4.6 Article

Computational Investigation of the Mechanisms of Particle Separation and Fish-Hook Phenomenon in Hydrocyclones

期刊

AICHE JOURNAL
卷 56, 期 7, 页码 1703-1715

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/aic.12114

关键词

hydrocyclone; multiphase flow; computational fluid dynamics; separation mechanism; fish-hook effect

资金

  1. Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The motion of solid particles and the fish-hook phenomenon in an industrial classifying hydrocyclone of body diameter 355 mm is studied by a computational fluid dynamics model. In the model, the turbulent flow of gas and liquid is modeled using the Reynolds Stress Model, and the interface between the liquid and air core is modeled using the volume of fluid multiphase model. The outcomes are then applied in the simulation of particle flow described by the stochastic Lagrangian model. The results are analyzed in terms of velocity and force field in the cyclone. It is shown that the pressure gradient force plays an important role in particle separation, and it balances the centrifugal force on particles in the radial direction in hydrocyclones. As particle size decreases, the effect of drag force whose direction varies increases sharply. As a result, particles have an apparent fluctuating velocity. Some particles pass the locus of zero vertical velocity (LZVV) and join the upward flow and have a certain moving orbit. The moving orbit of particles in the upward flow becomes wider as their size decreases. When the size is below a critical value, the moving orbit is even beyond the LZVV. Some fine particles would recircuit between the downward and upward flows, resulting in a relatively high separation efficiency and the 'fish-hook effect. Numerical experiments were also extended to study the effects of cyclone size and liquid viscosity. The results suggest that the mechanisms identified are valid, although they are quantitatively different. (C) 2009 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 56: 1703-1715, 2010

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据