+ + =
(3.5)
where
(
= k u u
k
if f i if
3
2
8 . 1
1 ,
(3.6)
( )
(

.

\

=
kk kk if if if if
C P C P
2
1
2
1
3
2
60 . 0
2 ,
(3.7)
where the terms P
if
and P
kk
are deIined as in equation 2.38 and the terms C
if
and C
kk
are
deIined as in equation 2.37. The term,
w if,
2
3
2 , 2 , 2 ,
2
3
,
2
3
2
3
3 . 0
2
3
2
3
5 . 0

.

\

+

.

\

=
(3.8)
where n
k
is the x
k
component oI the unit normal to the wall, d is the normal distance to the
wall and
4
3
C C
l
= , where C
n
0.09 and k is the von Karman constant, which in this
case is given a value oI 0.4187. The dissipation tensor,
if
) (
) (
+ =
(3.10)
The Iirst term on the right hand side oI equation 3.10 is the drag Iorce per unit particle
mass where the coeIIicient, F
D
is deIined below as equation 3.11.
24
Re 18
2
D
p p
D
C
d
F
=
(3.11)
In the two equations above, u is the Iluid velocity, u
p
is the particle velocity, n is the
molecular viscosity oI the Iluid, o is the Iluid density, o
p
is the density oI the particle and
42
d
p
is the particle diameter. Re is the relative Reynolds number, which is shown below as
equation 3.12.
u u d
p p
= Re
(3.12)
The drag coeIIicient, C
D
, in equation 3.11 is Ior smooth spherical particles and is shown
below as equation 3.13.
2
3 2
1
Re Re
a a
a C
D
+ + =
(3.13)
In equation 3.13 the constants a
1
, a
2
and a
3
are Ior smooth spherical particles over several
ranges oI Re ( Morsi & Alexander, 1972; F6.3UG, 2006).
3.4.2 The Turbulent Dispersion oI Particles
Fluent provides a means to account Ior the dispersion oI particles due to
turbulence using a stochastic tracking model. The stochastic model, also reIerred to as
the random walk model, includes the eIIect oI instantaneous turbulent velocity
Iluctuations on the particle trajectories. The basic trajectory calculations described above
in section 3.4.1 will use the mean Iluid phase velocity,
u
, by deIault. Optionally the
instantaneous value oI the Iluctuating gas Ilow velocity, u(t) can be used where
) ( ) ( t u u t u + =
(3.14)
to predict the dispersion oI the particles due to turbulence. The term, ) (t u
, in equation
3.14 is the Iluctuating component oI velocity. In the stochastic tracking approach, the
43
turbulent dispersion oI particles is predicted by integrating the trajectory equations Ior
individual particles using the instantaneous Iluid velocity, u(t), along the particle path.
By computing the trajectory in this manner Ior a suIIicient number oI representative
particles (termed the 'number oI tries), the random eIIects oI turbulence on the particle
dispersion is accounted Ior. The model as implemented in Fluent is called the discrete
random walk (DRW) model where the Iluctuating velocity components are discrete
piecewise constant Iunctions oI time. Their random value is kept constant over an
interval oI time given by the characteristic liIetime oI the turbulent eddies. This
prediction oI particle dispersion uses the concept oI the integral time scale, T, which
describes the time spent in turbulent motion along the particle path, ds where
ds
u
s t u t u
T
p
p p
}
+
=
0 2
) ( ) (
(3.15)
The integral time is proportional to the particle dispersion rate, where larger values
indicate more turbulent motion in the Ilow. It can be shown that the particle diIIusivity is
given by T u u
f i
(F6.3UG, 2006). For small 'tracer particles that move with the Iluid,
the integral time becomes the Iluid Lagrangian integral time, T
L
. This time scale can be
approximated as
k
C T
L L
=
(3.16)
where
L
C is to be determined as it is not well known. By matching the diIIusivity oI the
tracer particles,
L f i
T u u
, to the scalar diIIusion rate predicted by the turbulence model,
) (
t
, one can obtain
44
k
T
L
3 . 0
(3.17)
where the coeIIicient 0.3 is appropriate to use with the RSM turbulence model (F6.3UG,
2006; Daly & Harlow, 1970). In the discrete random walk (DRW) model the interaction
oI a particle with a succession oI discrete stylized Iluid phase turbulent eddies is
simulated. Each eddy is characterized by
o a Gaussian distributed random velocity Iluctuation,
u ,
v , and
w
o a time scale,
e
The values oI u
, v
, and w
that prevail during the liIetime oI the turbulent eddy are
sampled by assuming that they obey a Gaussian probability distribution, so that
2
u u =
(3.18)
where is a normally distributed random number and the remainder oI the righthand
side oI equation 3.18 is the local rootmeansquare (RMS) value oI the velocity
Iluctuations. Because the RSM is used, the nonisotropy oI the stresses is included in the
derivation oI the velocity Iluctuations so that equation 3.18 is valid calculating
u
. The
other Iluctuating components are deIined by
2
v v =
(3.19)
and
2
w w =
(3.20)
See reIerences (F6.3UG, 2006; Zhou & Leschziner, 1991).
The characteristic liIetime oI the eddy is deIined either as a constant by
45
L e
T 2 =
(3.21)
where
L
T is given by equation 3.17 or as a random variation about
L
T by the expression
) log(r T
L e
=
(3.22)
where r is a random number between 0 and 1 and
L
T is given by equation 3.17. The
option oI the random calculation oI
e
S S J J
dJ S A d A d v dJ
t
(3.15)
where is the density,
v
faces faces
N
f
f f
N
f
f f f
J S A A v J
t
(3.16)
where N is the number oI Iaces enclosing a given cell,
f
is the area oI the Iace,
f
is the gradient oI at Iace f and J is the cell volume. Discrete values oI the
quantity are stored at the cell centers. Values oI at the cell Iaces,
f
are needed to
compute the convective term in equation 3.16.
47
Figure 3.1 Control volumes used to illustrate the transport oI quantity
This is accomplished using an appropriate discretization scheme. The discretized scalar
transport equation (3.16) contains the unknown scalar variable at the cell center as well
as the unknown values in surrounding neighbor cells. This equation will, in general, be
nonlinear with respect to these variables. A linearized Iorm oI equation (3.16) can be
written as
+ =
nb
nb nb P
b a a
(3.17)
where the subscript nb reIers to neighbor cells, and a
P
and a
nb
are the linearized
coeIIicients Ior and
nb
and b is a source term (Patankar, 1980). The number oI
neighbors Ior each cell depends on the grid topology, but will typically equal the number
oI Iaces enclosing the cell (boundary cells being the exception). Similar equations can be
written Ior each cell in the grid. This results in a set oI algebraic equations with a sparse
C
1
C
0
cell
center
0
r
f
A
1
r
f
Iace, f
displacement
vectors
48
coeIIicient matrix. For scalar equations, Fluent solves this linear system using a point
implicit (GaussSeidel) linear equation solver in conjunction with an algebraic multigrid
(AMG) method.
3.5.2 Choice oI Equation Discretization Schemes
For cyclone numerical modeling it is recommended that higher order
discretization schemes be used (Thematic Network Ior Quality and Trust in the Industrial
Application oI CFD QNETCFD, 2003; Slack & Harlow, 2000). For this reason, the
highest order schemes available in Fluent were chosen Ior this study. DiIIusion terms in
the governing equations are central diIIerenced and are second order accurate. For the
convection terms, a third order scheme based on the Monotone UpstreamCentered
Schemes Ior Conservation Laws (MUSCL) (Van Leer, 1979) was chosen. The MUSCL
scheme achieves third order accuracy by a blending oI a central diIIerencing scheme and
a second order upwind scheme and is available Ior all cell types (F6.3UG, 2006). The
thirdorder scheme is shown below as
SOU f CD f f , ,
) 1 ( + =
(3.18)
where
CD f ,
is a
secondorder upwind scheme deIined by equation (3.20) below and
is a coeIIicient
used to determine the degree oI blending oI the central diIIerence and secondorder
upwind schemes and usually takes a value oI 1/8. The central diIIerence scheme is
shown below as
49
) (
2
1
) (
2
1
1 1 0 0 1 0 ,
r r
CD f
+ + + =
(3.19)
where the indices 0 and 1 reIer to the cells that share Iace f,
0
and
1
are the
gradients at cells 0 and 1 respectively, and r
is
the displacement vector Irom the upstream cell centroid to the Iace centroid. This
Iormulation requires the calculation oI the gradient in each cell. The determination
oI the gradient oI the scalar at the cell center c
0
is computed using the GreenGauss
theorem and is written in discrete Iorm as
=
f
f f c
A
1
) (
0
(3.21)
where
f
is the value oI at the cell Iace centroid and the summation is over all Iaces
enclosing the cell and
=
f
N
n
n
f
f
N
1
(3.22)
where
f
N is the number oI nodes on the Iace. The nodal values,
n
in equation (3.22)
are constructed Irom the weighted average oI the cell values surrounding the nodes. The
50
scheme reconstructs the exact values oI the linear Iunction at a node Irom surrounding
cellcentered values on arbitrary unstructured meshes by solving a constrained
minimization problem and preserves a secondorder spatial accuracy (F6.3UG, 2006).
Secondorder discretization in time derivative term is chosen Ior this study.
Temporal discretization involves the integration oI every term in the diIIerential
equations over a time step
t
. A generic expression Ior the time evolution oI a variable
is given by
) (
F
t
=
(3.23)
where the Iunction F incorporates any spatial discretization. The secondorder accurate
discretization scheme used Ior the Iirst order time derivative is used in this study which
given by
) (
2
4 3
1 1
F
t
n n n
=
+
+
(3.24)
where is a scalar quantity, n1 is the value oI and the next time level,
t t +
and n
is the value oI and the current time level, t and n1 is the value oI and the previous
time level, t t (F6.3UG, 2006).
3.5.3 Solving the Equations
The discrete governing equations are linearized to Iorm a system oI equations Ior
the dependent variables in each computational cell. The resulting system oI equations are
solved using a segregated method. The segregated method solves Ior a single variable at
51
a time such as uvelocity considering all cells in the problem. It then solves Ior the next
variable in turn, say yvelocity component, etc., until all variables are updated.
Figure 3.2 General segregated solver solution process steps
An implicit Iormulation oI the equations is used meaning that each unknown will appear
in more than one equation in the system oI equations and that the equations Ior a given
unknown must be solved simultaneously. Because the equations are nonlinear and
coupled, a number oI iterations must be perIormed beIore a converged solution is reached
Ior each time step. Each time iteration consists oI the steps shown in Figure 3.2.
Update properties based on current solution
(or use initial conditions to start the
computations)
Solve x, y and z
momentum equations
Solve pressure correction equation (to
satisIy continuity) and update pressures,
velocities and Iace mass Ilow rates.
Solve turbulence equations and update
particle positions
Is solution
converged Ior
current time step?
Are there more
time steps to
evaluate?
Advance solution
to next time step
Stop
No
No
Yes
Yes
52
3.5.4 Convergence Criteria
At the end oI each solver iteration, the residual sum Ior each oI the conserved
variables is computed and stored. The calculation oI the residuals is described here.
AIter discretization the linearized equation Ior the general variable at cell P was
presented above as equation (3.17) and is repeated below.
+ =
nb
nb nb P
b a a
(3.17)
II equation (3.17) is summed over all the computational cells P in the domain, there will
be an imbalance in the leIthand and righthand sides oI the summed result. The
imbalance in the expression Ior the sum with respect to the general variable over all oI
the P cells is termed the residual,
unscaled
R and is deIined below as
+ =
P Cells nb
P P nb nb unscaled
a b a R
(3.25)
where the various terms are the same as deIined Ior equation (3.17) earlier and where
P
is the value oI the general variable Ior cell P. In general, it is diIIicult to judge
convergence by examining the residuals deIined by equation (3.25) since no scaling is
used. Fluent scales the residual using a scaling Iactor representative oI the Ilow rate oI
through the domain. This 'scaled residual is deIined as
53
+
=
P cells
P P
P Cells nb
P P nb nb
a
a b a
R
(3.26)
For the momentum equations, the term
P
is replaced by
P
v ,which is the magnitude oI
the particular velocity component at cell P. For the continuity equation, the unscaled
residual Ior the solver used in this study is deIined as
=
P cells
C
unscaled
P cell in creation mass of rate R
(3.27)
The scaled residual Ior the continuity equation is deIined as
C
iteration unscaled
C
N iteration unscaled
C
R
R
R
5
=
(3.28)
where the denominator is the largest absolute value oI the unscaled continuity residual in
the Iirst Iive iterations. The criteria used to determine convergence Ior this study
required that the scaled residuals Ior all variables as deIined by equations (3.26) and
(3.28) decrease to 10
3
, that is decrease by three orders oI magnitude Ior each time step.
3.6 Chapter Summary
Chapter III described brieIly how the governing Ilow equations are implemented
in the program Fluent. The modeling used to obtain a closed Iorm oI the Reynoldsstress
equation was discussed. This modeling results in what is called the Reynoldsstress
model or RSM. This model is more appropriate to use Ior cyclone simulations because oI
the strong swirl present in the Ilow. The particle trajectory calculations are explained,
54
which also include an option that accounts Ior some eIIects oI turbulent dispersion on the
particles called the discrete random walk or DRW model. A brieI discussion oI the
control volume method was presented as well as the way the governing equations are
discretized. The general process used by Fluent to solve the resulting system oI
equations was outlined. Finally, the convergence criteria that is used to determine when
the iterative solution process is stopped was discussed. The interested reader can consult
the reIerences listed in the chapter Ior more detail on the subjects discussed in this
section.
55
CHAPTER IV.
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the geometry, test dust properties experimental results and
an estimate oI the 95 conIidence limits Ior the test data. The numerical results will be
compared with the data in this chapter.
4.2 150 mm Cyclone Geometry
Figure 4.1 below shows the 150 mm cyclone geometry given in Ogawa (1984). This
geometry was chosen because Ogawa provided a detailed description oI the geometry,
including the dust bin as well as test data at several Ilow rates.
4.3 Test Dust Characteristics
The test dust used in the experiments was Kantoloam. Kantoloam is a naturally
occurring volcanic dust Iound primarily in Japan. It comes in several grades and is a
56
standard dust used in Japan to evaluate Iilters. The density oI the particles is 2970 kg/m
3
.
The size distribution oI the dust is shown in the Iollowing Iigure. The equation Ior the
curve Iit shown in the graph was supplied by Ogawa (1984) and is the Iollowing:
) 0848 . 0 exp( * 100 () ) (
93 . 0
P P
x x R =
(4.1)
where x
p
is the particle size in microns and R(x
p
) is called the residue as a percent. The
residue, R(x
p
) is interpreted as the percentage oI total test dust based on mass that is
greater than the particle size, x
p
.
D
i
50mm
D 150mm
D
B
150mm
B 50mm
D
e
50mm
S 80mm
h 150mm
Hh 300mm
(where H is the total
height and H 450mm)
H
B
225mm
Figure 4.1 Ogawa 150 mm cyclone geometry
For example, reIerring the graph below and using the curve Iit, the residue at a particle
size oI 15 microns is 35. This means that 35 oI the dust (by mass) is composed oI
57
particles greater than or equal to 15 microns. The curve is also used to determine the
percentage oI the dust that is within a particular particle size range. For example, to
calculate the percentage oI Kantoloam test dust that was between the sizes oI 2.5 and 3.5
microns the Iollowing procedure would be used:
) 5 . 3 ( ) 5 . 2 ( 5 . 3 ) ( 5 . 2 R R m dust m =
(4.2)
) 5 . 3 * 0848 . 0 exp( 100 ) 5 . 2 * 0848 . 0 exp( 100 ) 5 . 3 ( ) 5 . 2 (
93 . 0 93 . 0
= R R
(4.3)
8 . 5 19448 . 76 96899 . 81 ) 5 . 3 ( ) 5 . 2 ( = = R R
(4.4)
8 . 5 5 . 3 ) ( 5 . 2 = m dust m
(4.5)
The above type oI calculations will be used in Iollowing sections to calculate the absolute
collection eIIiciency oI the cyclone.
KantoLoam Test Dust Distribution
dust density: 2970 kg/m
3
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
ParticIe Size, xp (microns)
R
(
x
p
)
o
r
R
e
s
i
d
u
e
(
%
)
Test Data Curve Fit
Figure 4.2 Kantoloam test dust size distribution
58
4.4 Experimental Collection EIIiciency Results
Ogawa provided collection eIIiciency results both in terms oI grade eIIiciency
curves and as well as the absolute collection eIIiciency operating with Kanto loam test
dust.
4.4.1 Grade EIIiciency Curves
Ogawa provides Iractional collection or grade eIIiciency data as a Iunction oI
particle diameter Ior the 150 mm cyclone at several diIIerent inlet velocity conditions.
The data points are listed in Table 4.1 below and are plotted in Figure 4.3. These curves
oI collection eIIiciency verses particle size at a speciIied particle density are called grade
eIIiciency curves. The grade eIIiciency curves are a Iunction oI particle size particle
density, gas properties, cyclone geometry and Ilow rate. The collection eIIiciency is also
aIIected by the dust concentration in the air being processed. At dust concentrations
higher than approximately 5 to 10 g/m
3
the collection eIIiciency increases a small
amount. The data presented here had dust concentration levels oI 1.5 to 2.5 g/m
3
.
59
Ogawa 150mm CycIone Grade Efficiency
ExperimentaI Data
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0
ParticIe Size (microns)
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
I
C
o
I
I
e
c
t
i
o
n
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
19.7 m/s data 15.1 m/s data 10.3 m/s data
Figure 4.3 150 mm cyclone grade eIIiciency curves
Table 4.1 Grade eIIiciency data Ior 150 mm Ogawa cyclone
Fractional collection eIIiciency at various inlet
velocities
Particle
diameter
(microns) 19.7 (m/s) 15.1 (m/s) 10.3 (m/s)
1.0 0.686 n/a n/a
1.5 0.775 0.559 n/a
2.0 0.891 0.654 0.556
3.0 0.945 0.818 0.662
4.0 0.978 0.916 0.828
5.0 0.989 0.956 0.888
6.0 0.992 0.966 0.911
7.0 0.993 0.974 0.914
8.0 0.986 0.977 0.910
9.0 0.990 0.976 0.910
10.0 0.995 0.983 0.922
11.0 1.00 0.991 0.910
60
4.4.2 Absolute Collection EIIiciency
Absolute collection eIIiciency,
overall
=
=
N
i
i r
X X
N
S
(4.10)
where N is the number oI observations in the sample set and
=
=
N
i
i
X
N
X
1
1
(4.11)
For the test data shown in Table 4.6 the three groups oI data are clustered about the three
inlet velocity ranges oI interest. The variation in eIIiciency, Ior the purposes oI this
68
study, is assumed to be caused by precision errors in the measurement oI the eIIiciency
values. A bias error component oI 1 will be used to account Ior Iixed errors in the
particle sizing and size distribution measurement process. The variation in inlet
velocities within each oI the three groups oI data points will be treated as precision error
in the Ilow measurement system. A velocity bias error component oI
1
will be used
to account Ior error that may be present due to Ilow measurement system calibration.
4.4.3.1 Uncertainty Estimates Ior EIIiciency Measurements
Table 4.7 Absolute eIIiciency data Ior 150
mm cyclone in the 19.7 to 21.4 m/s
range
Absolute Iractional
collection eIIiciency
Inlet velocity (m/s)
0.956 19.7
0.879 20.9
0.924 21.3
0.933 21.4
ReIerring to Table 4.7, the Iollowing computations can be made Ior eIIiciency in
the 19.7 to 21.4 m/s range. Using equation (4.11) with N 4, the mean value is
( ) 923 . 0 933 . 0 924 . 0 879 . 0 956 . 0
4
1
= + + + = e X
(4.12)
Using equation (4.10) the precision index is
[ ]
032 . 0 032280025 . 0
) 923 . 0 933 . 0 ( ) 923 . 0 924 . 0 ( ) 923 . 0 879 . 0 ( ) 923 . 0 956 . 0 (
) 1 4 (
1
2
1
2 2 2 2
= =
)
`
+ + +
=
e
e
S
S
(4.13)
The degrees oI Ireedom (DOF) is deIined as
69
) 1 ( = N
(4.14)
ThereIore, Ior this example,
3 ) 1 4 ( = =
. Looking in a tdistribution table Ior the t
statistic Ior a DOF oI
3 =
, one Iinds that t 3.182 (Hines & Montgomery, 1980).
The bias error Ior eIIiciency was assumed to be
1
oI the mean value oI eIIiciency, so
one would have
009 . 0 923 . 0 * 01 . 0 = =
e
B
(4.15)
The overall uncertainty is then calculated using equation (4.9) as Iollows:
[ ] [ ] ) 1 . 11 ( 102 . 0 ) 032 . 0 * 182 . 3 ( 009 . 0 ) (
2
1
2 2
2
1
2 2
= + = + =
e e e
tS B U
(4.16)
In a similar manner, the errors Ior the other two groups oI data can be calculated. The
Iollowing table shows the Iinal values Ior errors Ior all three Ilow range groups. This
completes the uncertainty estimates Ior the measured test result oI eIIiciency.
Table 4.8 Uncertainty estimates Ior absolute collection eIIiciency
measurements
10.3 to 11.0
m/s range
15.1 to 15.5
m/s range
19.7 to 21.4
m/s range
obs #1 0.880 0.914 0.956
obs #2 0.848 0.912 0.879
obs #3 0.866 0.904 0.924
obs #4 0.880 0.877 0.933
Mean EII. 0.869 0.902 0.923
S
e
0.015 0.017 0.032
B
e
0.009 0.009 0.009
sample size, N 4 4 4
DOF N1: 3 3 3
t value 95 conI Ior
DOF:
3.182 3.182 3.182
U
e
(Iractional
eIIiciency) 0.049 0.055 0.103
U
e
() 5.6 6.1 11.2
70
4.4.3.2 Uncertainty Estimates Ior Velocity Measurements
ReIerring to Table 4.7, the Iollowing computations can be made Ior inlet velocity
Ior the test data in the 19.7 to 21.3 m/s range. Using equation (4.11) with N 4, the
mean value is
( ) 8 . 20 4 . 21 3 . 21 9 . 20 7 . 19
4
1
= + + + = v X
(4.16)
Using equation (4.10) the precision index is
[ ]
781 . 0 78102497 . 0
) 8 . 20 4 . 21 ( ) 8 . 20 3 . 21 ( ) 8 . 20 9 . 20 ( ) 8 . 20 7 . 19 (
) 1 4 (
1
2
1
2 2 2 2
= =
)
`
+ + +
=
v
v
S
S
(4.17)
As was the case above,
3 =
and t 3.182.
The bias error Ior eIIiciency was assumed to be
1
oI the nominal velocity, so one
would have
208 . 0 8 . 20 * 01 . 0 = =
v
B
(4.18)
The overall uncertainty is then calculated using equation (4.9) as Iollows:
[ ] [ ] ) 0 . 12 ( 493 . 2 ) 781 . 0 * 182 . 3 ( 208 . 0 ) (
2
1
2 2
2
1
2 2
= + = + =
v v v
tS B U
(4.19)
In a similar manner, the errors Ior the other two groups oI data can be calculated. The
Iollowing table shows the Iinal values Ior uncertainties Ior all three Ilow range groups.
Table 4.9 Uncertainty estimates Ior velocity measurements
10.3 to 11.0
m/s range
15.1 to 15.5
m/s range
19.7 to 21.4
m/s range
obs #1 10.300 15.100 19.700
obs #2 11.000 15.200 20.900
71
Table 4.9 Uncertainty estimates Ior velocity measurements
10.3 to 11.0
m/s range
15.1 to 15.5
m/s range
19.7 to 21.4
m/s range
obs #3 11.000 15.400 21.300
obs #4 11.000 15.500 21.400
Mean Velocity 10.825 15.300 20.825
S
v
0.350 0.183 0.780
B
v
0.108 0.153 0.208
sample size, N 4 4 4
DOF N1: 3 3 3
t value 95 conI Ior
DOF:
3.182 3.182 3.182
U
v
(m/s) 1.119 0.601 2.492
U
v
() 10.3 3.9 12.0
4.4.3.3 Overall Uncertainty oI the Measured Test Result Ior EIIiciency
The measured results oI the experiments are collection eIIiciency and particle
size. The general expression used to calculate the uncertainty in a measured result, U
mr
is
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
(
(

.

\

+ +


.

\

+


.

\

= Ui
Xi
r
U
X
r
U
X
r
U
mr
(4.20)
were X
1
, X
2
and X
i
are the measured variables that aIIect the test result, r. The quantity r
is the measured test result which is a Iunction oI the measured quantities X
1
, X
2
and X
i
.
The variables, U
1
, U
2
and U
i
are the uncertainty values Ior the measured quantities X
1
, X
2
and X
i
. The overall uncertainty Ior eIIiciency has only one component and the r
expression Ior eIIiciency is trivial in this case:
= r
(4.21)
1 =
d
r
(4.22)
(continued)
72
From equation (4.16) we obtained:
102 . 0 =
e
U
(4.23)
Substituting equations (4.21) through (4.23) into (4.20) results in the an expression Ior
overall uncertainty Ior the measured collection eIIiciency,
e
U
as Iollows.
( ) [ ]
e e e e
U U U
r
U = =
(
(

.

\

=
2
1
2
2
1
2
* 1
(4.24)
The uncertainty Ior the measured result, eIIiciency has already been calculated Ior all
three Ilow ranges because oI the relation ship shown in equation (4.24). These
uncertainty values are shown in the last two rows oI Table 4.9 above.
4.4.3.4 Overall Uncertainty oI the Measured Test Result Ior Particle size
The cyclones collection eIIiciency characteristics change with Ilow (inlet
velocity) changes. Stairmand (1951) provided similarity laws or transIormations that
allow one to adjust the perIormance characteristics oI cyclones Ior changes in gas
density, cyclone diameter and inlet velocity. These relationships have been used by
many researchers such as Dirgo and Leith (1985). The basic transIormation expression is
shown below as
1 2 2
2 1 1
1 2
D v
D v
d d
i P
i P
=
(4.25)
where d
1
is the particle diameter collected at a given eIIiciency and under operating
conditions Ior particle density, 1 P
i ref ref
i
v v d
v
d
(4.28)
Now an expression Ior the uncertainty in particle size,
p
U
can be written based on
equation (4.20) as
2
1
2
2
3
2
1
2
2
1
(
(


.

\

)
`
=
(
(


.

\

=
v i ref ref v
i
p
U v v d U
v
d
U
(4.29)
74
For the cyclone calculations the reIerence size,
ref
d
will be taken as the cut diameter,
c
d
available Irom the test data and the reIerence inlet velocity,
ref
v
will be taken as the mean
velocity oI the test data. velocity,
mean
v
. Substituting the above variables into equation
(4.29) and simpliIying results in the Iollowing:
v
i
mean c
v
i
mean c
v
i
mean c
p
U
v
v d
U
v
v d
U
v
v d
U
2
3
2
3
2
1
2
2
3
2 2 2
= =
(
(
(


.

\

=
(4.30)
An example oI the particle size uncertainty estimate Ior the particles taken at an inlet
velocity
i
v
oI 19.7 m/s, a reIerence mean velocity,
mean
v
oI 20.825 m/s and based on a
cut size,
c
d
oI 0.9 microns and a velocity uncertainty , U
v
oI
492 . 2
m/s is shown below
using equation (4.30).
) 5 . 6 ( 059 . 0 492 . 2 *
7 . 19 * 2
825 . 20 9 . 0
2
2
3
2
3
c v
i
mean c
p
d of microns U
v
v d
U = = =
(4.31)
4.4.3.5 Completed Uncertainty Results Ior all Three Inlet Velocities
Based on the procedures described in the above two sections, calculations oI
eIIiciency uncertainty and particle size uncertainty can be calculated Ior the three test
Ilow rates and are shown in Table 4.10 below.
75
Table 4.10 Final uncertainty estimates Ior eIIiciency & particle size
Test Inlet Velocity (m/s) 10.3 15.1 19.7
nominal Iractional
eIIiciency
0.869 0.902 0.923
U
e
(Iraction) 0.049 0.055 0.103
EIIiciency
Uncertainty
U
e
( oI nominal eII.) 5.6 6.1 11.2
nominal size (microns) 2.0 1.5 0.9
U
p
(microns) 0.111 0.030 0.059
Particle
Size
Uncertainty
U
p
( oI nominal size) 5.6 2.0 6.5
II it is assumed that the variation in eIIiciency results applies equally to each particle size
category, then it is possible to show that the conIidence interval Ior the collection
eIIiciency oI each particle size is the same conIidence interval as calculated above Ior the
absolute collection eIIiciency. Figures 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 show the experimental grade
eIIiciency curves Ior 10.3, 15.1 and 19.7 m/s inlet velocities as reported by Ogawa (1984)
with error bars indicating the estimated eIIiciency and particle size measurement
uncertainty Irom Table 4.10.
76
Ogawa 150mm CycIone Grade Efficiency with Estimated 95%
Confidence Iimits: 10.3 m/s InIet VeIocity
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0
ParticIe Size (microns)
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
I
C
o
I
I
e
c
t
i
o
n
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
Figure 4.5 Cyclone at 10.3 m/s grade eIIiciency points with experimental error
Ogawa 150mm CycIone Grade Efficiency with Estimated 95%
Confidence Iimits: 15.1 m/s InIet VeIocity
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0
ParticIe Size (microns)
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
I
C
o
I
I
e
c
t
i
o
n
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
Figure 4.6 Cyclone at 15.1 m/s grade eIIiciency points with experimental error
77
Ogawa 150mm CycIone Grade Efficiency with Estimated 95%
Confidence Iimits: 19.7 m/s InIet VeIocity
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0
ParticIe Size (microns)
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
I
C
o
I
I
e
c
t
i
o
n
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
Figure 4.7 Cyclone at 19.7 m/s grade eIIiciency points with experimental error
4.5 Chapter Summary
This chapter presented a description oI the cyclone geometry, test dust
characteristics and collection eIIiciency data presented by Ogawa (1984) and used in this
study Ior comparison with the numerical model. The grade eIIiciency curve oI the
cyclone was explained. The absolute collection eIIiciency was explained and an example
oI how to calculate the absolute collection eIIiciency was given. Ogawa (1984) gave no
experimental error estimates Ior the grade eIIiciency curves he provided. He did,
however provide several data points Ior absolute collection eIIiciency that provided
78
inIormation on the variation in experimental data Irom his studies. This available data
was used to estimate measurement uncertainty and to calculate 95 conIidence limits
Ior the grade eIIiciency point test data. The uncertainty estimation was brieIly explained
and calculation examples were given.
79
CHAPTER V.
NUMERICAL STUDY
5.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the details oI the numerical modeling done Ior this project.
A description oI the construction oI the computational grid and the boundary conditions
used will be given. A study oI the separation process is conducted using two approaches
Ior the particle tracking calculations. A study oI discretization error is conducted.
Finally, simulation oI the separation perIormance oI the 150 mm cyclone at three Ilow
rates will be conducted.
5.2 Preparation oI the Geometry Ior Grid Generation
The basic cyclone dimensions are given by Ogawa (1984) along with the
locations oI the upstream and downstream pressure taps. For this study the system inlet
was located 1.5 inlet pipe diameters beIore the upstream pressure tap. The exit pipe oI
the model was extended 6 outlet pipe diameters beyond the downstream pressure tap.
The Iollowing Iigure shows a side view oI the geometry with these Ieatures identiIied.
80
Figure 5.1 Cyclone geometry Ieatures related to the grid generation process
A region was created in the geometry Ior the transition area where the inlet pipe enters
the cyclone body that consisted oI part oI the inlet pipe and a segment created by rotating
a rectangular section 25 mm by 80 mm through a 90 degree angle. The Iollowing Iigure
shows the transition region Ior the computational model. This transition region provided
a Ilexible means to connect any shape oI inlet duct to the body oI the cyclone. Once the
regions described in this section were deIined, the computational grid could then be
constructed.
upstream pressure
tap (tap 1)
downstream
pressure tap
(tap 2)
D
D
e
D
i
length 6 x D
e
distance to tap 2 1 x D
distance to tap 1 1 x D
length 1.5 x D
i
81
Figure 5.2 Inlet pipe to cyclone body transition region
5.3 Computational Grid
Slack and Harwood (2000), QNETCFD (2003) along with studies by Hoekstra et
al. (1999) and Slack, Prasad et al. (2000) provide guidance Ior setting up the
computational grid. In general, it is possible to model the Ilow Ieatures with relatively
coarse grids totaling Irom approximately 30,000 cells (Slack & Harwood, 2000) to
40,000 cells (Slack, Prasad et al., 2000; QNETCFD, 2003). It is important, however, to
resolve the swirling Iluid core oI the cyclone in order to calculate the radial, tangential
and axial velocities as well as pressure drop adequately. It is not necessary to have an
extremely Iine mesh at the solid cyclone walls because the important turbulence
generation aIIecting perIormance occurs within the body oI the cyclone due to the strong
90 deg
length S 80mm
length D/6 25mm
Inlet Pipe
Upstream
Pressure tap
(tap 1) location
82
centriIugal eIIects that result in large shear between Iluid layers at varying radial
distances Irom the axis oI Iluid rotation (Slack & Harwood, 2000; QNETCFD, 2003). In
general, the Iollowing rules oI thumb may be used.
o Hexahedral cells are recommended to the extent possible.
o Avoid highly stretched cells. Cell aspect ratio should not exceed 1:5 as high
aspect ratios in swirling Ilows may cause divergence problems.
o Use a Iine mesh along the axis oI the cyclone to resolve the central core.
o Boundary layer resolution near walls is not extremely critical as turbulence is
generated in the main Ilow.
Figure 5.3 below shows the grid used Ior this study. Hexahedral cells are used in
the dust bin, exit pipe, cone and most oI the cylindrical body oI the cyclone. A
tetrahedral grid is used in the transition region described in the previous section, where
the inlet pipe connects to the cyclone body. The only case in which other modelers were
able to use hex cells Ior the whole grid was when the inlet duct had a rectangular cross
section. In the present analysis, the inlet duct consists oI a cylindrical pipe. The most
practical approach to grid the transition was to use the tetrahedral cells. From the
transition back to the inlet boundary prism type cells were used. These cell regions are
noted in Figure 5.3. This basic approach to grid construction is able to accommodate all
types oI inlet duct crosssections including rectangular and elliptical shapes.
83
Figure 5.3 Cyclone grid construction overview
5.3.1 Grid Construction Sequence
The grid was created using the Iollowing steps.
Step 1. Grid begins in a horizontal plane that passes through the cyclone body at
the bottom surIace oI the exit duct. Cells within the exit pipe diameter are generated at a
target size oI 3.5 oI the cyclone main diameter, D, which Ior this model is 3.5 oI 150
mm or a target size oI 5.25 mm. See Figures 5.4 and 5.5.
Hexahedral
Cells
Tetrahedral
Cells
Prism Cells
84
Figure 5.4 Plane where grid construction starts
Figure 5.5 Starting grid size and distribution
Horizontal plane
where grid
construction starts.
Hex cells
across exit
pipe opening
are sized at
3.5 oI the
cyclone
diameter, D to
resolve
cyclone core
Ilow Ieatures.
Hex cells
transition to a
size 7 oI
cyclone
diameter, D.
85
Step 2. The cells within the exit pipe are extruded upward in the positive Z
direction using an axial cell length that was chosen so that the cell aspect ration was less
than 5:1. The cells in the body oI the cyclone, excluding the transition region, were
extruded upward in the positive Zdirection using an axial cell length oI 7 oI the
diameter D. The grid in the body oI the cyclone is extruded downward in the negative Z
direction to grid the cylindrical body oI the cyclone below the transition region. Note
that some grading oI the grid in the axial direction is used to reduce the cell size near the
outlet pipe end wall while still keeping cell aspect ratios less than 5:1. Figure 5.6, below,
shows the grid created in this process.
Figure 5.6 Hex grid in cyclone body and exit pipe
86
Step 3. The transition region is gridded using tetrahedral cells. In this process, the
mesh generation soItware uses pyramidshaped cells which connect the hex cells in the
body to the tet cells in the transition region. Then the inlet pipe extension upstream oI the
Iirst pressure tap is extruded using prism cells to complete the inlet pipe grid. The next
three Iigures show the pyramid cells, the Iully meshed tet transition region and Iinally the
inlet extension region Iilled with prism cells.
Figure 5.7 Hexahedral cells are connected to tet cells with pyramid cells
87
Figure 5.8 Tetrahedral cells complete mesh in the transition region
Figure 5.9 Prism cells used in the inlet pipe extension
88
Step 4. The grid in the cyclone cone is extruded next. Grading must be used to
make the grid Iiner toward the cone apex, where the dust bin is located, in order to keep
aspect ratios within the recommended 5:1 range. The grid in this region is shown below
in the Iollowing Iigure.
Figure 5.10 Grid in cone oI cyclone
Step 5. Finally the dust bin is meshed. Cell size is increased smoothly in the radial
direction Irom the size that exists at the cone apex to a maximum oI 7 oI the cyclone
main diameter on the top oI the dust bin. Then the grid at the top oI the dust bin is
extruded downward in the negative Zdirection, again, adjusting the axial cell size so that
aspect ratios do not exceed 5:1. This completes the cyclone mesh, which is shown in the
Iollowing Iigure. The Iinal grid consisted oI 60,327 cells.
89
Figure 5.11 Completed Grid
5.4 Material Properties and Boundary Conditions
The Iluid is air, assumed to be incompressible, with the properties shown in the
table below.
Table 5.1 Material properties
Density (kg/m
3
) 1.225
Air
Absolute Viscosity (kg/ms) 0.000017894
Kantoloam test dust Particle Density (kg/m
3
) 2970
A mass Ilow boundary condition was imposed at the inlet. On the outlet, a zero gradient
boundary condition (BC) was applied. The walls were modeled as noslip boundaries.
90
Three Ilow rates were simulated. The turbulence BC at the inlet was speciIied using an
intensity oI 5 and a hydraulic diameter oI 0.050 m, the diameter oI the inlet pipe.
These values are listed in the table below.
Table 5.2 Flow boundary conditions
BC type
Case Used Value
Low Flow Case 0.0247744
Medium Flow
Case
0.0363198 Mass Flow (kg/s)
High Flow Case 0.0473841
Turbulence Intensity () All Cases 5
Inlet
Turbulence Duct Hydraulic Diameter
(m)
All Cases 0.050
Outlet Zero Gradient All Cases
No input
value
required
Wall NoSlip All Cases
No input
value
required
The mass Ilows Ior the three Ilow rates were based on the three inlet velocities given by
Ogawa (1984) which are 10.3, 15.1 and 19.7 m/s. Based on the Iluid density, the cross
sectional area oI the inlet duct, the inlet mass Ilow rates in kg/sec are calculated using the
Iollowing equation:
i i
A J m=
(5.1)
where J
i
is the inlet velocity in m/s,
2 3
4 3
k
C
=
(5.7)
where
C
is an empirical constant speciIied in the turbulence model which has a value oI
0.09.
5.5 Time Step Size
Several guidelines are available Ior determining an appropriate time step size. A
characteristic residence time (QNETCFD, 2003) which is deIined as
J
J
t
c
=
(5.8)
where J is the volume oI the model and J
\

=
(5.9)
93
For a stable eIIicient calculation, the cell Courant number should not exceed a value oI 20
to 40 in the most sensitive transient regions oI the domain. Again, please note that Ior
stability considerations the Courant number, which is usually required to have a value
less than 1.0, is not restricted when using Fluent's transient iterative solver. In this case,
monitoring the values oI the cell Courant number is used as a guide Ior determining an
appropriate time step size. The Table 5.3 below shows the various quantities that can be
part oI the choice Ior time step size. In practice, running these simulations, the limiting
Iactor in determining the time step size was that the number oI iterations to converge
each time step be approximately 5 to 10.
Table 5.3 Quantities related to time step size selection
Inlet
Velocity
(m/s)
actual time
step
size, t (sec)
c
t
t
max
cell
Courant
Number oI
solver
iterations per
time step
10.3 0.0002 Actual Value 0.0004 3 5
15.1 0.0002 Actual Value 0.0006 5 7
19.7 0.0002 Actual Value 0.0008 6 8
Recommended
limit Ior value
01 . 0
20
5 to 10
Based on this inIormation, time step sizes were initially set Ior
c c
t t t 0008 . 0 0004 . 0
then as the simulation ran, the step size was adjusted as needed so that the number oI
iterations per time step was in the range oI 5 to 10.
94
5.6 Fully Unsteady Continuous Phase and Particle Tracking Calculations
A number oI exploratory simulations were perIormed to provide insight into the
overall separation process. In general the model was set up Ior a speciIic Ilow rate.
Unsteady calculations were then perIormed until the solution exhibited a steadystate or
periodically steady characteristic. Once the unsteady solution had stabilized, the dust
particles were introduced into the system and the unsteady calculations were continued
while tracking the particles through the domain. Figures 5.12 and 5.13 below show plots
oI the changes in particle mass in the cyclone over time during separation. This was a
simulation in which particles were injected and then tracked in time during the unsteady
Ilow simulation. The air Ilow rate was set at a 15.1 m/s inlet condition. The red line
represents the amount oI particle mass present in the whole cyclone system. The blue
line represents the amount oI particle mass that is contained only in the dust bin. The
process can be broken up into diIIerent stages as described in the Iollowing paragraphs.
The total particle mass in the system is considered Iirst, which is tracked by the red
curves in Figures 5.12 and 5.13. It can be seen that at time zero the particle injection
process begins. As particles continue to be injected, the particle mass in the system rises
sharply to a value oI 1.0 in the Iirst one tenth oI a second. (Note that the total mass is
normalized so that a value oI 1.0 indicates that the mass in the cyclone is 100 oI the
total mass injected.) AIter the amount oI particle mass peaks at 1.0, mass begins to leave
the system as the particles Iind their way Irom their location in the upper portion oI the
cyclone directly to the outlet pipe. These particles are able to leave the system beIore
they begin to be inIluenced signiIicantly by the centriIugal Iorces caused by the Ilow
95
rotation. These particles leave the system by what might be called a 'short circuiting oI
the separation process. The majority oI the short circuiting oI particles occurs, in this
example, Irom a time oI about 0.1 second to about 0.4 or 0.5 seconds. This is a Iairly
rapid decrease in mass and is most apparent in Figure 5.12. AIter the initial exit oI
particles by short circuiting, the rate oI mass leaving the system begins to decrease and
approaches an asymptotic, steadystate value oI about 0.9 as seen in Figure 5.12 at a time
oI about 12 seconds.
Figure 5.12 Overview oI separation process
Particle Injection
Short circuiting
Particles escape system
primarily due to re
entrainment Irom the dust bin
Dust bin Iilling
Fig 5.20 (6 sec)
Fig 5.21 (12.5 sec)
96
The blue curves in Figures 5.12 and 5.13 show how particle mass changes within
the dust bin. At a time equal to zero particles begin to enter the system but do not reach
the dust bin immediately. This can be seen most clearly in Figure 5.13 where the dust bin
mass is zero until about 0.14 seconds. The dust bin mass then increases and peaks at a
time oI approximately 1.0 second. AIter 1.0 second, the curve Ior dust bin mass begins to
Iollow the curve Ior total system mass and continues in this manner Ior the remainder oI
the simulation. Also, note that in Figures 5.12 and 5.13 there are notations reIerring to
Figures 5.14 through 5.21 in which plots oI particle locations in the cyclone at diIIerent
times is shown.
Figure 5.13 Early part oI separation process
Fig 5.14 (0.04 sec)
Fig 5.15 (0.14 sec)
Fig 5.16 (0.24 sec)
Fig 5.17 (0.34 sec)
Fig 5.18 (0.44 sec)
Fig 5.19 (1.0 sec)
97
Figure 5.14 Particle injection at 0.04 seconds
Particles colored by
diameter (meters)
98
Figure 5.15 Short circuiting oI particles at 0.14 seconds
Particles colored by
diameter (meters)
99
Figure 5.16 Short circuiting and Iilling oI dust bin at 0.24 seconds
Particles colored by
diameter (meters)
100
Figure 5.17 Continued dust bin Iilling and short circuiting at 0.34 seconds
Particles colored by
diameter (meters)
101
Figure 5.18 Process at 0.44 seconds
Particles colored by
diameter (meters)
102
Figure 5.19 Process at 1.0 second
Particles colored by
diameter (meters)
103
Figure 5.20 Process at 6.0 seconds
Particles colored by
diameter (meters)
104
Figure 5.21 Process at 12.5 seconds
Particles colored by
diameter (meters)
105
The plots in Figures 5.14 through 5.21 are colored based on particle size. For this
simulation particles ranging Irom 0.25 microns to 5 microns were used. The dust
particles had the properties oI Ogawa`s Kantoloam. As described in Chapter IV, particle
sizes were chosen to represent a particular size range Irom the Kantoloam distribution
provided by Ogawa. One can also track particles oI the diIIerent sizes over time. Figure
5.22 below shows how the number oI particles in the system oI diIIerent sizes changes
with time. One thousand particles oI each size were injected. Figure 5.22 plots the
Iraction oI particles that remain in the system over time, which is the Iractional eIIiciency
oI the cyclone Ior each particle size.
CycIone Separation Efficiency vs Time & Size
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0
time (sec)
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
I
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
0.25 micron 0.5 micron 1 micron 1.5 micron
2.0 micron 2.5 micron 3, 4 & 5 micron
Figure 5.22 Cyclone Iractional eIIiciency vs. particle size vs. time
106
As can be seen Irom Figure 5.22, the 3, 4 and 5 micron particles are all retained by the
system. A small amount oI the 2.5 and 2 micron particles escape early in the process
through short circuiting. AIter the initial short circuiting losses the remainder oI these
particles are retained because they are too heavy to be reentrained once they enter the
dust bin. A number oI the 1.5 micron particles exit through short circuiting, aIter which
there is a slow decline in the number oI particles in the system. It is somewhat unclear
whether all oI the particles would eventually escape or whether a certain number will be
retained indeIinitely. The 1 micron particles show a more rapid decline and by about 12
seconds only 9 oI the original number remain. The 0.25 and 0.5 micron particles all
leave the system.
The Iate oI the 1.5 and 1.0 micron particles is not clear and several ways oI
dealing with this situation were considered. One approach was to omit particles that did
not approach a singlevalued result. A straight line would then be drawn between the
known points. This did not prove to be a very satisIactory method. For the purposes oI
this study, it was decided to Iit second order polynomials to the eIIiciency vs. time
curves oI particles whose Iates could not be determined with conIidence during a
reasonable time period, which is determined by the investigator. The zero slope location
oI the polynomial would be calculated and the collection eIIiciency at the zero slope
location would be used as the estimate Ior the ultimate eIIiciency oI the particle size in
question. All points would then be used to construct the grade eIIiciency curve. This
method was used Ior the data generated above.
107
Separation Efficiency vs Time & Size with Curve Fits to 1.0 and
1.5 micron Points
y = 0.0029x
2
 0.0803x + 0.65
R
2
= 0.9882
y = 0.0001x
2
 0.0046x + 0.89
R
2
= 0.9211
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0
time (sec)
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
I
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
0.25 micron 0.5 micron 1 micron
1.5 micron 2.0 micron 2.5 micron
3, 4 & 5 micron Poly. (1 micron) Poly. (1.5 micron)
Figure 5.23 Cyclone Iractional eIIiciency vs. particle size vs. time with curve Iitting
Grade Efficiency at 15.1 m/s
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
ParticIe size (microns)
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
I
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
Figure 5.24 Cyclone grade eIIiciency curve at 15.1 m/s
108
Figure 5.23 shows the data which was plotted in Figure 5.22 with the curve Iits to the 1.0
and 1.5 micron data. Based on the results oI the particle tracking process a grade
eIIiciency curve Ior this cyclone was plotted and is shown in Figure 5.24.
An obvious way to improve the calculation oI the grade eIIiciency curve would be
to run the simulation Ior the above example Ior a longer period oI time. The simulation
described above, which computed about 12.8 seconds oI the process took a signiIicant
amount oI actual time. Using a computer running Windows XP using a single Intel Xeon
3.20 MHz processor with 2 GB oI RAM took 20 seconds oI wall clock time to calculate a
simulation time step size oI 0.0002 seconds. Using this inIormation the total wall clock
time Ior running the 12.8 simulation can be shown to be
davs clock
simulated
step time
step time
clock
simulated time Total
8 . 14 sec) ( 000 , 280 , 1
sec) ( 0002 . 0
) (
*
) (
sec) ( 20
* sec) ( 8 . 12
=
=
(5.8)
This amount oI time is not practical Ior use as a design tool. The next section describes a
more eIIicient approach Ior this type oI calculation.
5.7 QuasiUnsteady Particle Tracking Calculations in a "Frozen" Flow Field
In the above process, the greatest amount oI time was spent during the particle
tracking process as both unsteady particle and unsteady Iluid calculations were carried
out until most oI the particles had exited the domain. An alternative approach was
109
adopted, which signiIicantly reduced the time required Ior the particle tracking process
but gave comparable collection eIIiciency results to the approach described above in
section 5.5. In the same manner as was done in section 5.5, a Ilow rate was speciIied and
unsteady calculations were perIormed until the solution reached a stable, periodically
steady characteristic. At this point, the unsteady Iluid simulation was stopped. Using
what might be called a 'Irozen continuous phase Ilow Iield, particles were injected into
the Irozen Iluid domain and tracked until their Iate could be determined. The results oI
the approach are shown below in Figures 5.25 and 5.26.
CoIIection Efficiency vs time & size
Tracking in 'frozen' fIow fieId with aIternate tracking approach
y = 0.8463e
0.0644x
R
2
= 0.9972
y = 2E06x
2
 0.0015x + 0.9127
R
2
= 0.9936
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
time (s)
F
r
a
c
i
o
n
a
I
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
0.25micron (1 min) 0.5micron (1 min) 1.0micron (9 min)
1.5micron (42 min) 2.0micron (20 min) 2.5micron (17 min)
3, 4 & 5micron (4 min) Expon. (1.0micron (9 min)) Poly. (1.5micron (42 min))
Figure 5.25 Collection eIIiciency vs. particle size vs. time using alternate approach
110
The graphs in Figures 5.23 and 5.25 were produced using the diIIerent tracking
approaches and show the rate at which the particles oI diIIerent sizes leave the system.
The general shapes oI the curves Ior corresponding sizes are similar, however, the
particles tracked using the Irozen Ilow Iield approach leave the system at a slower rate
than the particles tracked in the Iully unsteady process. It is believed that the particles
take longer to leave the in the Irozen Ilow Iield approach at least partly because the
variation with time oI the mean Ilow component oI velocity has been eliminated Irom the
tracking computation. The time dependent Iluctuations in the mean Ilow would aid in
dispersing the dust particles so that the particles would have a more opportunity to escape
the system, compared to the particles tracked using the Irozen Ilow Iield approach.
Grade Efficiency Curves for Both Tracking Approaches
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
ParticIe size (microns)
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
I
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
fully unsteady eff quaziunsteady eff
unsteady cut size = 1.274 quaziunsteady cut size = 1.396
Figure 5.26 Grade eIIiciency curves comparing both tracking approaches
111
The advantage oI the 'Irozen Ilow Iield tracking is that the grade eIIiciency curve can be
constructed in much less time. For this example the time needed to track the particles
using Iully unsteady calculations was on the order oI days, where, Ior the Irozen Iield
approach, the time needed was less than two hours. The graph in Figure 5.27 shows the
grade eIIiciency curves Ior both approaches. The resulting grade eIIiciency curves are
not identical but, in general show the same trends. The cut size was estimated Ior both
curves and these points are plotted also. As a result oI the work summarized in the
previous sections, it was decided that, Ior the purposes oI this study, the alternate or
quasiunsteady approach would be used because oI the unreasonably long calculation
times required by the Iully unsteady approach. The Iollowing procedure would be used
Ior calculating the grade eIIiciency curve oI cyclones Ior the rest oI this study:
1. AIter setting up the geometry and grid Ior the cyclone to be modeled, a Ilow rate
is speciIied and the simulation is run until a stable solution characteristic has been
reached. The unsteady Ilow computations are then stopped.
2. Particles oI appropriate sizes are created and tracked through the 'Irozen Ilow
Iield Ior a long enough period that the collection eIIiciency values Ior all particles
within reason reach a singlevalued result.
3. Second order polynomials will be Iit to the eIIiciency vs. time curves oI particles
whose Iates could not be determined with conIidence during a reasonable time
period. This time period is determined by the investigator.
4. The zero slope location oI the polynomial (or minimum value oI the Iunction)
would be calculated and this minimum collection eIIiciency value would be used
112
as the estimate Ior the ultimate separation eIIiciency oI the particle size in
question.
5. All points would then be used to construct the grade eIIiciency curve.
5.8 Sources oI Error and Grid ReIinement Study
The Iollowing section discusses several sources oI error that arise in numerical
models. A grid reIinement study is then used to estimate the discretization error.
5.8.1 Sources oI Simulation Error
There are several sources oI error that aIIect the results oI computations done
using CFD models. OberkampI and Blottner (1998) discuss two main categories oI
errors. One category is called physical modeling errors. These errors are caused by the
inaccuracies in the mathematical models used to describe the physics being simulated.
Included in this type oI error are errors in the partial diIIerential equations (PDEs)
describing the Ilow, auxiliary (or closure) physical models, Ior example, the turbulence
model used. Also the boundary conditions Ior the PDEs can be sources oI error. The
choice oI numerical models described earlier in this study was done in a careIul manner
so as to reduce physical modeling errors to the extent possible while still being able to
complete the calculations within a reasonable time with the computational tools available.
The other category oI simulation error that is related the numerical aspects oI the problem
113
include discretization, incomplete convergence and numerical roundoII errors. The
largest contributor to numerical solution error, according to OberkampI and Blottner
(1998), and the one that has caused the most inaccuracy in CFD solutions is caused by
inadequate grid resolution. In order to quantiIy this grid resolution or discretization error
a grid reIinement study has been conducted and is discussed in the Iollowing section.
5.8.2 Estimating Discretization Error using a Grid ReIinement Study
The purpose oI a grid reIinement study is to estimate the grid convergence
accuracy oI the CFD models used in this work. Richardson extrapolation (Richardson,
1908; Richardson, 1927) has been used by a number oI researchers Ior this purpose
(Hutton & Casey, 2001; OberkampI & Blottner, 1998; Roache, 1994 and Celik &
Karatekin, 1997). Roy (2003) shows that when a diIIerential equation is solved
numerically, the discretization error (DE) on a mesh with grid density level k can be
written as
exact k k
f f DE =
(5.9)
where f
k
is a discrete solution value on mesh level k and f
exact
is the exact solution to the
continuum partial diIIerential equation. II the discretization error is represented as a
series expansion, which is substituted into equation (5.9) and the terms are rearranged, we
can write the Iollowing expression:
( )
4 3
3
2
2 1 k k k k exact k
h O h g h g h g f f + + + + =
(5.10)
114
where g
i
is the ith order error term coeIIicient and h
k
is a measure oI the grid spacing on
mesh k. In the case oI a Iormally second order scheme and the use oI central diIIerencing
the g
1
coeIIicient will be zero (Roy, 2003). The general procedure Ior the grid reIinement
study is to write equation (5.10) Ior a number oI diIIerent mesh levels and then to solve
the system oI equations Ior an approximation to f
exact
. The value oI f
exact
is then an
estimate oI the solution extrapolated to a mesh, in which the grid spacing, h
k
is zero.
Having an estimate oI f
exact
allows one to estimate the error in the solution by comparing
the diIIerence between f
k
and f
exact
.
Roache (1994) presented a generalized expression to estimate f
exact
without
assuming the absence oI odd powers in the expansion. His generalized expression
applied to pth order methods and an rvalue Ior the grid reIinement ratio as Iollows.
) 1 (
) (
2 1
1
+
p
exact
r
f f
f f
(5.11)
where f
1
is the Iine grid solution and f
2
is the coarse grid solution. In this expression, f
exact
is estimated as a correction the Iine grid solution. II centered diIIerences were used then
the extrapolation is (p2) order accurate. But, generally, and notably iI upstream
weighted methods are used, the extrapolation is (p1) order accurate. Roache also
deIines the actual Iractional error, A
1
oI the Iine grid solution as
exact
exact
f
f f
A
) (
1
1
=
(5.12)
Roache gives an expression Ior the estimated Iractional error, E
1
Ior the Iine grid
solution, f
1
as
115
) 1 (
1
=
p
r
E
(5.13)
where
1
1 2
) (
f
f f
=
(5.14)
He describes E
1
as being an ordered error estimator since it takes into account the order, p
oI the numerical method as well as the grid reIinement ratio, r and that it can be a good
approximation oI the Iine grid error when the solution is oI reasonable accuracy, i.e.,
when
1
1
<< E
. He states that the nonordered error,
=
p
r
grid fine GCI
(5.15)
When a reIinement study is done using grid doubling (r 2) with a secondorder method
(p 2), one obtains =   grid fine GCI . Roache also recognizes that it is not always
practical to perIorm all computations Ior an engineering numerical study on the Iine grid.
He derives and expression Ior f
exact
as a correction to the coarsegrid solution as
116
) 1 (
) (
2 1
2
+
p
p
exact
r
r f f
f f
(5.16)
From this expression, he deIines a coarsegrid GCI, which can be presented in several
Iorms as shown below.
) 1 (
3
 
=
p
p
r
r
grid coarse GCI
(5.17)
    grid fine GCI r grid coarse GCI
p
=
(5.18)
3     + = grid fine GCI grid coarse GCI
(5.19)
In the present study both secondorder and thirdorder methods are used. As a
result the numerical models are considered to be mixed order. For mixed order numerical
models Roy (2003) presents approaches Ior estimating grid convergence errors, which
involve perIorming more than two reIinement grids. This provides additional equations
oI the type shown above as equation (5.10). By perIorming these additional studies one
can calculate an estimate oI the observed order oI the mixed order scheme. For example
iI the numerical model used both second and third order methods, the observed order oI
the model should be somewhere between second and thirdorder. Roache however,
suggests that Ior mixed order models, the error estimates should be reported
conservatively as being the lowest order method in the model. For example, in the case
oI methods which use higher order schemes Ior advection than Ior diIIusion, the error
will be dominated asymptotically by the lower order term. The present model uses
secondorder schemes Ior time discretization and Ior diIIusion and third order Ior
advection. ThereIore, Ior this exercise a conservative value oI p 2 will be chosen Ior
117
the purpose oI the error analysis. Also, Fluent does provide validation studies showing
that its secondorder numerical schemes are indeed secondorder accurate.
Because the cyclone problem is three dimensional and uses an unstructured type
mesh. It is not straight Iorward to create a Iine grid model that has a reIinement ratio, r
that is exactly two, Ior example. In this case, Roache suggests that the eIIective
reIinement ratio be reported in terms oI the total number oI cells used in the coarse (N
2
)
and Iine (N
1
) grids, along with the dimensionality, (D) oI the problem as
D
effective e
N
N
r r
1
2
1


.

\

= =
(5.20)
The cyclone grid was created basically by using an unstructured two dimensional hex
grid on a horizontal plane at the bottom oI the exit pipe. (See section 5.3.1 and Figures
5.4 and 5.5.) Then, this basic 2D grid was extruded in the axial direction to create most
oI the 3D grid. OI course, the exception to this was Ior the transition Irom the inlet pipe
to the cyclone body, which was created with tetrahedral cells. The approach used to
create the Iine grid model was to mesh the starting 2D horizontal surIace with
unstructured cells halI the size oI the cells used in the coarse grid. This was done so that
to the extent practical there were Iour times the number oI 2D cells Ior the Iine as
compared to the coarse grid. See Figure 5.27 below Ior the starting 2D grid surIace Ior
the Iine grid.
118
Figure 5.27 Starting grid surIace Ior Iine grid discretization error study
The grid spacing in the extruded (axial) direction could be controlled precisely and thus
set up having exactly twice the number oI grid points compared to the coarse grid. For
the tetrahedral transition section, the target cell size Ior the Iine grid model was set to be
onehalI the target size used Ior the Iine grid model. The next two Figures show the
completed Iine grid model.
119
Figure 5.28 Completed Iine grid cyclone model mesh
(See Figure 5.29 Ior a close up view oI the mesh.)
As a result, the Iine grid mesh contained 447,665 cells. The coarse grid model contained
60,327 cells. From these results, the eIIective reIinement ratio, r
e
could be calculated as
95 . 1
327 , 60
665 , 447
3
1
= 
.

\

=
e
r
(5.21)
The order, p then used Ior the error estimates was chosen, as indicated above,
conservatively as p 2. From this inIormation discretization error estimates could be
calculated Ior cyclone static pressure drop, overall separation eIIiciency and particle cut
size as shown below:
120
Figure 5.29 Close up oI completed Iine grid cyclone model mesh
5.8.3 Results Ior the Coarse and Fine Grid Models at 15.1 m/s
Having run both the Iine and coarse grid models at 15.1 m/s inlet velocity, the
pressure drops, grade eIIiciency curves and absolute eIIiciencies were calculated using
the procedures described in the previous sections oI this document. Table 5.3 below
provides a summary oI the results. Figure 5.30 which Iollows is a plot that also shows
the resulting grade eIIiciency curves. It is important to note that the reIinement was done
in the three space coordinates and also in the time dimension. The grid was reIined by a
Iactor oI two (1.95 was the eIIective reIinement ratio). The time step size was also
reIined by a Iactor oI two compared to that used in the coarse grid model.
121
Table 5.4 Fine and coarse grid perIormance results Ior 15.1 m/s inlet
velocity
Quantity
Cut Size
(microns)
Absolute Efficiency
(fraction)
Pressure Drop
(Pa)
fine grid result
(447,665 cells)
1.440 0.884 1544
coarse grid result
(60,327 cells)
1.396 0.887 1578
Fine vs. Coarse Grid Grade Efficiency Curves at 15.1 m/s
fine grid abs eff: 0.884
coarse grid abs eff: 0.887
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
particIe size (microns)
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
I
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
Fine Grid Coarse Grid fine grid cut size: 1.440 coarse grid cut size: 1.396
Figure 5.30 Coarse vs. Iine grid grade eIIiciency curves at 15.1 m/s
From these computed results, the discretization errors Ior pressure drop, particle cut size
and absolute collection eIIiciency can be calculated. These calculations are shown in the
Iollowing sections.
122
5.8.4 Static Pressure Drop Discretization Error Estimate
Using a Iine grid static pressure drop, f
1
1544 (Pa), a coarse grid static pressure drop,
f
2
1578 (Pa), an order, p 2 and a reIinement ratio oI r 1.95, the Iollowing can be
computed. Using equation 5.11 and estimate oI f
exact
can be calculated as
1532
) 1 95 . 1 (
) 1578 1544 (
1544
2
=
+
exact
f
(5.22)
Using equation 5.14 a nonordered Iine grid error, can be calculated as
0220 . 0
1544
) 1544 1578 (
=
=
(5.23)
Using equation 5.15 a Iine grid GCI can be calculated as
0236 . 0
) 1 95 . 1 (
022 . 0 3
 
2
=
+
exact
f
(5.26)
Using equation 5.14 a nonordered Iine grid error, can be calculated as
0305 . 0
440 . 1
) 440 . 1 396 . 1 (
=
=
(5.27)
Using equation 5.15 a Iine grid GCI can be calculated as
0327 . 0
) 1 95 . 1 (
0305 . 0 3
 
2
=
+
exact
f
(5.30)
Using equation 5.14 a nonordered Iine grid error, can be calculated as
0033 . 0
883 . 0
) 883 . 0 887 . 0 (
=
=
(5.31)
Using equation 5.15 a Iine grid GCI can be calculated as
0035 . 0
) 1 95 . 1 (
0033 . 0 3
 
2
=
=
(7.2)
The time step size was 0.0008 seconds so that the number oI solver iterations Ior each
time step was in the range oI 5 to 10 in accordance to the Iindings in Section 5.5. The
157
solver was run such that a stable behavior was obtained. The convergence behavior oI
the inlet and outlet static pressure was monitored. When the Iluctuations in static
pressure stopped changing or changed in a stable periodic manner, the solver was
stopped. Figure 7.5 is a plot oI the static pressure history Ior this problem.
Table 7.3 Flow boundary conditions
BC type Value
Mass Flow (kg/s) 0.168
Turbulence Intensity
()
5
Inlet
Turbulence
Duct Hydraulic
Diameter (mm)
109
Outlet Zero Gradient
No input value
required
Wall NoSlip
No input value
required
Figure 7.5 Convergence history oI static pressure during solution process
158
At this time particles oI the mineral oil material were created and injected into the
system using the quasiunsteady tracking in a 'Irozen Ilow Iield approach as described
in Section 5.7. Figure 7.6 shows the particle history leaving the cyclone over time as
described in Section 5.7.
S297 Vin=9.7: CoIIection Efficiency vs time & size
Tracking in 'frozen' fIow fieId
y = 1E05x
2
 0.0038x + 0.7507
y = 3E05x
2
 0.0078x + 0.7122
y = 2E07x
2
 0.0001x + 0.83
y = 9E07x
2
 0.001x + 0.7775
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
time (s)
F
r
a
c
i
o
n
a
I
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
1.5 micron 1008(2 min) 2micron 1008(3 min)
2.5 micron 1008(4 min) 3.5 micron 1008(19 min)
4 micron 1008(27 min) 5 micron 1008(41 min)
5.5 micron 1008(46 min) 4.5 micron 1008(64 min)
Poly. (4 micron 1008(27 min)) Poly. (3.5 micron 1008(19 min))
Poly. (5 micron 1008(41 min)) Poly. (4.5 micron 1008(64 min))
Figure 7.6 The 297mm cyclone particle tracking history with curve Iits
From the inIormation represented in Figure 7.6, the grade eIIiciency curve is created and
is shown in Figure 7.7. The appearance oI the grade eIIiciency curve is not smooth. This
is primarily caused by the curve Iitting done with the 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 and 5.0 micron
particles in order to estimate a Iinal eIIiciency. In particular, the 4.5 and 5.0 eIIiciency
159
verses time curves in Figure 7.6 are almost straight lines. This makes it diIIicult to Iind
the zero slope point Ior a second order polynomial Iit to points that almost lie on a
straight line. One could choose not to use these points, but Ior this exercise all points are
included.
Grade Efficiency Curve for InitiaI 297mm CycIone Design
FIow rate: 0.140 m3/sec; Static Pressure drop: 560 Pa
Cut size: 4.5 microns; ParticIe materiaI: mineraI oiI at 860 kg/m3
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
time (s)
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
I
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
Figure 7.7 Grade eIIiciency curve Ior initial 297mm cyclone design
7.4.6 Step 6: Compare PerIormance oI Current Design with Requirements
Table 7.4 Comparison oI perIormance oI initial design with requirements
Variable Name Initial Design PerIormance
Required
PerIormance
Cut size (microns) 4.5 3.0 0.3
Pressure drop (Pa) 560
no constraint
speciIied
Flow rate (m3/s) 0.140 0.140
160
Table 7.4 contains the results oI the perIormance calculated in section 7.4.5, Step
5 along with the requirements set up in section 7.4.1, Step 1. The cut size is not within
the required range, thereIore the design needs to be modiIied.
7.4.7 Step 7: Review Design Guidelines and SpeciIy ModiIications
The cut size needs to be decreased. No other perIormance variables need to be
changed. AIter reviewing Appendices C and D, one sees that in Appendix D, Table D.1,
the second row says that cut size is very sensitive to changes to the inlet duct height, a.
Also, in Figure D.1 the optimal curves relating a, b and D
e
can be consulted. Table 7.5
summarizes the decisions made here and shows Leith`s optimal ratios, the ratios used in
the initial model and the new ratios to be tried in the revised design along with the
reasoning Ior choosing the values. The last column lists the changes to be incorporated in
the revised design along with the reasoning Ior selecting the values used. Since the inlet
duct height was changed, it was decided to reduce the length that the exit pipe extended
into the cyclone, which is dimension S. S was shortened by the same amount that a was
shortened. This resulted in a new value Ior S oI 188mm. From the guidelines in
Appendices C and D, this change in S will not have a signiIicant eIIect on the cut size.
Having decided on the changes to be made to the initial design and Iollowing the Flow
chart in Figure 7.1, we reenter Process Step 4 to revise the solid model geometry and re
mesh the model.
161
7.4.8 Reenter Step 4: Revise the Geometry and the Computational Grid
The solid model is modiIied with the changes speciIied in Table 7.5. Figure 7.8 is
a screen print oI the new geometry created in the CAD program. Figure 7.9 is a screen
print oI the new computational grid.
Table 7.5 Comparison oI design ratios Ior cyclone inlet and outlet ducts
Ratio
Name
Optimal
ratios Irom
Leith,
Appendix D,
Figure D.1, at
m x 0 . 3
50
=
Ratios
Irom
Initial
Design
Choice oI Ratio to be used in the Revised
Design
a/D
0.35
(D254mm)
to 0.2
(D318mm)
0.63
The ratio a/D has a strong inIluence on x
50
thereIore it was decided to reduce a/D by
25 (and not make an extremely large
change) Ior the revised design so
set: a/D 0.47, a 140mm
Because a is changed, it was decided to also
shorten the exit pipe dimension S by the same
amount. The dimension a was shortened by a
total oI 47mm Irom 187 mm to 140mm (25
reduction). ThereIore S was shortened by the
same 47mm Irom the initial value oI 235mm
to the new value. So
set: S 23547 188mm
b/D 0.2 0.26
To move this ratio closer to the optimal, it
was decided to also reduce b/D by 25 Ior
the revised design so
set: b/D 0.20, b 60mm
D
e
/D 0.56 0.47
This ratio could be increased, which should
lower the pressure drop. However since there
was no constraint in the requirements, and Ior
the purposes oI this exercise D
e
/D was not
changed.
Keep: D
e
/D 0.47 , D
e
140mm
162
Figure 7.8 Solid model oI revised cyclone geometry
Figure 7.9 Revised computational grid
163
7.4.9 Reenter Step 5: Calculate PerIormance oI Revised Cyclone
The same procedure is used as was shown in section 7.4.5 above except that
because the inlet duct dimensions have changed, the new hydraulic diameter Ior the
revised model needs to be calculated as
mm
mm mm
mm mm
b a
ab
perimeter wetted
area tional cross
D
H
84
) 60 140 ( 2
60 * 140 * 4
) ( 2
4 sec * 4
=
+
=
+
=
=
(7.3)
Table 7.6 Flow boundary conditions
BC type Value
Mass Flow (kg/s) 0.168
Turbulence Intensity () 5
Inlet
Turbulence Duct Hydraulic Diameter
(mm)
84
Outlet Zero Gradient
No input value
required
Wall NoSlip
No input value
required
The time step size was 0.0004 seconds so that the number oI solver iterations Ior each
time step was in the range oI 5 to 10 in accordance to the Iindings in Section 5.5. The
solver was run such that a stable behavior was obtained. The convergence behavior oI
the inlet and outlet static pressure was monitored. When the Iluctuations in static
pressure changed in a stable periodic manner, the solver was stopped.
164
Figure 7.10 Convergence history oI static pressure Ior revised cyclone model
S297 Revision #1 Vin=16.7: CoIIection Efficiency vs time & size
Tracking in 'frozen' fIow fieId
y = 8E06x
2
 0.0043x + 0.9235
R
2
= 0.9989
y = 3E07x
2
 0.0002x + 0.972
R
2
= 0.9905
y = 1E06x
2
 0.0011x + 0.9546
R
2
= 0.9944
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
time (s)
F
r
a
c
i
o
n
a
I
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
1 micron 1008 (34min) 2 micron 1008 (49min)
3 micron 1008 (76min) 4 micron 1008 (144min)
5 micron 1008 (28min) 6 micron 1008 (14min)
3.5 micron 1008 (69min) Poly. (3 micron 1008 (76min))
Poly. (4 micron 1008 (144min)) Poly. (3.5 micron 1008 (69min))
Figure 7.11 Collection eIIiciency vs. time and size Ior revised cyclone design
165
Grade Efficiency Curve for Revised 297mm CycIone
FIow rate: 0.140 m3/sec; Static Pressure drop: 1010 Pa
Cut size: 3.25 microns; ParticIes: mineraI oiI at 860 kg/m3
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
time (s)
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
I
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
Figure 7.12 Grade eIIiciency curve Ior revised 297mm cyclone
Figure 7.10 is a plot oI the static pressure history Ior this problem. Figures 7.11 and 7.12
show the particle tracking history results and the grade eIIiciency curve respectively Ior
the revised design. The procedure used is the same as has been described in earlier
sections.
166
7.4.10 Reenter Step 6: Compare Revised Design with Requirements
As indicated in Table 7.7, the cut size oI the revised design is within the required
perIormance limits. Because the required perIormance has been met the design process
can be stopped, thus completing this sample problem.
Table 7.7 PerIormance comparison oI initial and revised design with requirements
Variable Name
Initial Design
PerIormance
Revision #1
PerIormance
Required
PerIormance
Cut size (microns) 4.5 3.25 3.0 0.3
Pressure drop (Pa) 560 1010
no constraint
speciIied
Flow rate (m3/s) 0.140 0.140 0.140
7.5 Chapter Summary
Chapter VII presented the details oI a cyclone design methodology. The
methodology uses the numerical methods evaluated in this study. The methodology also
incorporates perIormance correlations, which can quickly provide initial geometry Ior a
new design. Guidelines Ior the design process were also provided. These guidelines are
able to show the designer how various dimensional changes will aIIect the cyclone
perIormance. This is intended to make the design process easier and more eIIicient Ior
less experienced designers, in the spirit oI an expert system. An overview was presented
in the Iorm oI methodology Ilow chart. The steps oI the process were then described
along with speciIic instructions Ior each step. Finally, a worked design example was
presented, which included the details oI the various steps used in the process.
167
CHAPTER VIII.
CONCLUSIONS
This chapter presents a set oI conclusions that were made aIter reviewing the
results oI Chapter VI and Chapter VII.
8.1 Accuracy and EIIiciency oI the CFD Particle Separation Calculations
CFD can be used successIully to predict particle separation the perIormance oI
cyclone separators. In a test case using three operating points the absolute collection
eIIiciency prediction agreed with the test data within the experimental test error estimates
and numerical discretization errors oI the results. The prediction oI cut size agreed with
the test data within test and discretization error limits Ior two oI the three cases run. A
procedure Ior making the particle tracking calculations was adopted that reduced the
required simulation time Irom days to hours.
168
8.2 Limitations oI the Model
The numerical model underpredicted separation eIIiciency Ior particles smaller
than the cut size. Stairmand (1951), who is a recognized pioneer in the study oI cyclones,
has explained that diIIerences in observed and theoretical cyclone perIormance Ior
particle sizes smaller than the cut size are caused by particle collisions and particle
agglomeration. In considering the implementation oI the numerical particle tracking
scheme, it is believed that a lack oI a properly working particle collision model in the
CFD code is a possible reason Ior this discrepancy in the calculated perIormance curves.
The numerical model overpredicted separation eIIiciency Ior particles larger than
the cut size. Stairmand has explained that diIIerences in observed and theoretical cyclone
perIormance Ior particle sizes larger than the cut size are caused by particle bouncing and
the eIIects oI turbulent eddies. The numerical model did predict a reduction in separation
eIIiciency Ior particles larger than the cut size but not to the extent observed in the test
data. The eIIects oI turbulent eddies on particle dispersion are accounted Ior, to some
degree, by the RSM turbulence model (section 3.3) along with the DRW (section 3.4)
tracking model, which estimates turbulent particle dispersion using a statistical approach.
It is believed that the Iull eIIects oI turbulent eddies are not reIlected in the computed
results. The reason Ior this conclusion is that the eddies are modeled but they are not
resolved explicitly with the RSM turbulence model. The bouncing oI particles at walls is
accounted Ior with particles retaining all oI their momentum aIter any particlewall
collisions.
169
It is believed that the use oI the 'quasiunsteady tracking in a Irozen Ilow Iield
approach described in section 5.7 aIIected the accuracy oI the results. This simpliIication
to the particle tracking process reduced the time required to perIorm the simulations, as
indicated earlier Irom days to hours, but it also removed the timevarying eIIects oI the
Ilow Iield during the tracking calculations. Although done Ior good reason, this
simpliIication most probably had a negative eIIect on the accuracy oI the results.
8.3 ComputerBased Cyclone Design Methodology
A design methodology was presented that makes use oI empirical inIormation Ior
initial sizing oI the system as well as CFD calculations Ior a detailed analysis. Also
included are design guidelines Irom the literature to guide the design process in the spirit
oI an expert system. This methodology Iorms a complete computerbased cyclone
separator design system. Compared to older design approaches, the use oI this
methodology will save time, eIIort and expense by reducing the amount oI physical
prototype design, prototype construction and prototype testing required to produce a
cyclone with the speciIied perIormance characteristics.
170
REFERENCES
Ayers, W. H., Boysan, F., Swithenbank, J., Ewan, B. C. R. (1985). Theoretical Modeling
oI Cyclone PerIormance, Filtration and Separation, 22(1), 3943.
Barth, W. (1956). Brennst.WaermeKraft, 8,1.
Batchelor, G. K. (1967). An Introduction to Fluid Dvnamics. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge Univ. Press.
Boussinesq, J. (1877). Essai Sur La Theorie Des Eaux Courantes, Mem. Presentes Acad.
Sci. (Paris), 23, 46.
Boysan, F., Ayers, W. H., Swithenbank, J. (1982). A Fundamental Mathematical
Modeling Approach To Cyclone Design, Transactions of the Institution of
Chemical Engineers, 60, 222230.
Cebeci, T. and Smith, A. M. O. (1974). Analvsis of Turbulent Boundarv Lavers, San
Diego, CaliIornia: Academic Press, Inc.
Celik, I. and Karatekin, O. (September 1997). Numerical Experiments on Application oI
Richardson Extrapolation with NonuniIorm Grids, Transactions of the ASME,
119(3), 584590.
Corrsin, S. and Kistler, A. L. (1954). The FreeStream Boundaries oI Turbulent Flows.
NACA TN 3133.
Crowe, C., SommerIield, M. and Tsuji, Y. (1998). Multiphase Flows with Droplets and
Particles: CRC Press.
Daly, B. J. and Harlow, F. H. (1970). Transport Equations in Turbulence.
Phvs. Fluids, 13, 26342649.
Davies, C. N. (1952). Proc. Inst. Mech. Engs. (London), 10, 185.
Dirgo, J. and Leith, D. (1985). Cyclone Collection EIIiciency: Comparison oI
Experimental Results with Theoretical Predictions. Aerosol Science and
Technologv, 4, 401415.
171
Drain, D. L. (1982). The Laser Doppler Technique. Wiley International.
Dyke, M. Van (Ed.). (1982). An Album of Fluid Motion. StanIord, CaliIornia: The
Parabolic Press.
Fluent 6.3 CFD User`s Guide (2006). Fluent Inc. Lebanon, NH.
Fu, S., Launder, B. E. and Leschziner, M. A. (1987). Modeling Strongly Swirling
Recirculating Jet Flow with ReynoldsStress Transport Closures. In Sixth
Svmposium on Turbulent Shear Flows, Toulouse, France.
Gibson, M. M. and Launder, B. E. (1978). Ground EIIects on Pressure Fluctuations in
the Atmospheric Boundary Layer. J. Fluid Mech., 86:491511. Iluent #119
Goldstein, R. J (Ed.). (1983). Fluid Mechanics Measurements, New York: Hemisphere
Publishing Corporation.
GriIIiths, W. D. and Boysan, F. (1996). Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and
Empirical Modeling oI the PerIormance oI a Number oI Cyclone Samplers, J.
Aerosol Sci., 27(2), 281304.
Hines, W. W. and Montgomery, D. C. (1980). Probabilitv and Statistics in Engineering
and Management Science (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley & Sons.
Hinze, J. O. (1975). Turbulence (2nd ed.). New York: McGrawHill.
Hoekstra, A. J., Derksen, J. J., Van Den Akker, H. E. A. (1999). An Experimental and
Numerical Study oI Turbulent Swirling Flow in Gas Cyclones, Chemical
Engineering Science, 54, 20552065.
Hutton, A. G. and Casey, M. V. (January 2001). Quality and Trust in Industrial CFD: A
European Initiative, AIAA Paper 20010656.
Iozia, D. L. and Leith, D. (1990). The Logistic Function and Cyclone Fractional
EIIiciency, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 12, 598.
Jones, W. P. and Launder, B. E. (1972). The Prediction oI Laminarization with a Two
Equation Model oI Turbulence, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 15, 301.
Kline, S. J. and McClintock, F. A. (January 1953). Describing Uncertainties in Single
Sample Experiments, Mech. Eng., 38.
Lapple, C. E. and Shepherd C. B. (1940). Ind. Eng. Chem., 32, 605.
172
Lapple, C. E. (1951). Chem. Eng. (New York), 58, 144.
Launder, B. E., Reece, G. J. and Rodi, W. (1975). Progress in the Development oI a
ReynoldsStress Turbulence Closure. J. Fluid Mech., 68(3), 537566.
Launder, B. E. and Spalding, D. B. (1972). Lectures in Mathematical Models of
Turbulence. London: Academic Press.
Launder,B. E. (1989a). SecondMoment Closure and Its Use in Modeling Turbulent
Industrial Flows. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 9, 963
985.
Launder, B. E. (1989b). SecondMoment Closure: Present... and Future?
Inter. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 10(4), 282300.
Leer, B. Van. (1979).Toward the Ultimate Conservative DiIIerence Scheme. IV. A
Second Order Sequel to Godunov's Method. Journal of Computational Phvsics,
32, 101136.
Leith, D. (1984). Cyclones. In M. E. Fayed, L. Otten (Eds.), Handbook of Powder
Science and Technologv. (pp. 730745). City: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Leith, D. and Iozia, D. L. (1989a). EIIect oI Cyclone Dimensions on Gas Flow Pattern
and Collection EIIiciency, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 10, 491500.
Leith, D. and Iozia, D. L. (1989b). Cyclone Optimization. Filtration and Separation, 26,
272274.
Leith, D. and Licht, W. (1972). A.I.Ch.E. Svmposium Scr., 68, 196.
Leith, D., Ramachandran, G., Dirgo, J., Feldman, H. (1991). Cyclone Optimization Based
on a New Empirical Model Ior Pressure Drop, Aerosol Science and Technologv,
15, 135148.
Lien, F. S. and Leschziner, M. A. (1994). Assessment oI Turbulent Transport Models
Including NonLinear RNG EddyViscosity Formulation and SecondMoment
Closure, Computers and Fluids, 23(8), 9831004.
MoIIat, R. J. (1988). Describing the Uncertainties in Experimental Results, Experimental
Thermal and Fluid Science, 1, 317.
Morsi, S. A. and Alexander, A. J. (September 26, 1972). An Investigation oI Particle
Trajectories in TwoPhase Flow Systems, J. Fluid Mech., 55(2), 193208.
173
OberkampI, W. L. and Blottner, F. G. (May 1998). Issues in Computational Fluid
Dynamics Code VeriIication and Validation, AIAA Journal, 36(5), 687695.
Ogawa, A. (1984). Separation of Particles from Air and Gases Jol. II. CRC Press.
Patankar, S. V. (1980). Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow. New York:
Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
Reynolds, O. (1895). On the Dynamical Theory oI Incompressible Viscous Fluids and the
Determination oI the Criterion, Philosophical Transactions of the Roval Societv of
London, Series A, 186, 123.
Richardson, L. F. (1908) The Approximate Arithmetical Solution by Finite DiIIerences oI
Physical Problems Involving DiIIerential Equations with an Application to the
Stresses in a Masonry Dam, Transactions of the Roval Societv of London, Series
A, 210, 307357.
Richardson, L. F. (1927). The DeIerred Approach to the Limit, Transactions of the Roval
Societv of London, Series A, 226, 229361.
Roache, P. J. (1994). Perspective: A Method Ior UniIorm Reporting oI Grid ReIinement
Studies, Journal of Fluids Engineering, 116(3), 405413.
Roy, C. J. (April 2003). Grid Convergence Error Analysis Ior MixedOrder Numerical
Schemes, AIAA Journal, 41(4), 595604.
Schlichting, H. (1979). BoundarvLaver Theorv (7th ed.). New York: McGrawHill Book
Company.
Slack, M. and Harwood, R.(November 2000). Cvclone Modeling at Blue Circle
Industries Plc. SheIIield, UK: Fluent Europe Ltd.
Slack, M. D., Prasad, R. O., Bakker, A., Boysan, F. (2000). Advances in Cyclone
Modeling Using Unstructured Grids, Chemical Engineering Research and
Design, 78(8), 10981104.
Stairmand, C. J. (1949). Pressure Drop in Cyclone Separators. Engineering, 168, 409
412.
Stairmand, C. J. (1951). The Design and PerIormance oI Cyclone Separators.
Transactions Institution of Chemical Engineers, 29, 356373.
Svarovsky, L. (1981). Handbook of Powder Technologv. Vol. 3, City: Elsevier ScientiIic
Publishing Company.
174
Svarovsky, L. (June 1992). Gas Cyclones in Fine Particle Separation, Fluid/Particle
Separation Journal, 5(2), 7274.
Svarovsky, L.(2000). SolidLiquid Separation (4th ed.). Boston: ButterworthHeinemann.
Tannehill, J. C., Anderson, D. A. and Pletcher, R. H. (1997). Computational Fluid
Mechanics and Heat Transfer (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.
Thematic Network Ior Quality and Trust in the Industrial Application oI CFD (QNET
CFD) (2003). Best Practice Advice for AC303 Cvclonic Separator. SheIIield,
UK: Fluent Europe Ltd.
Wilcox, D. C. (1994). Turbulence Modeling for CFD. La Canada, CaliIornia: DCW
Industries, Inc.
Yakhot, V. and Orszag, S. A. (1986). Journal Scientific Comput., 1, 151.
Yakhot, V. and Orszag, S. A., Tangham, S., Gatski, T. B. and Speziale, C. G. (1992).
Phv. Fluid A., 4, 15101520.
Yakhot, V. and Smith, L. M. (1992). Journal Scientific Comput., 7, 3561.
Zhou, Q. and Leschziner, M. A. (1991). Technical report: 8th Turbulent Shear Flows
Svmp., Munich.
175
APPENDICES
176
APPENDIX A.
SVAROVSKY EULER NUMBER  STOKES NUMBER CORRELATION
The inIormation presented here is Irom the work oI Svarovsky (1992). Table A.1
below shows the dimensions and perIormance data compiled by Svarovsky. The average
proportions Ior the cyclones used is shown in Table A.2. The data is plotted in Figure
A.1 and shown with his correlation.
Table A.1 Commercial cyclone inIormation used by Svarovsky (1992)
Cyclone
Name
D
(mm)
Q
(m3/s)
p
(Ns/m2)
p
g
(kg/m3)
p
s
(kg/m3)
x
50
(m)
AP
(Pa)
E
u
Stk
50
S
t
a
i
r
m
a
n
d
H
i
g
h
R
a
t
e
2
0
3
0
.
1
8
5
1
9
1
.
8
5
E

0
5
1
.
2
0
5
2
0
0
0
6
.
0
0
9
1
2
4
6
.
2
2
6
.
0
9
E

0
3
F

K
X
Q
4
6
5

2
0
6
7
7
2
.
5
1
.
8
3
E

0
5
1
.
2
0
0
2
6
0
0
4
.
3
0
2
1
1
8
7
3
.
1
8
1
.
4
9
E

0
3
V
a
n
T
o
n
g
e
r
e
n
A
C
4
3
5
1
0
0
0
2
.
7
3
1
1
.
8
3
E

0
5
1
.
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
4
.
7
1
9
8
1
1
3
5
.
2
4
4
.
6
8
E

0
4
T
3
1
0
0
0
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
1
5
0
.
0
0
5
.
6
2
E

0
4
177
Table A.1 Commercial cyclone inIormation used by Svarovsky (1992)
Cyclone
Name
D
(mm)
Q
(m3/s)
p
(Ns/m2)
p
g
(kg/m3)
p
s
(kg/m3)
x
50
(m)
AP
(Pa)
E
u
Stk
50
T
2
3
1
4
0
.
2
1
4
1
.
9
6
E

0
5
1
.
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
.
6
0
9
8
1
2
5
6
.
8
2
3
.
2
3
E

0
4
S
t
a
i
r
m
a
n
d
H
i
g
h
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
2
0
3
0
.
0
6
1
7
3
1
.
8
5
E

0
5
1
.
2
0
5
2
0
0
0
1
.
4
5
7
0
9
3
2
3
.
6
3
1
.
1
9
E

0
4
T
4
6
3
0
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
3
5
3
.
0
0
8
.
6
8
E

0
5
V
a
n
T
o
n
g
e
r
e
n
A
C
8
5
0
1
0
0
0
1
.
6
7
1
.
8
3
E

0
5
1
.
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
.
6
0
1
8
4
0
6
7
8
.
4
8
3
.
3
0
E

0
5
T
1
1
5
9
0
.
0
2
4
1
.
9
6
E

0
5
1
.
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
.
4
2
5
8
9
8
0
5
.
3
7
4
.
3
4
E

0
5
F

K
X
Q
1
2
0

2
0
1
3
5
5
2
.
5
1
.
8
3
E

0
5
1
.
2
0
0
2
6
0
0
1
.
9
0
2
2
3
5
1
2
3
8
.
7
1
3
.
6
4
E

0
5
Table A.2 Average cyclone dimensions used in the
Svarovsky (1992) correlation
Cyclone Dimension Average Proportion
D 1
H 4.5D
h 1.8D
D
e
0.47D
a 0.63D
b 0.26D
S 0.79D
B 0.34D
H
B
1.50D
D
B
1.00D
(continued)
178
EuIer vs. Stokes Number for CycIone Separators from Svarovsky
10
100
1000
10000
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Stk50
E
u
Commercial Cyclones Eu=\(12/Stk50)
Figure A.1 Euler vs. Stokes number correlation Irom Svarovsky (1992)
179
APPENDIX B.
DERIVATION OF THE SVAROVSKY CYCLONE SIZING EQUATION
The inIormation presented here is Irom the work oI Svarovsky (1992). The
expression Ior the empirical sizing and perIormance estimator used in the cyclone design
methodology is derived here. This expression uses equations (1.1) through (1.4) which
were presented in Chapter I. They are written below as equations (B.1) through (B.4).
The Euler number is considered to be a resistance coeIIicient that represents the ratio oI
static pressure drop between the inlet and outlet oI the cyclone to the dynamic pressure oI
the Ilow within the cyclone and is deIined below as


.

\

=
2
2
v
p
E
u
(B.1)
where
p
is the static pressure drop measured between the inlet and the gas outlet oI a
cyclone, o is gas density and v is the body velocity based on the Ilow rate and the cross
section oI the cylindrical body oI the cyclone as
2
4
D
Q
v
=
(B.2)
where Q is the gas Ilow rate and D is the cyclone body inside diameter. The Stokes
number is commonly used to characterize particle laden Ilows. It can be thought oI as the
180
relation between the particle response time and the system response time. The Stokes
number written Ior a particle oI size x
50
and is deIined as
D
v x
Stk
s
18
2
50
50
=
(B.3)
where n is the gas viscosity, o
s
is the solids density, the velocity v is deIined by equation
(B.2) and x
50
is the cut size (equiprobable size). Svarovsky Iound that Ior the cyclones he
studied Eu was related to Stk
50
by the equation (B.4) below.
50
12
Stk
E
u
=
(B.4)
Appendix A shows the cyclone data Svarovsky used and his curve Iit.
The perIormance oI the cyclone is related to the particle cut size, and the Ilow
rate oI particle laden gas that must be processed. The costs associated with processing
this particle laden gas has two components. The Iirst component is operating cost which
is a Iunction oI the pressure drop through the cyclone. The pressure drop is considered
an operating cost because power has to be input to the system proportional to the product
oI Flow rate, Q and pressure drop . A cyclone system that has a large pressure drop costs
more to operate. The second component oI cost is the capital expenditure needed to set
up the system. A larger cyclone costs more capital than a small cyclone to buy and
install. To design the most cost eIIective system requires consideration oI the capital and
operating costs oI the system in comparison to the perIormance obtained Irom the system.
Depending on the costs oI the system as well as other constraints such as available space,
it may be advantageous to design a system that uses several cyclones in parallel. This
type oI arrangement may have advantages because the Ilow is split between the several
181
cyclones and the pressure drop (operating cost) is less than iI all the Ilow were Iorced
through a single cyclone. Because oI these trade oIIs the option oI cyclone sizing Ior
multiple cyclones operated in parallel needs to be available. More will be said about
cyclones in parallel later. In terms oI the operating cost, pressure drop, Svarovsky relates
this to the head loss, H in meters oI the gas used in the cyclone. For design purposes he
recommends that the head loss Ior a cyclone be in the range oI 40 to 100 meters oI gas.
The expression relating head loss, H (m) to pressure drop, is shown below as equation
(B.5)
g
P
H
=
(B.5)
where P is the pressure drop through the cyclone in Pascals,
is the density oI the
working gas in kg/m
3
and g is the acceleration oI gravity in m/s
2
.
Starting with equations (B.1) through (B.5) an expression estimating the required cyclone
diameter, D needed to separate particles oI cut size
50
x , in a gas Ilowing at a rate Q with
a head loss, H can be derived as shown in the Iollowing section.
Step 1. Recast equation (B.4) as
n
u
Stk
k
Stk
E
50 50
12
= =
(B.4.1)
where k is a coeIIicient with the value 3.46 and n is an exponent with a value oI 0.5.
Step 2. Substitute equation (B.5) into (B.1).
182
2
2 2
2
2 2
v
gH
v
gH
v
p
E
u
=


.

\

=


.

\

=
(B.1.1)
Step 3. Substitute equation (B.2) into equation (B.1.1).
2
4 2
2
2
2
8
4
2 2
Q
gHD
D
Q
gH
v
gH
E
u
=

.

\

= =
(B.1.2)
Step 4. Substitute equation (B.2) into equation (B.3).
3
2
50
2
2
50
2
50
50
9
2 4
18 18 D
Q x
D
Q
D
x
D
v x
Stk
s s s
= = =
(B.3.1)
Step 5. Rearrange equation (B.4.1)
k Stk E
n
u
=
50
(B4.2)
Step 6. Substitute equation (B.1.2) and (B.3.1) into equation (B.4.2)
k
D
Q x
Q
gHD
n
s
=
(
3
2
50
2
4 2
9
2
8
(B.4.3)
Step 7. Rearrange equation (B.4.3).
k
D
Q x
HD
Q
g
n
n
s
=
(
3
2
50 4
2
2
1
9
2
8
(B.4.4)
Step 8. DeIine a new coeIIicient, C
t
.
n
s
t
Q x
Q
g
C
(
9
2
8
2
50
2
2
(B.6)
Step 9. To allow the Iinal expression to be used Ior the modeling oI several cyclones in
parallel, replace the Ilow rate, Q in equation B6 with the term (Q/N
c
) where N
c
is the
number oI cyclones operating in parallel in the system and name the new coeIIicient C
tp
.
183
n
c
s
tp
N
Q x
Q
g
C
(
9
2
8
2
50
2
2
(B.7)
Step 10. Substitute equation (B.7) into (B.4.4) and rearrange.
( )
k C D H C
D
D
H
tp
n
tp
n
= =
3
4
3
4
(B.4.5)
Step 11. Solve equation (B.4.5) Ior D as a Iunction oI H.
( )
4
3n
tp
HC
k
D
(
(
=
(B.8)
Equation B8 is an expression that provides an estimate oI the required cyclone diameter,
D Ior a quantity oI N
c
cyclones operating in parallel such that they are able to separate
particles oI cut size,
50
x
and particle density,
s
=
(
=
E
E
N
Q x
Q
g
C
n
c
s
tp
Step 2. Substitute the values oI H, k, n and C
tp
above into equation (B.8) to solve Ior the
estimated diameter, D.
( )
( )
mm m
HC
k
D
n
tp
0 . 94 094 . 0
5487 . 23 * 80
46 . 3
4
5 . 0 * 3
4
3
= =
(
=
(
(
=
II desired, the cyclone pressure drop in Pascals can be calculated based on the
relationships shown in equation (B.5).
Pa gH P 942 80 * 81 . 9 * 2 . 1 = = =
The cyclone sizing and perIormance calculations use the above equations. The
methodology calculated a range oI cyclone diameters that correspond to the head loss
185
range recommended by Svarovsky (1992), which is: 100 40 H . The designer can
then choose a cyclone diameter Ior his starting geometry based on the pressure drop that
can be accepted Ior the system. In general, Ior a new design head losses in the middle oI
the 40 to 100 range are recommended. Usually in the design process, changes need to be
made to the inlet geometry to obtain the desired cut size, which results in an increase in
pressure drop Ior the Iinal design.
186
APPENDIX C.
GUIDELINES FOR CYCLONE PROPORTIONS
This appendix provides a list oI ranges Ior the various cyclone dimensions Irom
the literature (Ogawa, 1984; Svarovsky, 1992; Leith & Iozia, 1989b; Leith et al., 1991).
Table C.1 is a list oI various dimensions and groups oI dimensions with ranges oI values
that are commonly Iound in the literature. This inIormation is intended to be used as a
guideline Ior the designer when considering the changes to his design in order to adjust
it's perIormance. Comments are also included in the table to help the designer understand
how the particular dimensions or groups oI dimensions aIIect a particular aspect oI the
cyclone`s perIormance. A diagram showing the dimensions is shown at the end oI the
appendix in Figure C.1.
187
Table C.1 Cyclone proportioning guidelines and typical values
Cyclone
Dimension
or Group
Comments
Typical
Value
Commonly Occurring range oI
values
H
Increasing H
reduces P without
changing
50
x
.
4.5D
D H D 6 3
h
Small changes to h
have small eIIects
on P &
50
x
1.8D
D h D 2 1
S
In
general:
h S a
0.8D
D S D 1 4 . 0
a
Inlet height Ior
rectangular inlet
ducts, A
i
ab
0.6D
D a D 8 . 0 3 . 0
b
Inlet width Ior
rectangular inlet
ducts, A
i
ab
0.3D
D b D 4 . 0 15 . 0

.

\

<
2
e
D D
b
D
i
Inlet diameter Ior
circular
inlet pipes,
4
2
i
i
D
A
=
0.33D
e i
D D
D
e
Outlet pipe
diameter,
4
2
e
e
D
A
=
0.5D D D D
e
8 . 0 3 . 0
2
e
D
ab
2
2
e
i
D
ab
v P
~ ~
B
e
D B D 3 . 0
0.3D
D B D 5 . 0 3 . 0
D
B
This dimension is
not commonly
reported.
1D ~
H
B
This dimension is
not commonly
reported.
1.5D ~
188
Figure C.1 Diagram oI cyclone dimensions
De
D
D
b
a
S
h
H
B
Top View
H
B
D
B
189
APPENDIX D.
CYCLONE OPTIMIZATION STUDY FROM LEITH ET AL.
This appendix presents inIormation Irom Leith, Ramachandran, Dirgo and
Feldman (1991) to be used as part oI the cyclone design methodology presented at part oI
this study. Leith et al. (1991) report on the results oI an optimization study done using
empirical models Ior cyclone separation perIormance and pressure drop. The objective
oI the study was to develop design guidelines Ior cyclones such that the pressure drop
was a minimum Ior the given cut size at the design Ilow rate. Although empirical models
have limitations, it is believed that the resulting relationships especially with respect to
the relative sizing oI the inlet and outlet ducts compared to the cyclone diameter are
valuable. The more useIul oI the Iindings oI that study have be placed in this appendix as
a design aid.
Figure D.1 shows what these researchers believed to be the optimum ratios Ior
inlet duct dimensions a and b and outlet diameter, D
e
with respect to the cyclone
diameter, D. Note also, that the perIormance models were based on tangential entry
cyclones considered to be oI the high eIIiciency type. They do not apply to high Ilow
type cyclones, which normally have a wrap around or scroll type inlet. This type oI
190
cyclone does not have the restriction on the inlet duct width, b. See Stairmand (1951) Ior
more inIormation on high Ilow type designs.
OptimaI Curves for
Bien plus que des documents.
Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.
Annulez à tout moment.