Results and discussion

“As mentioned earlier, separation is to occur at the top of the cones. However, it is very difficult
to set or to know the exact velocity of the hydraulic water at the top of the cones.The value that
can only be determined is the velocity of the hydraulic water that will be introduced at the
bottom of the cones. Introducing amounts of feed into the system and then fixing the control
valves when separation of particles is maximum was done to adjust the hydraulic water
velocity.” (Loreto, 2002)

“Another reason is the concentration of the fluid velocity at the center. Although spray nozzles
were installed at the end of the inlet pipes, the part near the walls of cones are still not reached by
the hydraulic water. Thus, when particles fall near the walls of a cone, they automatically settle
in the cone even if that cone is not their respective cone. Also, the high downward velocity at the
walls due to the hydraulic water and the discharge tends to push the particles downward. Thus,
separation becomes difficult.” (Loreto, 2002)

“Their terminal velocities are very close to each other. Thus, setting the hydraulic water velocity
to separate them is very difficult.” (Loreto, 2002)

“Losses can be due to particles lost during collection from the screen, some may have been stuck
in the dead ends of the joints. Some materials tend to break/crack during the classifying
operation.” (Loreto, 2002)

“According to Loreto (2002) however, the % recovery has a direct relationship with the terminal
velocity of the sample.”

“Independent of the actual density, the presence of the void spaces within the particles may also
trap air inside the particles, which imparts additional buoyancy to the particle as it passes through
the classifier. This may also additionally account for the difference between the theoretical data
and actual data.”

“The calculated densities of the pellets as noted in Appendix table 6.1 indicate that the two
particles are of roughly the same density, but this did not account for the void volume present
within both pellet sizes. At the start of the experiment, a large void volume was observed inside
the larger pellets, which if accounted for would decrease the theoretical calculated density of the
particle by an appreciable degree, which in turn may bring the calculated value closer to that of
the actual data.”

“On the assumption that the density of the larger particles is smaller than that of the small
particles, then the experimental observation of the small pellets being found in cone 1 and the big
pellets being found in cone 2 would coincide with the theoretical data. However, the actual
density discrepancy was not calculated as the internal void volume of the pellets was not
measured.”
Evaluation of the mass recovered in the cones

“The failure to separate the particles in pure fractions is due to the difficulty in setting the ideal
hydraulic water velocities needed for separation, the backflow of materials, the uneven
distribution of the hydraulic water and the downward motion of the water.” (Loreto, 2002)

“For emphasis, the small beads used here are slightly bigger and denser than the pellets. For the
small beads, the average percentages of recovery of the chambers are decreasing. This trend
agrees with the theoretical since it is expected that the beads be sorted into the first chambers, the
ones nearest to the feed entrance, because of their size and density responsible for their difficulty
to be fluidized or forced to flow by the fluid used (in this case, water) (Geankoplis, 2003). On the
other hand, considering the pellets, there is no clear trend in the individual average percentages
of recovery of the chambers probably because there are already some pellets sorted out by the
first chambers. Since the pellets are smaller and less dense compared with the small beads, they
are expected to be more fluidized by the water and be sorted into the latter chambers, the ones far
from the feed entrance (Geankoplis, 2003). However, that is not the case in this experiment.
Ideally, the average percentage of recovery for the first chambers for the pellets is near or equal
to zero and those of the latter ones must have an increasing trend.”

Recommendations:

“Install flow meters to each hydraulic water inlet pipes”

“Materials tend to backflow to the previous cone, resulting to classifying errors. The cones must
be angled in such a way that the preceding cone is higher than the next cone.”
Sample Calculations

I. Determination of the average density of the sample pellets.

1 𝑘𝑔
𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑑 1.13 𝑔 × 1000𝑔
𝜌𝑠 = = = 1130 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑑 1 𝑚3
1 𝑚𝐿 × 6
10 𝑚𝐿

II. Determination of the volumetric flow rate configurations at steady-state conditions.

1 𝑚3
𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 260 𝑚𝐿 ×
𝑄= = 106 𝑚𝐿 = 0004727273 m3 /s
𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 0.55 𝑠
III. Determination of the actual terminal velocity of each sample pellet
𝜋
𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 = (0.038 𝑚)2 = 0.001134114948 𝑚2
4
𝑄 . 0004727273 𝑚3 /𝑠
𝑇𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = = = 0.01244019139 𝑚/𝑠
𝐴 . 00134114948 𝑚2
IV. Determination of the theoretical terminal velocity of each sample pellets

𝑁𝑅𝑒 𝜇 1500 × .0007978

𝑣𝑡 = = = 0.1885383545 𝑚/𝑠
𝐷𝑝 𝜌 . 0068 × 995.647

V. Determination of % recovery of sample pellets

𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑

%𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 = × 100%
𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑

%𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 = × 100%

𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 1 − 𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 2
%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 100%
𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒

%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 100%