THE UNIVERSITY OF TULSA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

MECHANISTIC MODELING OF SOLID-LIQUID SEPARATION IN SMALL DIAMETER HYDROCYCLONES

by Jose G. Severino

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in the Discipline of Petroleum Engineering The Graduate School The University of Tulsa 2007

ABSTRACT Jose G. Severino (Master of Science in Petroleum Engineering) Mechanistic Modeling of Solid-Liquid Separation in Small Diameter Hydrocyclones Directed by Prof. Ovadia Shoham and Prof. Ram S. Mohan 192 pp. Chapter 7: Summary, Conclusions, Recommendations (247 words) Efficient and reliable solids removal systems are critical for different industrial applications. Hydrocyclones have been used for more than a century for separating solid particles, as well as, denser liquid droplets from continuum liquid and gas media. The main objective of this work is the development of a mechanistic model to predict the solids separation efficiency of small diameter solid-liquid hydrocyclones (SLHC) and validate it against available oilfield data. The developed model is a modification of the Caldentey et al. (2002) model for liquid-liquid hydrocyclones (LLHC). The SLHC model enables the prediction of the continuous-phase swirl intensity and velocity profile which are used to determine particle trajectories, and hence the grade separation efficiency curves. An existing hydrocyclone design code has also been upgraded to incorporate the developed SLHC model. The experimental data used to validate the model were acquired by Culwell et al. (1994). A total of 155 experiments are available under a wide range of flow conditions and equipment configurations. Some of the inlet conditions include: liquid velocities

iii

ranging from 14 to 24 m/s, pressures ranging from 100 to 130 psig, solids concentrations ranging from 40 to 370 mg/L with an average density of 2.0 gr/cc. Particle size distributions range from 2 to 60 m with Sauter mean diameter (d32) ranging from 12 to 32 m. Very good agreement is observed between model predictions and experimental data. Agreement of the proposed model with the global and average grade separation efficiency data is 94.7% and 88.2% respectively.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost thanks to God for this wonderful opportunity. Special thanks are given to co-advisors Dr. Ovadia Shoham, Dr. Ram Mohan, and Dr. Luis Gomez for constant guidance and assistance throughout this study. Thanks are also due to Dr. Leslie Thompson and to Dr. Gene Kouba (Chevron) for their valuable input and for serving on the thesis committee. The financial support from the Tulsa University Separation Technology Projects (TUSTP) and its member companies, the Industry/University Cooperative Research Center (I/UCRC) on Multiphase Transport Phenomena (MTP), and the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology (OCAST) made possible this research. The author is also indebted to Chevron for providing the experimental data used in this study, especially to Ms. Kristin Machen for her guidance on the experimental program. Thanks also to Kevin Juniel from NATCO for providing the specifications of the tested equipment. Appreciation is extended to the Faculty of the University of Tulsa, especially to Dr. Shoubo Wang for many productive discussions during the Compact Separators course. Special thanks are given to Mrs. Judy Teal for her kind support, help and friendship; to Eduardo and Carolina Pereyra for helping with the code for the validation of the model; and to my nephew Jesus Brito-Severino and to Valeria Lazcano for drawing many of the figures and helping with the manuscript.

Finally, thanks to my wife Abiguey and to my kids, Adrian and Sophia for being my source of inspiration and for enduring the many hours of study and writing. Continuous motivation and support from my sisters: Angela, Mariela, and Maria; from my spiritual mother Nadeska; and from my close friends: Yesenia Gomez, Lissett and Maurizio Gazzini, Fernando and Rosa Bermudez, Mauricio and Edivia Papa, and Antonio Bruno are acknowledged with thanks. With love to my father, El Capitan, who passed away during the course of this study; and to my mother, who has been watching from above all this time.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT............................................................................................................... ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................... TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................... LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................... LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Motivation and Scope ................................................................................ 1.2 Objectives..................................................................................................... 1.3 Contribution of this Work to the Oil Industry......................................... 1.4 Thesis Structure .......................................................................................... CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF HYDROCYCLONE TECHNOLOGY 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 2.2 Description of SLHC Separators............................................................... 2.3 Geometry of SLHC Separators.................................................................. 2.3.1 Feed Inlet ........................................................................................... 2.3.2 Overflow Outlet.................................................................................. 2.3.3 Vortex Finder ..................................................................................... 2.3.4 Underflow Outlet ............................................................................... 2.4 SLHC Operating Principle ....................................................................... 2.4.1 Hydrodynamic Flow Behavior........................................................... 2.4.2 Pressure Drop and Flow Rate ........................................................... 2.4.3 Flow Reversal .................................................................................... 2.4.4 Formation of Gas or Air Core ........................................................... 2.4.5 Effect of Solid Properties on Separation ........................................... 2.4.5.1 Effect of Particle Size........................................................... 2.4.5.2 Effect of Particle Density ..................................................... 2.4.5.3 Effect of Particle Shape........................................................ 2.5 Definition of Separation Efficiency .......................................................... 2.5.1 Global Solids Separation Efficiency .................................................. 2.5.2 Split Ratio........................................................................................... 2.5.3 Cut Point or Cut Size ......................................................................... iii v vii xii xiv 19 20 21 21 22 24 24 24 25 27 28 28 29 29 30 30 32 32 33 33 33 33 34 34 35 35

vii

2.5.4 Grade Separation Efficiency, G(x) .................................................... 2.5.5 Reduced Grade Separation Efficiency, G(x) .................................... 2.5.6 Separation Efficiency Based on Particle Tracking............................ 2.6 Theories of Hydrocyclone Separation....................................................... 2.7 Hydrocyclone Modeling ............................................................................. 2.7.1 Experimental (Empirical) Models...................................................... 2.7.2 Theoretical (Exact-Solution) Approach............................................. 2.7.3 Numerical and CFD Approach ......................................................... 2.7.4 Mechanistic Modeling........................................................................ CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW 3.1 Experimental Studies ................................................................................. 3.1.1 Global Separation Performance Studies ........................................... 3.1.2 Internal Flow Pattern Studies............................................................ 3.1.2.1 Early Visualization Methods ................................................ 3.1.2.2 Photographic and Videographic Techniques........................ 3.1.2.3 Laser Induced Fluorescence (LIF) ...................................... 3.1.2.4 Laser Doppler Velocimetry (LDV) ...................................... 3.1.2.5 Electrical Impedance Tomography (EIT)............................. 3.1.2.6 Particle Dynamics Analyzer (PDA) ..................................... 3.1.2.7 Particle Size Determination.................................................. 3.2 CFD and Numerical Studies ..................................................................... 3.3 Mechanistic Modeling and Theoretical Studies ...................................... 3.4 Factors Influencing Solid-Liquid Separation .......................................... 3.4.1 Effect of Geometry ............................................................................ 3.4.1.1 Influence of Feed Pipe Diameter.......................................... 3.4.1.2 Influence of Vortex Finder Length and Orifice Diameter ... 3.4.1.3 Influence of Spigot Diameter .............................................. 3.4.1.4 Effect of Apex Cone Height ................................................. 3.4.1.5 Effect of Inclination Angle on Cut Size ............................... 3.4.2 Effect of Particle Properties ............................................................. 3.4.2.1 Effect of Feed Solids Concentration .................................... 3.4.2.2 Particle-Fluid and Fluid-Particle Interactions .................... 3.4.3 Effect of Temperature and Pressure ................................................. 3.4.4 Effect of the Air Core ....................................................................... 3.4.5 The Fish-Hook Effect in Classifiers................................................... 3.5 Instrumentation and Online Control ....................................................... CHAPTER 4: EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 4.2 Test Objectives and Scope ......................................................................... 4.3 Applications of SLHC ................................................................................ 4.4 Experimental Setup.................................................................................... 4.4.1 Test Site Description ......................................................................... 4.4.2 Experimental Procedure .................................................................... 4.4.3 Description of Tested Equipment.......................................................

36 37 38 39 39 39 40 41 41 42 42 43 46 49 49 51 51 54 55 56 56 65 78 78 79 79 79 80 80 80 81 82 82 83 83 84 86 86 86 87 87 88 88 90

viii

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.4.3.1 Mozley 10-mm x 40 Hydrocyclone Assembly..................... 4.4.3.2 Mozley 1-inch x 20 Hydrocyclone Assembly ...................... 4.4.4 Fluid Properties ................................................................................. 4.4.5 Properties of Solid Particles.............................................................. 4.4.6 Test Configurations............................................................................ 4.4.7 Data Acquisition ................................................................................ 4.4.7.1 Measurement of the Oil Concentration ................................ 4.4.7.2 Measurement of Particle Size and Solids Concentration ..... Data Preparation and Handling................................................................ 4.5.1 Data Compilation............................................................................... 4.5.2 Data Integrity Evaluation ................................................................. 4.5.2.1 Review of Data Files and Test Procedures........................... 4.5.2.2 Data Auditing ...................................................................... Data Processing and Evaluation .............................................................. 4.6.1 Discrete Particle Size Distributions................................................... 4.6.1.1 Number Frequency Distribution of Particle Size ................. 4.6.1.2 Volume Frequency Distribution of Particle Size ................. 4.6.1.3 Cumulative Volume Frequency Distribution of Particle...... Size ....................................................................................... 4.6.1.4 Weighted Volume Frequency Distribution of Particle Size . 4.6.1.5 Calculated U/F Volume Frequency Distribution of ............ Particle Size.......................................................................... 4.6.2 Statistical Parameters........................................................................ 4.6.2.1 Sauter Mean Diameter (d32) ................................................. 4.6.2.2 Volume-Average Mean Particle Diameter ........................... 4.6.2.3 Volume Variance.................................................................. 4.6.2.4 Standard Deviation ............................................................... Data Culling and Verification .................................................................. 4.7.1 Repeatability of Test Results.............................................................. 4.7.2 Reported Sources of Systematic Uncertainties ................................. 4.7.2.1 Flow Rates and Mass Measurement..................................... 4.7.2.2 Removal of Oil Contained in Samples ................................. 4.7.2.3 Shape and Density of Solids................................................. 4.7.3 Mass Balance Verification................................................................. 4.7.4 Differences in Separation Efficiency Results ................................... 4.7.5 Stochastic Forecast of Global Separation Efficiency ........................ Experimental Results ................................................................................. 4.8.1 Summary of Results............................................................................ 4.8.2 Grade Separation Efficiency.............................................................. 4.8.3 Global Separation Efficiency............................................................. 4.8.3.1 Effect of Inlet Liquid Flow Rate and Velocity..................... 4.8.3.2 Effect of Overflow to Inlet Feed Split Ratio ........................ 4.8.3.3 Effect of Inlet Solids Mass Flow Rate and Solids Concentration ....................................................................... 4.8.3.4 Effect of the Feed Oil to Solids Concentration Ratio........... 4.8.3.5 Effect of Inlet Temperature ..................................................

90 92 92 93 94 94 94 95 95 95 96 96 96 97 97 98 99 100 102 105 106 106 107 107 107 107 110 114 114 114 115 115 117 122 125 125 127 134 134 135 136 137 137

ix

4.8.3.6 Effect of Inlet Pressures and Outlet Backpressures.............. 4.8.3.7 Effect of the Feed Solids Mean Particle Size ....................... 4.9 Database Management System.................................................................. CHAPTER 5: MECHANISTIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT 5.1 Modeling Assumptions .............................................................................. 5.2 Continuous Phase Modeling ...................................................................... 5.2.1 Swirl Intensity .................................................................................... 5.2.2 Velocity Field ..................................................................................... 5.2.2.1 Tangential Velocity .............................................................. 5.2.2.2 Axial Velocity....................................................................... 5.2.2.3 Radial Velocity..................................................................... 5.2.3 Pressure Drop.................................................................................... 5.3 Dispersed Phase Modeling......................................................................... 5.3.1 Particle Trajectories .......................................................................... 5.3.2 Separation Efficiency ......................................................................... 5.4 Design Code................................................................................................. CHAPTER 6: MODEL COMPARISONS AND DISCUSSION 6.1 Definition of Model Discrepancy ............................................................. 6.2 Verification of Mechanistic Model Predictions ...................................... 6.2.1 Global Separation Efficiency Comparison ........................................ 6.2.2 Average Grade Separation Efficiency Comparison........................... 6.2.3 Grade Separation Efficiency Predictions .......................................... 6.3 Analysis of Model Sensitivity to Different Experimental Parameters .. 6.3.1 Inlet Liquid Flow Rate and Feed Velocity ......................................... 6.3.2 Overflow Split Ratio........................................................................... 6.3.3 Feed Solids Mass Flow Rate and Feed Solids Concentration........... 6.3.4 Feed Oil to Solids Concentration Ratio............................................. 6.3.5 Inlet Temperature............................................................................... 6.3.6 Underflow (U/F) to Overflow (O/F) Backpressure Ratio.................. 6.3.7 Effect of the Feed Solids Mean Particle Size ..................................... CHAPTER 7: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................ 7.1.1 Experimental Results ......................................................................... 7.1.2 Mechanistic Modeling........................................................................ 7.2 Main Contributions.................................................................................... 7.3 Recommendations ...................................................................................... NOMENCLATURE ................................................................................................. REFERENCES .........................................................................................................

139 140 142 143 144 148 148 152 152 154 156 156 159 159 162 165 166 166 168 168 170 172 178 178 179 180 181 181 183 183 185 185 185 188 190 191 193 199

APPENDIX A: Experimental Data and Modeling Results .................................. APPENDIX B: CycloneMaster Database Management System.......................... B.1 Database Architecture ............................................................................... B.1.1 Test Conditions Table ........................................................................ B.1.2 Particle Size Data Table .................................................................... B.1.3 Equipment Specifications Table......................................................... B.1.4 Instrumentation Specifications Table ................................................ B.1.5 Test Objectives and Field Notes Table .............................................. B.1.6 Particle Size Distribution Calculations ............................................. B.2 CycloneMaster DB Management System Description ............................

217 226 226 229 231 231 234 234 234 238

xi

LIST OF TABLES Page 3.1 Design Equations Used in Kraipech et al. (2006) Comparative Study............. 3.2 Example of Grading System for Hydrocyclone Performance: Prediction of Lime/Water Run TD3 (Kraipech et al., 2006) ............................................... 3.3 Summary of Milestones in Numerical Solutions of Flow in Hydrocyclones (Nowakoswky et al., 2004) ............................................................................... 3.4 Forces Caused by Particle-Fluid Interactions in Turbulent Flow (Kraipech et al., 2005) ...................................................................................... 47 48 62 75 76 94 109 121 124 125 162 167 168 171 218 218 227

3.5 Effect of Neighboring Particles on Particle Motion (Kraipech et al., 2005) .... 4.1 Geometrical Configurations of Tested Hydrocyclones....................................

4.2 Sample of Experimental Data for Several Datasets ........................................ 4.3 4.4 4.5 5.1 6.1 6.2 Experimental Data for 38 Datasets with Higher Uncertainty ......................... Summary of Statistical Parameters and Forecast Results ................................. Classification and Definition of Dataset Groups .............................................. Drag Coefficient Constants............................................................................... Summary of Model Predictions and Experimental Results .............................. Global Model Discrepancy Results per Dataset Group ....................................

6.3 Average Grade Model Discrepancy Results per Dataset Group....................... A.1 Experimental Data and Model Prediction Results for All Datasets.................. A.2 Experimental Conditions and Equipment Specifications for All Datasets ....... B.1 Hydrocyclones Data Files and Inventory of Floppy Disks...............................

xii

B.2 Summary of Data Review and Audit Results (Data Log)................................. B.3 Design of the Test Conditions Data ............................................................. B.4 Design of the Particle Size Data ................................................................... B.5 Design of the Equipment Specifications Data .............................................. B.6 Design of the Instrument Specifications Data .............................................. B.7 Design of the Objectives and Field Notes Data ........................................... B.8 Design of the Particle Size Distribution Calculations Data .........................

228 230 232 233 235 236 237

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES Page 2.1 Typical Design of a SLHC Separator (Courtesy of NATCO Group) .............. 2.2 Most Common Cyclone Inlet Designs.............................................................. 2.3 SLHC Inner and Outer Recirculation Zones..................................................... 2.4 2.5 2.6 Schematic of SLHC Flow Structure (Cullivan et al., 2004) ............................. Colman and Thew (1983) Hydrocyclone Geometry......................................... Idealized Particle Size Distribution Curves (Rushton et al., 2000) .................. 26 28 31 31 32 36 37 38 68 89 91 99 101 101 102 104 104

2.7 Idealized Grade Efficiency Curve (Rushton et al., 2000)................................. 2.8 3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Grade and Reduced Grade Efficiency Curves (Svarovsky, 1984).................... Computational Diagram for Cylindrical-conical Hydrocyclone (Lagutkin et al., 2004)....................................................................................... Schematic of Test Site and Experimental Setup ............................................... SLHC Solids Dosing / Injection System and Test Setup.................................. Discrete Number Frequency Distribution of Particle Size (Crowe, 2005) ....... Inlet Volume Frequency Distribution of Particle Size (Dataset 1) ...................

4.5 U/F Volume Frequency Distribution of Particle Size (Dataset 1) .................... 4.6 O/F Volume Frequency Distribution of Particle Size (Dataset 1) .................... 4.7 4.8 U/F Weighted Volume Frequency Distribution of Particle Size (Dataset 1).... O/F Weighted Volume Frequency Distribution of Particle Size (Dataset 1)....

xiv

4.9

U/F Calculated Weighted Volume Frequency Distribution of Particle Size Including Inlet / Outlet Cumulative Distributions (Dataset 1)..................

106 111 111 112 112 113 113 116 117 119 120 122 123 123 126 126 127 128 128 129 129 130

4.10 Effect of Feed Liquid Flow Rate on Global Separation Efficiency.................. 4.11 Effect of Inlet Flow Velocity on Global Separation Efficiency ....................... 4.12 Effect of Overflow Split Ratio on Global Separation Efficiency ..................... 4.13 Effect of Solids Mass Flow Rate on Global Separation Efficiency.................. 4.14 Effect of Solids Concentration on Global Separation Efficiency ..................... 4.15 Effect of U/F to O/F Backpressure on Global Separation Efficiency............... 4.16 Grade Separation Efficiency Curve (Dataset 4). G = 44%, E= 82% ............... 4.17 Grade Separation Efficiency Curve (Dataset 12). G = 79%, E= 83% .............. 4.18 Comparison of Global and Average Grade Separation Efficiency Data .......... 4.19 Difference Between Global and Average Grade Separation Efficiency .......... 4.20 Grade vs. Global Efficiency Difference per Dataset (in Chronological .......... Order)................................................................................................................ 4.21 Probabilistic Frequency Distribution of Global Efficiency (1-inch unit) ......... 4.22 Probabilistic Frequency Distribution of Global Efficiency (10-mm unit)........ 4.23 Global Separation Efficiency by Dataset (Group A) ........................................ 4.24 Feed Sauter Mean Diameter (d32) per Dataset (Group A) ................................ 4.25 Standard Deviation of Feed Particle Size Distribution per Dataset ................. (Group A).......................................................................................................... 4.26 Grade Separation Efficiency Curve 1 Unit (Dataset 1)................................ 4.27 Grade Separation Efficiency Curve 1 Unit (Dataset 22).............................. 4.28 Grade Separation Efficiency Curve 1 Unit (Dataset 110)............................ 4.29 Grade Separation Efficiency Curve 1 Unit (Dataset 120)............................ 4.30 Grade Separation Efficiency Curve 10mm Unit (Dataset 126) .....................

xv

4.31 Grade Separation Efficiency Curve 10mm Unit (Dataset 128) ..................... 4.32 Grade Separation Efficiency Curve 10mm Unit (Dataset 135) ..................... 4.33 Grade Separation Efficiency Curve 10mm Unit (Dataset 148) ..................... 4.34 Grade Separation Efficiency Curve 10 mm Unit (Dataset 149) .................... 4.35 Grade Separation Efficiency Curve 10 mm Unit (Dataset 151) .................... 4.36 O/FU/F Weighted Volume Frequency Distribution of Particle Size (Dataset 5)......................................................................................................... 4.37 O/FU/F Weighted Volume Frequency Distribution of Particle Size (Dataset 129)..................................................................................................... 4.38 Effect of Feed Liquid Flow Rate on Global Separation Efficiency.................. 4.39 Effect of Inlet Velocity on Global Separation Efficiency................................. 4.40 Effect of O/F Split Ratio on Global Separation Efficiency .............................. 4.41 Effect of Solids Mass Flow Rate on Global Separation Efficiency.................. 4.42 Effect of Solids Concentration on Global Separation Efficiency ..................... 4.43 Effect of Oil/Solids Concentration Ratio on Global Efficiency ....................... 4.44 Effect of Temperature on Global Separation Efficiency .................................. 4.45 Effect of Inlet Pressure on Global Separation Efficiency................................. 4.46 Effect of U/F to O/F Backpressure Ratio on Global Separation Efficiency ..... 4.47 Effect of Sauter Mean Diameter (d32) on Global Efficiency ........................... 4.48 Effect of Feed Particle Volume-Averaged Mean Size on Global Efficiency ... 4.49 Main Screen of the CycloneMaster DB System ............................................... 5.1 Schematic of the SLHC and Model Nomenclature...........................................

130 131 131 132 132 133 133 134 135 135 136 137 138 138 139 140 141 141 142 147 153 155

5.2 Rankine Vortex Tangential Velocity Profile .................................................... 5.3 Typical Axial Velocity Profile along the Radial Position of the Cyclone........

xvi

5.4 Schematic of the Particle Trajectory Model ..................................................... 5.5 5.6 6.1 Schematic of Particle Trajectory and Separation Efficiency ............................ Grade Separation Efficiency Probability Curve ............................................... Experimental Global Efficiency Results vs. Model Predictions.......................

160 163 164 169 170 171 172 173 173 174 174 175 175 176 176 177 177 178 179 179 180 181

6.2 Discrepancy of Model Predictions vs. Global Efficiency for each Dataset ..... 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 Experimental Average Grade Efficiency Results vs. Model Predictions ......... Discrepancy of Model Predictions vs. Average Grade Efficiency per Dataset............................................................................................................... Grade Separation Efficiency - Data vs. Model Predictions (Dataset 1) ........... Grade Separation Efficiency - Data vs. Model Predictions (Dataset 22) ......... Grade Separation Efficiency - Data vs. Model Predictions (Dataset 110) ....... Grade Separation Efficiency - Data vs. Model Predictions (Dataset 120) ....... Grade Separation Efficiency - Data vs. Model Predictions (Dataset 126) .......

6.10 Grade Separation Efficiency - Data vs. Model Predictions (Dataset 128) ....... 6.11 Grade Separation Efficiency - Data vs. Model Predictions (Dataset 135) ....... 6.12 Grade Separation Efficiency - Data vs. Model Predictions (Dataset 148) ....... 6.13 Grade Separation Efficiency - Data vs. Model Predictions (Dataset 149) ....... 6.14 Grade Separation Efficiency - Data vs. Model Predictions (Dataset 151) ....... 6.15 Global Efficiency Discrepancy as a Function of Feed Liquid Flow Rate ...... 6.16 Global Efficiency Discrepancy as a Function of Inlet Velocity ...................... 6.17 Global Efficiency Discrepancy as a Function of Overflow Split Ratio .......... 6.18 Global Efficiency Discrepancy as a Function of Solids Mass Flow Rate ...... 6.19 Global Efficiency Discrepancy as a Function of Solids Concentration ..........

xvii

6.20 Global Efficiency Discrepancy as a Function of Oil/Solids Concentration Ratio ................................................................................................................. 6.21 Global Efficiency Discrepancy as a Function of Inlet Temperature ............... 6.22 Global Efficiency Discrepancy as a Function of U/F to O/F Backpressure Ratio.................................................................................................................. 6.23 Global Efficiency Discrepancy as a Function of Feed Particle Volume-Averaged Mean Size .......................................................................... 6.24 Global Efficiency Discrepancy as a Function of Sauter Mean Diameter ......... B.1 Main Menu: Dataset Reference Info Panel....................................................... B.2 Main Menu: Dataset Detailed Info Panel and Performance Plots Tab Page ....

182 182 183 184 184 239 239

xviii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Hydrocyclones have been widely used for more than a century (Bretney, 1891) for various applications and by different industries, including the Mineral (Fahlstorm, 1963; Neesse et al., 2004), Chemical (Dhamo, 1994; Dickey et al., 1997), Petrochemical (Seyda and Petty, 1991), Petroleum (Kelsall, 1952; Colman et al., 1980; Caldentey et al., 2002), Food and Drug (Adupeasah et al., 1993; Dickey et al., 1997), Pulp and Paper (Kure et al., 1999), Environmental (Syed, 1994; Klima and Kim, 1997), and Biology (Bendixen and Rickwood, 1994), among others. Common hydrocyclone applications include classification of solids or removal of particulates from a liquid or a gas stream. The use of the solid-liquid hydrocyclone (SLHC) has emerged as a sound alternative to conventional filtration and other separation systems, which are bulky, require backwashing, frequent replacement of filters, chemical additives, and have greater pressure drop, resulting in higher operating costs. The Petroleum industry, for example, has utilized the SLHC to remove oilfield solids from produced water in order to make it suitable for downhole re-injection, either for reservoir waterflooding or for disposal. Hydrocyclones are also an attractive solution for offshore applications where space, efficiency, and reliability are important.

19

Different types of hydrocyclones have been used by the Petroleum industry in the past to separate solid-solid (classifiers) liquid-liquid (both dewatering and deoiling), gasliquid, gas-solid, and solid-liquid mixtures. This study focuses on the latter application.

1.1

Motivation and Scope

With rising needs for efficient and reliable solids removal systems in the mineral and energy industries, the SLHC has emerged as a sound and proven technological alternative. Proper hydrocyclone design is therefore crucial for achieving maximum performance and ensuring the highest and most reliable solids separation efficiency. However, there is still a lack of detailed understanding of the hydrodynamic flow behavior and separation mechanism that occur in the hydrocyclone; thus, more research is needed in order to achieve these goals. Up to date, the design of the SLHC has relied on empirical experience (Kelsall, 1952; and Rietema, 1961), and more recently on CFD and numerical modeling (Narasimha et al., 2005, 2006, 2007; Delgadillo and Rajamani, 2005; Brennan et al., 2007), which has had some success owing to the improvement of computing power. Still, CFD models require a large amount of computing power, and simulations are timeconsuming and costly. Mechanistic models are a sound intermediate solution to describe the physical behavior of the fluid flow within the hydrocyclone. However, very limited, if any, mechanistic modeling work has been performed to date for solid-liquid separation in hydrocyclones. The present work is aimed at developing a mechanistic model capable of predicting the hydrodynamic flow behavior and separation efficiency of the SLHC over a

20

wide range of geometrical configurations and operating conditions. The proposed model is verified against SLHC oilfield experimental data collected by Culwell et al. (1994). The description of the experimental program, the data handling and verification processes, as well as, the analysis of experimental results, are an integral part of this thesis work. An automated database system to standardize and store the data and a SLHC design code has also been developed. Both these tools facilitate the analysis of the data, the verification of the proposed mechanistic model, and the performance prediction of the small diameter SLHC.

1.2

Objectives

The main objective of this study is to develop a mechanistic model for the solidliquid hydrocyclone (SLHC). The developed model is a modification of the Caldentey et al. (2002) liquid-liquid hydrocyclones (LLHC) model. The SLHC model will enable the prediction of the continuous-phase swirl intensity and velocity profile, and the pressure drop; which are used to determine particle trajectories, and hence the grade separation efficiency curves. Oilfield experimental data acquired by Culwell et al. (1994) is used to validate and refine the proposed model. Finally, an existing hydrocyclone design code is upgraded to incorporate the developed SLHC mechanistic model.

1.3

Contribution of this Work to the Oil Industry

The main contribution of this study is the development of a mechanistic model and a computer code for the design and optimization of the SLHC. The model will also

21

serve as a tool for the prediction of the separation performance of small diameter SLHC under a wide range of flow conditions. Inadvertent sand production in many oilfields has become a significant and costly issue for the Petroleum industry. Most visible is the disposal of thousands of pounds of sand every day from gathering plants and oilfield facilities. Separators at production pads and at processing plants are back flushed multiple times every day to clear out the solids, with associated inefficiency and loss of production. Sand in power fluid to jet-pump wells causes premature failure due to erosion that requires early replacement with corresponding high operating costs. Completions may be washed out requiring expensive rig workovers. Sand entrained in injection water damages the reservoir, reduces the injection capacity and contributes to water breakthrough to producers. Sand in pipelines, wellbores and process equipment may also lead to erosion and premature failures with possible health, safety and environmental consequences. The industry relies on the use of different filtering and separation devices, among which the SLHC offers important advantages. The SLHC is one of the most attractive technologies available owing to its low cost, simplicity of operation, acceptable reliability and good performance. However, hydrocyclone technology needs to be improved in order to achieve higher performance levels for different applications and flow conditions. The industry needs better and more practical design tools in order to make this happen.

1.4

Thesis Structure

Current chapter is a brief preface to the study. It begins with the motivation, scope and main objectives of this study. The second chapter presents an overview of

22

hydrocyclone technology, covering SLHC phenomena and basic definitions. Chapter 3 follows with a comprehensive literature, pertinent mainly to modeling efforts for the SLHC. The first section starts with a review of experimental studies, covering some empirical models. Next, a description of the most relevant studies using different visualization and measuring techniques of the flow field inside the hydrocyclone is presented. The third section covers some of the numerical studies, including CFD modeling and simulation. The theoretical and few of the available mechanistic modeling work involving hydrocyclones are covered next. The last part of this chapter presents some of the research investigating the factors influencing solid-liquid separation in hydrocyclones, including instrumentation and online control work. Chapter 4 introduces the experimental study conducted by Culwell et al. (1994) to investigate the performance of small diameter SLHC for solids removal. The test facility, experimental procedure, and data acquisition process are described. Following, the data gathering, auditing, and data analysis and verification process are described. The last section presents the experimental results, including a discussion of the effects of some flow variables on separation efficiency. Chapter 5 is the core of this thesis work. It presents the development of the proposed SLHC mechanistic model and describes the developed design code. In Chapter 6, the proposed model is validated against the oilfield experimental data and refined accordingly. Detailed discussions and model prediction comparisons with the data are presented in this chapter. Finally, conclusions, contributions and recommendations for future work are described in Chapter 7.

23

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF HYDROCYCLONE TECHNOLOGY

2.1

Introduction

The first U.S. Patent on a hydrocyclone design was granted to Bretney in 1891 (No. 453, 105). However, it was until after World War II when the hydrocyclone technology gained popularity in different industrial applications. Recently, there has been a revival of interest in hydrocyclones, especially in the oil and chemical industries, due to several reasons. One of them is the need of the oil industry for compact, reliable and simple separators, such as the SLHC, to deploy offshore in deep and ultra deep waters, and in sub sea operations. Also, the hydrocyclone plays an important role in different other industrial applications, such as, fluids clarification, thickening, classification, sorting, washing, solids removal, liquid-liquid separation, liquid degassing, and particle size distribution measurement.

2.2

Description of SLHC Separators

The SLHC separator is a type of cyclone that facilitates the centrifugal separation of solid particulates from a liquid stream. Different from the slow gravity vessel separator (1 g force), the hydrocyclone utilizes the energy obtained from fluid pressure to create rotational fluid motion, yielding much larger values of the g-force that can vary from 800 g to about 50,000 g in a 10-mm diameter cyclone. This high swirling motion

24

is applied over a shorter residence time causing the particles suspended in the liquid to separate fast and effectively from the liquid itself (Rushton et al., 2000). The SLHC units from Mozley Engineering (NATCO Group) analyzed in this study (see Figure 2.1) are typically used to remove oilfield particles from produced water. The produced water may have a low content or traces of oil in the form of small droplets. The equipment tested is described in detail in Chapter 4.

2.3

Geometry of SLHC Separators

Hydrocyclones are simple, compact, and highly efficient separators when properly designed and operated. Figure 2.1 is a general representation of a typical SLHC separator. The SLHC generally consists of a vertical cylinder with a conical or tapered section attached to it. The cylindrical part is closed at the top by a cover where the vortex finder extends to a certain length into the body of the cyclone. Near the top cover is the feed inlet orifice, either of circular or rectangular shape, through which the fluid mixture enters tangentially into the cylindrical chamber. An orifice in the apex of the conical section, also known as spigot or underflow outlet, serves as the exit of the separatedphase stream. This underflow stream consists of a mixture of some liquid and solid particles coarser than the cut size (d50). Most of the liquid stream along with some particles finer than the cut size exit through the overflow outlet via the vortex finder. The SLHC utilizes the centrifugal forces promoted by the tangential entry to separate the dispersed-phase (solid particles) from the continuous-phase (liquid mixture).

25

Figure 2.1 Typical Design of a SLHC Separator (Courtesy of NATCO Group)

26

2.3.1

Feed Inlet The inlet orifice has the important role of providing a smooth flow pattern at the

point of entry into the cyclone. The main goal is to inject the feed in a way so as to achieve the highest tangential acceleration possible, reducing turbulence effect, pressure drop and shear stress to an acceptable level. This is especially critical in oil-water separation in order to avoid the rupture of the oil droplets that may lead to a reduction in the separation efficiency. Rectangular or circular shaped, single or twin inlets have been most frequently used by different researchers. Two commonly used feed inlet configurations are the tangential and the involuted entry, as shown in Figure 2.2. The involuted feed entry aims at maximizing the efficient conversion of kinetic energy to centrifugal force, while minimizing turbulence effects that could be detrimental to fine particle separation and causing excessive wear. This is achieved by minimizing the intersecting angle between the incoming feed and the already rotating fluid inside the hydrocyclone (Svarovski, 1984). Some manufacturers have tried to reduce entry turbulence by using a helical top cover inlet. Besides avoiding the impingement effect on the flow occurring inside the cyclone, it also promotes an additional downward momentum on the feed (Svarovski, 1984). On the other hand, the twin inlets have been considered to maintain better symmetry, resulting in a more stable reverse core (Colman et al., 1983 and Thew et al., 1984).

27

Figure 2.2 Most Common Cyclone Inlet Designs

2.3.2

Overflow Outlet This is a small diameter orifice that plays a major role in the split ratio, defined as

the relationship between the overflow rate to the inlet flow rate. Most commercial hydrocyclones allow for changing the diameter of this orifice to suit a wide range of operating conditions.

2.3.3

Vortex Finder The vortex finder is the overflow pipe located at the center top of the cylindrical

section extending some length into the cyclone body. It is necessary that the length of the vortex finder extends below the feed entry in order to increase separation efficiency by avoiding short-circuiting, that is, the early exit of the feed stream to the overflow. The diameter of the vortex finder is generally that of the overflow orifice. Similarly, some manufactures provide interchangeable vortex finders for increased efficiency and a more flexible operation over a wide range of feed conditions.

28

2.3.4

Underflow Outlet Also called spigot, the underflow is a small diameter orifice located at the apex of

the cone. The spigot plays an important role in the control of the volumetric flow split and underflow density, as it has a direct effect on the underflow-to-throughput ratio, the underflow concentration and the cut size (Svarovski, 1984). Most commercial units are also supplied with a variable, changing, or adjustable orifice size to accommodate for a wide range of operating conditions and optimize the separation process. Maximum particle size at the feed entry should be considered in order to avoid spigot clogging or malfunctioning and, thus, operation interruption.

2.4

SLHC Operating Principle

The SLHC utilizes the principle of centrifugal sedimentation to separate particulate matters based on size, shape, and density. A liquid stream (or slurry) containing a concentration of fine particles is fed tangentially into the body of the hydrocyclone. The tangential inlet flow induces centrifugal forces causing solids coarser than the cut point size to be pushed radially toward the wall, move downward, and be rejected from the underflow via the spigot, along with some liquid. Most of the liquidphase with some solids finer than the cut point size move upward (reverse flow) and exit through the overflow via the vortex finder. The term d50 cut point' stands for the particle size at which the cyclone is 50% efficient (refer to Figures 2.1 and 2.4)

29

2.4.1

Hydrodynamic Flow Behavior The swirling motion is produced by the tangential injection of the pressurized

fluid mixture into the hydrocyclone. The flow pattern consists of a spiral within another spiral moving in the same circular direction (Seyda and Petty, 1991). These are the most conspicuous flows in the hydrocyclone and are sometimes called primary and secondary vortices (see Figures 2.3 and 2.4). The primary or outer (free-like) vortex moves downward carrying suspended particles or material along the axis of the cyclone to the underflow outlet. The secondary or inner (forced) vortex is located inside the primary vortex (in the region close to the cyclone axis) moving upward (reverse direction) carrying mainly a clean liquid stream to the overflow outlet (Rushton et al., 2000). Recirculation zones associated with the high swirl intensity at the inlet region, and with long residence times and very low axial velocity, have been found to be diminished as the flow enters the low angle tapered section (see Figure 2.5).

2.4.2

Pressure Drop and Flow Rate The pressure drop is the differential pressure between the locations right before the

feed entry and right after the overflow outlet. The hydrocyclone develops its swirling motion (separation power) utilizing the fluid pressure energy. A hydrocyclone of fixed dimensions, operating with a given flow mixture and flow conditions, gives a fixed relationship between the volumetric throughput and the pressure drop. The two variables are therefore interdependent, namely, increasing flow rate results in increasing pressure drop.

30

Figure 2.3 SLHC Inner and Outer Recirculation Zones

Figure 2.4 Schematic of SLHC Flow Structure (Cullivan et al., 2004)

31

Figure 2.5 Colman and Thew (1983) Hydrocyclone Geometry

2.4.3

Flow Reversal With a high swirl at the inlet region, the pressure is high near the wall region and

very low toward the centerline, in the core region. As a result of the pressure gradient profile across the cyclone diameter, which decreases with downstream position, the pressure at the downstream end of the core is greater than at the upstream, causing flow reversal (Hargreaves, 1990) in the region along the cyclone axis.

2.4.4

Formation of Gas or Air Core Gas dissolved in the liquid-phase can come out of solution due to pressure

reduction in the core region, which can easily migrate to the cyclone axis and leave abruptly through the overflow outlet (Thew, 1986). This phenomenon is known as formation of gas or air core, which can be detrimental to the cyclones performance if it

32

becomes unstable due to turbulence. A significant amount of gas can be tolerated but excessive amounts will disturb the vortex. An experimental study on this topic is found in Smyth and Thew (1996).

2.4.5

Effect of Solid Properties on Separation 2.4.5.1 Effect of Particle Size Some finer particles can become entrained in the liquid-phase, not separated, and

leave together with the liquid through the overflow. In classifier units, coarser particles tend to migrate to the wall of the cyclone and move downward, while finer particles tend to exit with the overflow. Classification is not totally accurate and some coarse particles may exit together with the finer solid stream.

2.4.5.2 Effect of Particle Density Heavier (denser) particles tend to sink toward the underflow, while the lighter particles tend to float and be dragged to the overflow. When the feed mixture contains solids of two different average densities, the classification is more effective if one type of solids is denser and the other type is lighter than the feed liquid. In the solid-liquid separation case, the removal of solids from the liquid is more pronounced if both types of solids are heavier than the continuous liquid-phase.

2.4.5.3 Effect of Particle Shape The shape of a particle has a direct impact in its settling velocity, and therefore, on its trajectory inside the cyclone.

33

2.5

Definition of Separation Efficiency

The main application of the SLHC subject to this study is to efficiently remove solids from liquid slurries. Separation efficiency is then a measure of the SLHC ability to recover solids through the underflow outlet, while allowing most of the clean liquid to continue through the overflow, and thus, through the rest of the process. Following are the definitions of some important parameters used to define SLHC separation efficiency.

2.5.1 Global Solids Separation Efficiency A practical interpretation of separation data considers the purity of individual discharge streams, namely, overflow (o) and underflow (u). Many authors have made attempts to quantify the relative phase composition of the separated streams in the form of a percentage by volume measurement. Bradley (1965) defined global separation efficiency, also known as total solids recovery, as the total mass (or volume) fraction of feed solids separated through the underflow, irrespective of particle size. Thus, a generalized and widely used definition for the solids separation efficiency, E, is given by:

E =

q su 100 % q si

(2.1)

where qsi is the flow rate of solids at the feed entry, and qsu is the flow rate of solids through the underflow. Utilizing continuity equation yields: q si = qi csi = qo cso + qu csu (2.2)

where cs is the solids concentration in volume at the inlet (i), overflow (o), and underflow (u) respectively. Then, Eq. (2.1) can be rewritten as: 34

 q c so E = 1 o qi c si

100%

(2.3)

Note that when cso tends to zero, the separation efficiency is maximum. Also note that an efficiency, E, of 100% can be obtained by simply blocking off the overflow outlet, achieving no separation at all. Thus, the definition of E should be more rigorous by incorporating a mass balance verification term to account for the effective solid-liquid separation. Mass or volumetric flow rates of the liquid-phase reported to both the overflow and the underflow outlets should be balanced by the feed entry rates.

2.5.2 Split Ratio The split ratio is the ratio of the overflow rate to the inlet flow rate, as given by the following expression:

F=

qo qi

100%

(2.4)

where F is the split ratio, qo is the total flow rate at the overflow outlet of the SLHC, and qi is the total inlet flow rate.

2.5.3 Cut Point or Cut Size A common approach to define SLHC efficiency is based on the cut size, d50, the size at which particle separation or classification is 50% efficient. That is, the size having 50% probability of going to the overflow or the underflow (Rushton et al., 2000). Figure 2.6 represents an idealized size distribution of feed split into overflow and underflow.

35

2.5.4 Grade Separation Efficiency, G(x) The grade efficiency or is defined as the fraction of solid particles, usually by mass or volume, of a particular size range reporting to the underflow (Rushton et al., 2000), and is defined as:

G ( x) =

mass in size grade ( x ) in underflow mass in size grade ( x ) in feed

100 %

(2.5)

where x represents the grade or particle size range under consideration. Figure 2.7 shows the grade efficiency curve for the idealized particle size distribution of the separation case described in Figure 2.6. The actual grade efficiency curve can be determined experimentally using series of batches of same-sized solids.

Figure 2.6 Idealized Particle Size Distribution Curves (Rushton et al., 2000)

36

Figure 2.7 Idealized Grade Efficiency Curve (Rushton et al., 2000)

2.5.5 Reduced Grade Separation Efficiency, G(x) This concept was introduced to incorporate the flow splitting or dead flux effect. This effect is known to modify the shape of the grade efficiency curve and make it look more optimistic. It is caused by the very fine particles that simply follow the flow and are split in the same ratio as the fluid (Svarovsky, 1984). As shown in Figure 2.8, a typical SLHC grade efficiency curve does not start from the origin of the coordinates, as it should be expected for inertial separation. The intercept is usually the underflow-tothroughput ratio, Rf. This effect needs to be corrected, as suggested by Svarovsky (1984), in order to make a normalized comparison of equipment performance, as follows:

G '( x) =

G ( x) R f 1 R f

(2.6)

37

Figure 2.8 Grade and Reduced Grade Efficiency Curves (Svarovsky, 1984)

2.5.6 Separation Efficiency Based on Particle Tracking In this study, the SLHC solids separation efficiency is predicted based on particle trajectory analysis. Particle trajectories are traced in the continuous liquid-phase using a Lagrangian approach. This is accomplished by performing a force balance on each characteristic particle size present in the feed in order to predict its velocity. Thus, it is possible to predict if a characteristic particle is either able to reach the underflow outlet and be separated, or if it reaches the reverse flow region, dragged by the continuousphase and carried to the overflow. Details of this analysis and the overall modeling approach are provided in Chapter 5.

38

2.6

Theories of Hydrocyclone Separation

These are theories or physical models proposed by several authors that are derived from fundamental principles. They seek to describe the separation process in a hydrocyclone based on the physics of the fluid flow and not merely on empirical experience. These models can be classified into four different categories, namely, Equilibrium Orbit Theory, Residence Time Theory, Crowding Theory, and Turbulent Two-Phase Flow closure models. An overview of these theories is presented by

Svarovsky (1984) and Rushton et al. (2000).

2.7

Hydrocyclone Modeling

2.7.1 Experimental (Empirical) Models The phase separation process in hydrocyclones is a complex phenomenon. Hence, the early approach was based on experimental experience and developing empirical correlations by relating key operating variables to the separation and classification efficiency. As a result, a large number of empirical coefficients are derived from fitting the data, which must be recalculated for each new data set. Early empirical models have been able to meet the practical needs of the industry but still have major limitations. The correlations are generally capable of predicting well their original data, but correlations obtained from one system are not necessarily valid for other systems. This approach should be based on dimensional analysis in order to be able to yield a universal solution; otherwise, the correlations cannot be applied with confidence over a range of conditions and configurations different from the conditions

39

under which they were developed. However, the turbulent nature of the flow field in the hydrocyclone and the large number of variables involved limit the applicability of dimensional analysis to develop solutions for hydrocyclone systems.

2.7.2 Theoretical (Exact-Solution) Approach This approach is based on the hydrodynamic flow behavior and requires the rigorous solution of the fundamental conservation equations, namely, the mass balance, momentum balance and turbulence effect, using the proper boundary conditions. The mass balance is described using the continuity equation, the momentum balance using the Navier-Stokes equations, and the turbulence effect utilizing a turbulence-closure model. Undoubtedly, this is the most accurate approach when applicable. However, very few systems can be solved rigorously because of the complex nature of turbulent flow. Thus, the exact solution approach is limited to laminar, well behaved flow regimes, which is not the case for the hydrocyclone. The swirl nature of the flow field within the cyclone generates turbulence that is highly anisotropic (Delgadillo, 2006). On the other hand, the continuity and the Navier-Stokes equations are threedimensional nonlinear partial differential equations, and therefore, need to be solved numerically utilizing CFD simulations.

2.7.3 Numerical and CFD Modeling In recent years, the advancement of computer technology has promoted the use of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) to study complex fluid flow systems, such as the

40

hydrocyclone. Fundamental equations, as well as, turbulent closure models are solved numerically over a grid system domain. The exact geometry and flow conditions can be reproduced, reducing the need for complex and costly experiments. However, CFD models come with a high price in the form of required computer power and lengthy simulations. The most sophisticated computers and CFD software available today can take several weeks to run a single hydrocyclone case. Besides, closure relationships still have some unresolved issues that can affect the results, which need to be addressed in further studies. As a result, the use of CFD simulation has a limited application in hydrocyclone design and performance optimization. Thus, simpler, yet realistic models have been sought, such as mechanistic models.

2.7.4 Mechanistic Modeling Mechanistic modeling is an intermediate approach between the empirical and the exact-solution approaches. In this approach, simplified physical models are built in an attempt to describe the fluid flow phenomena in the hydrocyclone and the related separation efficiency. The physical model is then described mathematically providing a flexible and simple analytical tool for design and performance prediction. The developed models can be validated and refined using limited experimental data, and can be extrapolated to different flow conditions with more confidence. The closer the physical model is to the real phenomena, the higher is the confidence in the mathematical model to be used for hydrocyclone design and separation performance predictions over a wider range of conditions.

41

CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE REVIEW

Many studies have been published on hydrocyclones in the past four decades. A representative sample is summarized in this chapter with emphasis on solid-liquid separation and modeling work. Some studies performed on gas-liquid, gas-solid, liquidliquid, and solid-solid separation are also discussed and referenced, as many of them have set the grounds for understanding the hydrodynamic flow behavior in hydrocyclones. Two textbooks that condense pioneering work on hydrocyclones are Bradley (1965) and Svarovsky (1984). A more recent textbook by Rushton et al. (2000) compiles a broad range of solid-liquid filtration and separation technologies, with one chapter dedicated to centrifugal separation. All three textbooks cover in detail fundamental theories, experimental work, design, and performance aspects of hydrocyclones.

3.1

Experimental Studies

The early experimental studies have focused on the performance and global separation efficiency of hydrocyclones. Empirical correlations were developed relating classification efficiency or cut size separation to hydrocyclone geometry and in many cases to the slurry feed flow rate and solids concentration. Later experimental studies were more rigorous, focusing on the understanding of the flow field in the hydrocyclone

42

by means of sophisticated visualization techniques. Some of these works are described in the following two sections.

3.1.1

Global Separation Performance One of the earliest experimental studies was that of Dahlstron (1949). He studied

the flow of liquid suspensions of quartz in a 225-mm hydrocyclone having a 20 cone angle, and developed an expression for the cut size parameter (d50). However, the validity of this correlation is limited to feed pulps up to 20% of solids by weight and underflow volume splits of up to 15% of the total flow. Yoshioka and Hotta (1955) later proposed a new expression for the d50 based on their experimental work using dilute slurries in hydrocyclones of different sizes, ranging from 75-mm to 150-mm. Fahlstrom (1963) was the first to propose the "crowding theory" suggesting that the cut size is a function of inlet particle size distribution and the capacity of the underflow orifice. However, flaws in the original theory were later revised by Bloor et al. (1980) providing a more scientific proof of the crowding theory based on mathematical modeling work. The effect of fluid viscosity on the classification of solids in a 30-mm hydrocyclone was examined by Agar and Herbst (1966). They suggested that cut size is proportional to viscosity, c, where c is an empirical constant found to be c = -0.58. Many years later, Kanungo and Rao (1973) studied the performance of a 3-inch hydrocyclone observing linear relationships between: the flow-rate of water in the feed and the overflow product from the cyclone; the flow-rate of solids in the feed and the

43

underflow product from the cyclone. The authors compared the performance of the 3inch hydrocyclone to available results from a 20-inch cyclone. Sheng et al. (1974) investigated the performance of a conventional hydrocyclone and the effect of the construction material on the separation efficiency. Lynch and Rao (1975) conducted extensive experimental work with slurries ranging from 15% to 70% solids in hydrocyclones of different sizes ranging from 100-mm to 375-mm. Plitt (1976) used aqueous pulps of flour silica in smaller hydrocyclones of sizes, 32-mm to 150-mm diameter, conducting 174 experimental tests. He supplemented the data sets with other data gathered earlier by Lynch and Rao (1975) utilizing larger diameter hydrocyclones. In the same year, Johnson et al. (1976) conducted experiments using two small cyclones to separate Freon droplets from water. They also developed a correlation derived from solid-solid separation theory and a particle size distribution approach to predict liquidliquid separation efficiencies. A general revision of the hydrocyclone developed at Southampton University was conducted by Thew (1986). The author also discussed issues previously presented by Moir (1985). Bednarski and Listewnik (1988) presented a hydrocyclone design for simultaneous separation of less dense liquid dispersion (droplets) and solids from a denser liquid mixture, for oil concentrations between 2% and 5%. The authors suggested that smaller feed inlets cause break-up of droplets, while the larger ones do not produce a swirl of sufficient intensity required for efficient separation.

44

Choi (1990) tested a system of six hydrocyclones (35-mm) operating in parallel for produced water treatment. Plitt et al. (1990) developed an equation to calculate water recovery from a coarse feed product stream, for solid separation in a cyclone. Seyda and Petty (1991) examined the separation performance of the cylindrical tail pipe section in a hydrocyclone. The authors developed a semi-empirical model to predict the velocity field in a cylindrical chamber used to predict particle trajectories and, thus, the grade efficiency. The proposed model assumed that the axial velocity was independent of axial location and considered a constant eddy viscosity. Theoretical results showed that an optimum split ratio exists and that the efficiency increases proportionally with increased feed flow rate. A small hydrocyclone for sludge thickening of domestic waste-water was utilized by Ortega and Medina (1996) to study the effect of pressure drop and underflow diameter on the separation efficiency. Shah et al. (2006) developed an improved correlation based on regression analysis to predict water split in a hydrocyclone, and verified it using experimental data. They used spigot and vortex finder diameters as individual variables instead of using the ratio of spigot and vortex finder diameter as one variable. The authors claim that using this ratio could be misleading. They also used feed pressure as another model parameter. Kraipech et al. (2006) performed a comprehensive comparative study on the performance of several empirical models for industrial hydrocyclone design. The study included the design methods presented by Moder and Dahlstrom (1952), Yoshioka and Hotta (1955), Tarjan (1961), Abbott (1968), Lynch and Rao (1968), Flintoff et al. (1987), Svarovsky (1994), Nageswararao (1995) and Besendorfer (1996). The different sets of

45

design equations were fine-tuned with a selected set of experimental data for added reliability before utilizing them to predict the performance of the same hydrocyclones but under different flow conditions. The authors observed that the predictions were acceptable if the pressure drop and feed concentration remained the same, but when pressure drop and/or feed concentration varied, the design equations were unreliable. The design equations used by Kraipech et al. (2006) are grouped by performance parameter for each set of equations and summarized in Table 3.1. An example of the evaluation system used to compare the performance prediction of each set of equations is shown on Table 3.2. The actual design equations proposed by each of the researchers, as well as, the detailed performance results are described in Kraipech et al. (2006).

3.1.2 Internal Flow Pattern Studies The understanding of the hydrocyclone internal flow field is necessary to assess its performance, and for modeling and design optimization purposes. Many researchers have used different visualization techniques to examine and measure the 3D flow field, namely, the tangential, radial, and axial velocities of the dispersed and continuous phases. Most studies include both qualitative examination of the flow pattern features and quantitative measurements of fluid velocity profiles. Efforts have been made to distinguish and track particle or droplet trajectories, as well as to characterize the nature of the primary and secondary flows, flow mixing and flow reversal zones occurring in the hydrocyclone. Though sometimes questionable, most of these data have set the basis of the modeling work that is currently used in hydrocyclone design practice. Details of the most commonly used experimental methods are provided by Cullivan et al. (2001).

46

Table 3.1 Design Equations Used in Kraipech et al. (2006) Comparative Study.

47

Table 3.2 Example of Grading System for Hydrocyclone Performance: Prediction of Lime/Water Run TD3 (Kraipech et al., 2006)

48

3.1.2.1 Early Visualization Methods The earliest visualization methods included the use of probes, spheres, aluminum flakes, paddles or vanes. These were mounted on free rotating spindles placed inside the air core and observed with the help of a stroboscope or a rotating microscope (Siato and Ito, 1951; Kelsall, 1952; Fontein and Dijksman, 1952; and Lilge et al., 1957). Kelsall (1952) was probably the first to study experimentally in detail the flow phenomena in the cyclone. The author studied small cyclones with dilute feeds by illuminating fine aluminum flakes and observing the motion with a microscope having rotating objectives. Tangential and axial velocity components were measured at chosen locations, and radial velocities were calculated using the continuity equation. Kelsalls experimental results are still considered the most widely used data among contemporaneous hydrocyclone researchers. Turbulence in decaying swirling flow through a pipe was studied experimentally by Algifri et al. (1988) using a single rotating inclined hot-wire probe. The results were presented in the form of the three mean components of the velocity profiles. They observed that for high intensity swirl, the Reynolds number had a strong effect on the velocity distribution. With the advancement of technology and the limitations set off by the early methods, new techniques have been sought, as presented next.

3.1.2.2 Photographic and Videographic Techniques Photographic and filming techniques have been used successfully to examine the flow pattern inside the hydrocyclone. However, they fail to provide detailed information on local velocities. Also, the reliability of the data obtained by the photography method is

49

sometimes questionable. The major constraint of such techniques is its inability to allow a rigorous analysis of flow reversals and short-circuiting flows. Some of the studies that have made use of these techniques are discussed in this section. Ohashi and Maeda (1958) tracked the velocity field of polystyrene particles in a 75-mm hydrocyclone by illuminating the particles with stroboscopic flashes at controlled time intervals. Obtained results were consistent with Kelsall's (1952) measurements of axial, reversal and re-circulating flows, while the radial velocity was found to be smaller and asymmetrical with respect to the cyclone axis. Bradley and Pulling (1959) also used photographic techniques to examine the movement of a dye injected into transparent hydrocyclones. The three-dimensional flow pattern in a 75-mm hydrocyclone was measured by Knowles et al. (1973) utilizing high-speed movies of Anisole droplets. They also studied the effects of the air core on the velocity profiles and found similarities in the tangential and axial components, with and without an air core. The radial velocities, when no air core was formed, were relatively smaller in magnitude and in agreement with Ohashi and Maeda (1958). Bhattacharyya (1984) examined the flow pattern of dye injection through the side and end walls of a 105-mm hydrocyclone, utilizing photography. They observed that the locus of zero axial velocity was unaffected by the length of the vortex-finder up to 0.6Dc and also that it was not sensitive to cone angle or underflow orifice size. Ketcham et al. (1984) employed high-speed video to track solid particles in a 100mm hydrocyclone. The authors noticed that particles released near the vortex-finder wall ended up being trapped in the boundary layer. Coarser particles formed a thin film along

50

the vortex-finder wall and eventually reported to the overflow, while particles in the range between d50 to 3d50 experienced 20 to 40% less short-circuiting" when introduced at the bottom of the inlet pipe, as compared to those introduced at the top.

3.1.2.3 Laser Induced Fluorescence (LIF) Weispfennig and Petty (1991) studied the flow structure in a LLHC using the LIF visualization technique. Different types of inlets were studied including an annular entry. They observed that vortex instability and recirculation zones were strongly dependent on the swirl intensity of the flow and a characteristic Reynolds Number.

3.1.2.4 Laser Doppler Velocimetry (LDV) Understanding of the fluid flow phenomena within the hydrocyclone has advanced to a great extent with the increased sophistication of LDV optical and signal processing systems. The LDV technique has become a common non-intrusive flow measurement and diagnostic tool for transparent cyclone prototypes. The LDV is not as complicated and time-consuming as the photographic and filming technique and does not cause flow distortion like the Pitot tubes (Chakraborti and Miller, 1992). Following is a discussion of some of the studies that have made use of this technique. Dabir and Petty (1984, 1986) used LDV to measure the axial and tangential components of the mean velocity in a 3-inch (76-mm) hydrocyclone operating without either a solid phase or a gas core. Flow visualization using dye injection revealed multiple flow reversals in the vortex, which were consistent over a considerable length of the hydrocyclone. They also observed a little radial mixing between the secondary flows

51

and the outer helical flow. Their study showed that for some designs and operating conditions, a jet-like flow occurred from the apex region to the vortex finder, while the multiple flow reversals in the core region disappeared when the vortex-finder size was larger than the apex diameter. According to the authors, a 2:1 contraction ratio in the vortex finder caused four distinct simultaneous countercurrent flows in the conical section of the hydrocyclone. The LDV technique was used by Gu and Li (1987) to measure tangential and axial velocities of heavy-medium and water-only in cyclones. The authors observed that the vortex finder wall thickness had an influence on the velocity profiles, especially on the loci of zero axial velocity. They also observed that reducing the air core diameter resulted in a more stable flow pattern and higher central flow velocity. Luo et al. (1989) measured the three-dimensional velocities in a conventional 82mm hydrocyclone using LDV, and compared them with those obtained with a watersealed hydrocyclone (with no air core). They noted that the water-sealed cyclone experienced a significant increase in tangential velocity and a wider zone of zero axial velocity. The radial velocity in both cyclones had a distribution similar to that of the tangential velocity, in disagreement with Kelsall (1952) and other observations. Tangential and axial velocity measurements were carried out by Hsieh (1988) in a 75-mm hydrocyclone utilizing LDV. Tangential velocities were measured at 0 and 180 to examine the axi-symmetry of the flow, while axial velocities were measured at four different angles 90 apart. The author used water and water-glycerol mixtures to simulate the variation of slurry viscosity due to the concentration of solid particles in the liquid stream. The results revealed multiple flow reversals in the region between the vortex

52

finder wall and the cylindrical wall. Short-circuiting flows were predominant at the back side of the tangential inlet, especially with the increase in fluid viscosity and flow rate. Monredon (1990) continued Hsiehs (1988) work measuring the velocity profiles in a 75-mm and 150-mm hydrocyclones utilizing LDV. The study revealed new information on the effect of several design variables, namely, vortex finder diameter, spigot diameter and cone angle, on the velocity profiles. The author observed that with increased vortex finder and spigot diameters the locus of zero axial velocity remained the same in the cylindrical section, while shifting inwards in the conical section. Later, Devulapalli (1997) scaled-up the model proposed by Hsieh (1988) to account for larger hydrocyclone geometries. The author validated the accuracy of the model by comparing the predicted velocity profiles with new LDV experimental data. The predicted classification curves had good agreement with the LDV experimental curves for concentrated suspensions obtained in a 250-mm hydrocyclone. Peng et al. (2001) utilized Laser Doppler Anemometry (LDA) to study the flow patterns in a tangential inlet gas-solid cyclone separator. Results showed that a recirculatory flow pattern in the axial/radial directions exists in the upper part of the inlet region. According to the authors, this phenomenon is associated with secondary flows induced by the swirling motion in the boundary layer by the cyclone lid. The internal 3D flow patterns in a hydrocyclone were studied by Fisher (1998), and Fisher and Flack (2002) using LDV. Data collected are comprehensive and of high quality, and can be used as benchmark data for the development of computational models. The integrated velocities yielded mass flows within 3% of the measured mass flows, suggesting high accuracy of the velocity measurements. A total of seven axial

53

planes were examined, and the inlet flow rate and rejects rate were independently varied to identify the effects each had on the flow field. Observations confirmed that velocity profiles behave like a forced vortex at the region near the air core, and like a free vortex in the outer region of the flow near the cyclone wall. The tangential velocity was found to be the most dominant velocity component. Its magnitude increased in the inner forced vortex region as the reject rate was increased. However, the radial velocity was found to be most crucial for the separation process. They also noticed reverse flows in the axial velocity profile in the near inlet region, but they disappeared in the outlet region. Many other researchers (Fanglu and Wenzhen, 1987; Jirun et al., 1990; Fraser and Abdullah, 1995; Hsieh and Rajamani, 1991; He et al., 1997 and Erdal, 2001) have used this technique to measure the velocity field and turbulence intensities. Most of them have then used the collected data to validate their CFD and modeling work.

3.1.2.5 Electrical Impedance Tomography (EIT) The EIT technique can be used to measure internal flows non-intrusively, fast and with a high degree of accuracy, as the measurements are not affected by the opacity of the feed slurry. Since measurements are taken at 2 milliseconds per frame, fast fluctuations in the internal flow can be measured. Gutierrez et al. (2000) used EIT for controlling the hydrocyclone underflow discharge. The authors conducted a series of experiments to investigate the distribution of solids in a 44-mm hydrocyclone. They examined the particle distribution inside the separator, the formation of an air core as a function of the feed rate and solids

54

concentration, and the relationship between the air core behavior and the type of underflow discharge, namely, spray or rope. Cullivan et al. (2001, 2003, 2004) used EIT and ultrasound tomography (UST) among other methods to examine the flow field structure within the hydrocyclone.

3.1.2.6 Particle Dynamics Analyzer (PDA) PDA is a new type of laser surveying instrument based on laser doppler theory and is a non-intrusive measurement technology. It does not disturb the flow field and can simultaneously provide accurate results on the velocity, diameter and concentration of both the dispersed particle and the liquid-phase. Chu and Chen (1993) used PDA to directly measure the radial and axial velocity components and the size and concentration of solid particles at selected positions within a transparent hydrocyclone. They were able to obtain profiles of the solid particle flow field, and observed that the maximum concentration was at the loci of zero axial velocity, and that separation of some particles took place in the inner helical flow. Su and Mao (2006) employed a three-dimensional Particle Dynamic Analyzer (3D-PDA) to measure the two-phase flow pattern of a gas-solid stream in a square cyclone separator with a downward gas-exit. The authors observed that the center of the flow field deviated from the geometrical center of the cyclone, having a strong swirling region in the central part and pseudo-free eddy region and a weak swirling intensity near the cyclone wall (Rankine eddy). They also noticed a local vortex forming at the corners of the cyclone.

55

3.1.2.7 Particle Size Determination Particle size analyzers based on laser diffraction (e.g., Malvern laser particle size analyzer) are widely used in the lab for both online and offline measurements. Many of the techniques available for offline determination of particle size were described by Allen (1983). Commercially available online slurry particle size analyzers have been based on laser diffraction, ultrasound, distance measurement, and laser scattering (Sparks and Dobbs, 1993). The latter technique is based on a constant speed scanning laser beammicroscope system. The particle size distribution experimental data used to validate the mechanistic model developed in this study was acquired using the Coulter Counter (CC) Multisizer equipment similar to the Malvern.

3.2

CFD and Numerical Studies

Rigorous phenomenological models based on fluid dynamics have three main components: the mass balance described by the continuity equation, the momentum balance described by the Navier-Stokes equations, and the turbulence effect closure model. Solving the continuity and the Navier Stokes equations for non-turbulent flow can be achieved with the computational resources available today for simple or complex geometries. However, at large Reynolds numbers current resources struggle to attain the instantaneous velocity and the pressure fields, even for simple geometries (Hubred et al., 2000). Slack et al. (2003) proposed an automated CFD modeling interface for hydrocyclone design, providing the non-CFD analyst or design engineer with a flexible hydrocyclone simulation tool.

56

CFD has been used in the past to numerically solve the governing equations and to study hydrocyclone turbulent flow phenomena. Choosing an appropriate turbulence model and the numerical solution scheme is paramount for achieving good results. Traditional turbulence models, such as the standard form of the Prandtl mixing-length or the k- model, are not suitable for the highly complex turbulent flow in the hydrocyclone. However, the use of more elaborated turbulence models may increase computational times and requirements to inconvenient or uneconomical limits. To deal with these limitations and requirements, some researchers have used a modified Prandtl mixing-length model along with some simplifications and the use of flow symmetry (Rajamani and Hsieh, 1988; Hsieh and Rajamani, 1991; and Rajamani and Devulapalli, 1994). Hsieh and Rajamani (1991) used a stream function-vorticity version of the equation of motion and the symmetry assumption to solve the NavierStokes equations in two dimensions. The authors observed good agreement between the CFD simulations and the experimental data they collected using LDV. Dai et al. (1999) extended the work of Hsieh and Rajamani (1991) to account for the air core effect, occurring in the inner region, also using a modified k- turbulence model. The authors presented good agreement between the numerically simulated three-dimensional velocity profiles and the data measured using LDA. The study showed that improving the flow pattern in the cylindrical section reduced significantly the energy dissipation in a hydrocyclone. However, according to Delgadillo (2006), the modified Prandtl mixinglength model for the axial and tangential velocity components is not an accepted standard in CFD, nor has this hypothesis been conclusively proven.

57

The standard k- model has also been modified by other authors to account for the anisotropic characteristic of the turbulent viscosity in the hydrocyclone (Malhotra et al., 1994; Dyakowsky and Williams, 1995, 1996; and He et al., 1997, 1999). This modified k- model is sometimes referred as Renormalization Group (RNG). Results published by Malhotra et al. (1994) show that the modified k- model considerably improved the velocity profile predictions, but only in the absence of an air core. He et al. (1997, 1999) also reported good results in the prediction of the flow field. They utilized a threedimensional model in a cylindrical coordinate system and curvilinear grid. However, according to Delgadillo (2006) there is no conclusive evidence that such modifications to the closure model adequately predict the turbulence in hydrocyclones and therefore, other alternatives were sought. In a series of studies, Shubert and Neesse (1980a, 1980b) investigated the turbulence phenomenon inside the hydrocyclone, using electrodes to measure it. The authors concluded that the turbulence dispersion coefficient was a function of tangential velocity and the diameter of cyclones body. They generated a classification curve based on the turbulent dispersion of solid particles. Morandi and Salasnich (1998) studied turbulence and bifurcation of the flow motion in the hydrocyclone by using a Finite Element Method (FEM) based on the NavierStokes equations. They obtained numerical results that were in good agreement with the experimental data. Nowakowski et al. (2000) presented a multi-continuum numerical simulation approach for calculating solid-liquid hydrocyclone performance. They considered particle-particle and particle-fluid interactions derived from lubrication

58

and collision theories, and discretized the governing equations by applying an unstructured grid consisting of tetrahedral elements. The Large Eddy Simulation (LES) turbulence closure model was used by De Souza and Silveira-Neto (2002), capturing the main features of the flow pattern in a 76mm diameter water-fed hydrocyclone operating without an air core. The turbulent viscosity was computed with the Smagorinsky (1990) subgrid scale model. The authors compared the LES predictions with published experimental data from different researchers (Dabir, 1983; Hsieh and Rajamani, 1991; and Svarovsky, 1994). The agreement between simulated and experimental values of pressure drop and axial velocities was found to be reasonable. However, predicted results for the velocities in the near wall region were not satisfactory. Therefore, the model requires the tuning of a scale energy transfer constant with experimental information for each Reynolds number and the refinement of the mesh. Cullivan et al. (2003, 2004) incorporated a second-order pressure-strain Reynolds-Stress turbulence model (RSM) in transient three-dimensional CFD simulations. They demonstrated that air-core development is transport-driven as opposed to pressure-driven. The study also showed that the air core is a highly asymmetric helical structure of alternating radial velocity. This results in a stochastic turbulent transport of particles between the wall and core flows, mainly in regions of favorable radial velocity. They later included a full three-dimensional CFD modeling and a high-order differential stress turbulence model (DSM), including a significant stochastic component, which led to a new understanding of particle-separation classification within the hydrocyclone. The authors performed a detailed and comprehensive experimental verification of the

59

predicted flow field structure within the hydrocyclone. Different measurement techniques were used, including high-speed video, radiography, ultrasound tomography (UST) and electrical impedance tomography (EIT). Modeling results were confirmed by the experimental data, indicating that the observed asymmetry throughout the hydrocyclone results from the single tangential inlet and wall bounded streamline curvature. According to the researchers, such asymmetry throughout the hydrocyclone plays a key role in determining the particle separation mechanism. A comparative study of the four most important turbulence-closure models, namely, the RNG, the , the RSM, and the LES models, was conducted by Delgadillo and Rajamani (2005). The models were compared for the predictions of air-core dimension, mass split, and axial and tangential velocities. The researchers concluded that the LES model better matched the experimental data, mainly due to its ability to capture detailed turbulence features. However, they also observed that LES predictions were not very accurate in the near wall region where molecular viscosity has a significant effect. This is in agreement with observations made by De Souza and Silveira-Neto (2002). Yablonskii (2003) solved numerically a system of equations describing the flow of a non-Newtonian fluid with a free surface in a cylindrical-conical hydrocyclone. The authors studied the influence exerted by the rheological properties of the fluid and by the defining similarity criteria on the flow hydrodynamics. They calculated the velocity and pressure fields, as well as the dependence of the thickness of the fluid film on the axial coordinate. They reported that the tangential velocity component at the film surface first decays in the axial direction of the cylindrical part and then increases in the conical part as it becomes narrower. The steepest increase was observed near the film surface. For

60

pseudo plastic fluids, the rate of tangential velocity component decay decreases as the anomaly of the non-Newtonian properties becomes more prominent. A review of recent CFD work and new developments in the application of 3D finite element code to hydrocyclone modeling was presented by Nowakowski et al. (2004). They examined and summarized some of the most relevant studies and contributions from many researchers. The authors discussed important factors in the numerical solution of the model equations, namely, proper representation of geometry, imposition of boundary conditions and the choice of the turbulence model. They also outlined the key challenges that still need to be addressed in order to produce a complete and validated model of the hydrocyclone flow-field, including 1) 3D unstructured grid tool for geometrical flexibility; 2) Full coupling of the fluid and particle phases using the approach of Patankar and Joseph (2001); and, 3) Air-core modeling capturing the liquid gas interface using the level set method proposed by Osher and Sethian (1988) and further developed by Caiden et al. (2001). Table 3.3 summarizes the most important CFD solution developments for the cyclone problem published before 2004.

61

Table 3.3 Summary of Milestones in Numerical Solutions of Flow in Hydrocyclones (Nowakoswky et al., 2004)

62

Table 3.3 (contd)

63

Later studies include the work of Doby et al. (2005), who developed a Finite Element Method (FEM) based on mixed approximation of the velocity and pressure space. With this numerical technique, the authors performed 3D simulations of incompressible fluid flow within a SLHC to predict the outlet velocity patterns. This technique incorporates the boundary conditions and also deals with the complex geometry of the top entry section. The authors investigated the interaction between the swirling flow and velocity profile at the outlet, claiming that such formulation offers significant advantages in the solution of convection dominated internal flows, which have one inlet and two or more outlets. Narasimha et al. (2006) developed a CFD model capable of predicting the flow pattern in the hydrocyclone, including accurate prediction of the flow split, as well as the size and shape of the air-core. They used the Differential Reynolds Stress Model (DRSM) and the LES model for the prediction of flow velocities and air-core diameter, along with the Volume of Fluid (VOF) model for the air-phase. Simulation results were compared with experimental data, showing that the LES model resulted in an improved turbulence field prediction leading to a more accurate prediction of the pressure and velocity fields. The axial pressure profile results suggest that air-core development is mainly a transport effect rather than a pressure effect, which is in agreement with earlier observations by Cullivan et al. (2003). Other recent studies have attempted to compare the different turbulence closure models and their variations (Matvienko, 2004; Ko et al., 2006; and Kang and Choi, 2006).

64

3.3

Mechanistic Modeling and Theoretical Studies

Theoretical and mathematical models based on the physical principles of motion of solid particles in a fluid medium have been proposed in the past (Bloor and Ingham, 1973, 1984, 1987; Schubert and Neesse, 1980b; Bloor, 1987; Kang, 1984; Braun and Bohnet, 1990; Barrientos and Concha, 1992; Monredon et al., 1992; Svarovsky, 1994; and Mueller and Bohnet, 1998). However, according to Svarovsky (1996) they have not made a significant impact on the prediction of hydrocyclone performance for industrial applications, and have been somewhat abandoned in favor of numerical simulations due to the complexity of highly turbulent multiphase flow. Mass and momentum conservation equations have been solved mathematically, mainly for incompressible and inviscid fluids, using the stream function concept in an axis-symmetric configuration. A comparative study of seven theoretical and semi-empirical hydrocyclone models, including some of the ones mentioned above, was performed by Chen et al. (2000). The authors evaluated the validity of these models for practical applications and found that most of them work well for certain conditions but none of the models could predict all applications. Therefore, they recommended that more than one model be used and that some data be obtained to select the most appropriate model for each case. Kraipech et al. (2006) arrived at similar conclusions when examining empirical models as discussed earlier. Some theoretical studies are discussed next. The separation model proposed by Schubert and Neesse (1980b) was based on turbulent two-phase flow, assuming a homogenous, stationary turbulent field, with the particles moving under Stokes' Law.

65

A mathematical model of the hydrocyclone based on the hydrodynamic flow behavior was developed by Hsieh (1988). However, this model was a large CFD

computer code capable of solving numerically the governing Navier-Stokes equations, employing a modified Prandtl mixing-length model as the turbulence closure, and an algebraic slip approach to model the particle trajectories in the hydrocyclone. The model was validated against experimental data collected in a 75-mm glass hydrocyclone. One limitation of the model is its inability to account for the non-Newtonian behavior of concentrated slurries and transport of particles by turbulent eddies. Therefore, caution is advised when applying the model for high feed slurry concentrations. Braun and Bohnet (1990) developed a theoretical model to describe the separation efficiency of hydrocyclones in terms of the reduced grade efficiency, G(x), instead of using the usual definition that uses the grade efficiency. The so called, true performance of the hydrocyclone was then described as follows:

& & M pu Vu & & M pi Vi G ' ( x) = & V 1 u & V

i

(3.1)

The authors described the pressure drop, p , occurring inside the hydrocyclone using energy dissipation balance, which included the frictional, accelerational, and static radial pressure gradient components, as follows:

& & w2 ' w2 V ' w2 V p = pi' + i po + o * o pu + u * 1 o & & 2 2 Vi 2 Vi

(3.2)

66

The model considered the effects of both feed solids concentration and flow split ratio and showed a good agreement with the experimental data. The variables used in the previous equations are:
& M p = mass flow rate of solids [kg/s]

& V = volumetric flow rate [m3/h]

p = static pressure [N/m2] w = radial velocity [m/s]

= flow density [kg/m3]

where the subscripts i, o, and u correspond to inlet, overflow and underflow respectively. A cylindrical co-current hydrocyclone was used by Lagutkin et al. (2004) for examining the separation of solid-liquid suspensions. They developed a set of equations to determine solids removal efficiency and residence time as a function of tangential velocity, turbulent viscosity, densities and dimensions of the cyclone. Figure 3.1 shows the model nomenclature. The authors used a relationship for a particle radial motion in the cylindrical-conical hydrocyclone proposed by Ternovskii and Kutepov (1994), as follows:
dr m r 2 d r dt d 2 r = m 1 m m m p 2 4 r dt 2
2 2

(3.3)

where m is the mass and d is the diameter of a particle of the fineness class under consideration, vr is the particle tangential velocity component, m is the density of the dispersion medium, p is the density of the dispersed-phase (solids), r is the radius of the particle under consideration, is the coefficient of hydraulic resistance ( = 24/Re), dr/dt

67

is the particle radial velocity component, and vr is the radial velocity component of the dispersion medium. The upper signs (+ and -) before the terms in Eq. (3.3) apply to the case when the direction of motion of the particle and flow are opposing, while the lower signs (- and +) apply to the case when the particle and flow are moving in the same direction.

Figure 3.1 Computational Diagram for Cylindrical-Conical Hydrocyclone: 1) Cylindrical-Conical Housing; 2) Feed (intake) Pipe; 3) Upper Drain Pipe; 4) Sand Packing (Lagutkin et al., 2004)

68

An equation for solving the particle radial velocity component in Eq. (3.3) was proposed by Baranov et al. (1996). The authors considered the particle acceleration in the radial direction (a term that was generally neglected by previous researchers), showing that radial acceleration exerted a significant influence on separation of particles coarser than 150 m. Assuming that the tangential velocity component of the particles (dispersed-phase) and that of the dispersion medium are equal, that is, neglecting the slippage of particles in the circumferential direction with respect to the flow, the particle velocity in the radial direction can be obtained from the following relationship: A dr = dt
3

r m B 3A 1+ 2 4 r r

B r

(3.3.1)

where B = Qc / 2h, Qc is the output of the hydrocyclone through the overflow, and A is a constant defined for the cylindrical-conical hydrocyclone structural and operating conditions, as the one shown in Figure 3.1, given by:

1 m 2 p (2 Rte + D) A = m e 4

(3.3.2)

It is also assumed that the resisting force acting on the particle can be determined from Stokes Law, namely,
24 Re

(3.3.3)

69

and the Stokes resistance coefficient, , is defined as:

= 3 md

(3.3.4)

where is the kinematic viscosity of the dispersion medium. In most cases, , should be computed from the relationship for the transitional region of particle motion, as follows:

18.5 Re 0.6

(3.3.5)

In such cases, , is defined as:

* = 7.26 m 0.6 d 1.4

and Eq. (3.3) takes the form:

(3.3.6)

d 2r dt 2

= m

2r

1.4 1 m m * r dr r p dt

(3.4)

The constant tangential flow velocity of the dispersion medium, e, from the wall of the cyclone to the radius, Rte, is defined as follows: d Lcy e = 3.1 in in D D
0.32

(3.4.1)

where in is the inlet flow velocity. Ternovskii and Kutepov (1994) defined the radius, Rte, using the following relationship:
d Rte = 1.25( D d in ) in D
0.58

(tan ) 0.2

(3.4.2)

70

Lagutkin et al. (2004) also demonstrated the influence of the Coriolis force (acting in the circumferential direction of the hydrocyclone) on the separation of coarser particles (> 150 m). According to their findings, the Coriolis effect is more significant in the core zone of the cyclone due to the sharp increase of the flow tangential velocity component, which results in a rapid increase of the drift velocity of the system within this region. In a later study, Lagutkin and Baranov (2004) further examined this phenomenon also concluding that the influence of the particle radial acceleration is pronounced with particle sizes coarser than 100 m. The Coriolis force acts in the direction opposite to the Coriolis acceleration displacing a particle in the circumferential direction with respect to the flow. The Coriolis force is approximated from Stokes Law, as: Fcor = rel (3.5)

where rel = r and the Coriolis acceleration is determined from the relationship:

acor = 2 dr

dr dt

(3.6)

where dr = /r, and the tangential, , and radial velocity, r, components of the continuous flow (dispersion medium) are defined by Eq. (3.7) and (3.8), given by:

e (2 Rte + D )
4r

(3.7)

71

 r =

2m dr r dt

(3.8)

Rewriting Eq. (3.8) in terms of the flow tangential velocity and the particle radial velocity component, dr/dt, yields:
A B e (2 Rte + D ) 2m r3 r 1 = 4r r mB 3 Am 2 4 + r r

(3.9)

A relationship for the acceleration of a particle in the radial direction can be derived from Eq. (3.3.1) as proposed by Baranov et al. (1996), yielding:

d 2r dt 2

dr B 3 A dt r 2 r 4

(3.10)

Following, Lagutkin et al. (2004) suggested that Eq. (3.9) be substituted into Eq. (3.3) for calculating the radial velocity component of the flow, to account for the effect of Coriolis force. They observed that particles in the zone of ascending flow were slowed by the Coriolis force, and that their tangential velocity component was much smaller than the circumferential velocity of the flow. Furthermore, the authors proposed a new relationship for calculating the radial motion of a particle that accounted for both the Coriolis force and the effects of particle radial acceleration. The proposed equation was obtained by substituting Eqs. (3.9) and (3.10) into Eq. (3.3), resulting in:

72

 A B ( R + D ) 3 r m e te 2m r 1 r mB 3 Am r 4r + 2 r4 r dr = dt mB 3 Am 2 4 r r

m 1 m B p r

(3.11)

When a particle stops moving in the radial direction (dr/dt =0), then the cut size diameter, d50, can be determined. Particles smaller than the d50 are carried over with the clarified flow, while the coarser ones are separated and run off with the underflow. The maximum radius of the hydrocyclone body at which the radial velocity component of the dispersion medium is equal to zero can be determined with the following equation proposed by Povarov (1978):

rz 0 =

Dd u 2(d u + d l )

(3.12)

where du and dl are the diameters of the overflow and the underflow outlets respectively. Thus, when a particle stops moving in the radial direction at r = rz0 (dr/dt = 0 and d2r/dt2 = 0), it will have 50% (d50) chance of being separated and exit with the underflow. The cut size, d50, can be calculated by substituting r by rz0 in Eq. (3.11) and using the proper boundary conditions (dr/dt = 0 and d2r/dt2 = 0), yielding:
A B 3 rz 0 e (2 Rte + D) 2m rz 0 m 1 0= rz 0 rz 0 rz 0 mB 3 Am 2 4 rz 0 r z 0
2 1.4 m 1 m * B r p z0

(3.13)

73

Akbar et al. (2001) proposed an equation for the motion of a spherical particle in a fluid flow, neglecting the interactions with other particles, given by: = m p 1 p dt g + FD + FApp + FBas + FLS + FLM + FPG

mp

du p

(3.14)

The term on the left-hand side of Eq. (3.14) describes the particle inertia, and the terms on the right-hand side are the forces caused by the particlefluid interactions as explained by Kraipech et al. (2005) in Table 3.4. The term mp is the mass of the particle, up is the particle instantaneous velocity and g is the body acceleration. The densities of fluid and solid particles are represented by and p respectively. When a particles motion is affected by a neighboring particle, the other forces have to be altered, as shown in Table 3.5. The effect of the particlefluid and particleparticle interactions of the flow within a hydrocyclone was investigated by Kraipech et al. (2005). The authors applied time scale analysis and showed that particleparticle interactions play a key role only in the near wall region and close to the air core, owing to lubrication and collision mechanisms. In the remaining region, particlefluid interactions were observed to be dominating.

74

Table 3.4 Forces Caused by ParticleFluid Interactions in Turbulent Flow (Kraipech et al., 2005).

75

Table 3.5 Effect of Neighboring Particles on a Particle Motion (Kraipech et al., 2005).

76

Dwari et al. (2004) developed a mathematical model for predicting particle separation efficiency and cut size particle diameter. The author also developed a correlation for predicting percentage removal of particles and retention of particles for a new type of hydrocyclone, suitable for sand and sand-ash systems. The proposed relationship for the d50 cut size is given by:

C VR 18 f R1 Q d 50 = 1 1 L Ps RL The particle separation efficiency is given by:

Wt % of particle at inlet Wt % of particle at overflow Wt % of particle at inlet

(3.15)

(3.16)

By applying dimensional and multiple linear regression analyses to evaluate the constants and coefficients of the equation, the authors obtained a semi-empirical relationship for the separation efficiency of particles, as described by:
a b c

= S VD s i

d D i

(3.17)

where a, b, and c are empirical constants obtained by regression analysis to be -0.82, 0.63, 0.82, respectively. The rest of the variables are described in the Nomenclature section. Recently, Yablonskii and Ryabchuk (2006) developed a mathematical model for predicting the separation of suspensions for a non-Newtonian dispersion medium in a

77

hydrocyclone. The model accounts for the effect of the Coriolis force on the solid-phase particles, the effect of the Froude number, the Reynolds number, the dimensionless flow rate parameter, and the rheological properties of the dispersion medium. The set of partial differential equations describing the separation process was reduced to a set of ordinary differential equations that were solved numerically. They proposed an equation for the motion of the solid-phase particle that is affected by the centrifugal buoyancy force, the drag force, and the Coriolis force, along the r and axes. The authors described the effect of the determining similarity parameters and the dispersion medium rheology on the concentration distribution. The mechanistic modeling approach followed in the present study is described in Chapter 5.

3.4

Factors Affecting Solid-Liquid Separation in Hydrocyclones

3.4.1

Effect of Geometry The geometrical configuration and the different dimensions of each component of

the hydrocyclone, such as the cone angle, length and diameter of the cylindrical chamber, length and diameter of the vortex finder, outlet orifice diameter and feed pipe diameter, have been found by several researchers to have a significant influence on particle separation/classification performance. Hence, the understanding of the impact of each component size and geometry on performance could lead to significant improvements to hydrocyclone design.

78

3.4.1.1 Effect of Feed Pipe Diameter Salcudean et al. (2003) studied the effects of changing the different components of the cyclone. They found out that the most critical variable was the diameter of the feed pipe. A decrease in feed pipe diameter promotes higher feed velocities while the mass flow input is kept constant, thus, decreasing the number of particles carried over by up to 80%. However, an increase of particle residence time was also observed as a result of smaller feed diameters, which can lead to flocculation of particles. The optimum size of the feed diameter was found to be half of the width of the annular chamber.

3.4.1.2 Effect of Vortex Finder Length and Orifice Diameter The diameter of the vortex finder outlet has a significant effect on cut size, flow split, and hence, on separation and fractionation. Salcudean et al. (2003) observed that an increase in the vortex-finder diameter led to an increase in the number of particles carried upward, thus, decreasing separation efficiency.

3.4.1.3 Effect of Spigot Diameter Ahmed et al. (1985) studied the effect of apex diameter on the pattern of solid/liquid ratio distribution within a hydrocyclone using a 100-mm hydrocyclone. Measurements were taken along orbit radii at several horizontal level positions along the cyclone body length. The results provided a complete pattern of pulp-solid content distribution for different spigot sizes. Also, an empirical equation relating the pulp solid/liquid ratio to apex diameter was proposed.

79

3.4.1.4 Effect of Apex Cone Height Experimental and simulation studies were conducted by Yoshida et al. (2003) to examine the effect of the apex cone height on particle separation performance. They found that the main effect of the apex cone was to decrease the cut size and to increase the collection efficiency. In general, the inlet velocity determines the optimum apex cone height. As feed velocities increased, the optimum height changed to a lower position.

3.4.1.5 Effect of Inclination Angle on Cut Size Banisi and Deghan-Nayeri (2005) examined the influence of the hydrocyclone inclination angle on cut size using a 75-mm Krebs cyclone. They found out that an increase in inclination angle resulted in a cut size increase, in particular for angles above 45 degrees from horizontal and feed solid concentrations above 10%.

3.4.2 Effect of Particle Properties The effect of the properties of the solid-phase on hydrocyclone performance was examined by Salcudean et al. (2003). They observed a decrease in particle carry-over as particle density increased. They also found out that the magnitude of this effect was affected by the particle diameter and length. The carry-over sharply decreased with larger particle diameters, as would have been expected. This is in agreement with Dwari et al. (2004) observations. They reported that larger particles are removed easily, thus, with an increase in particle size, at a particular inlet pressure, separation efficiency increases. The effect of particle length on separation was found by Salcudean et al. (2003) to be closely related to the values of particle diameter and density. The particle diameter at

80

which the trend reverses depends on the particle density due to the variation of the drag coefficient.

3.4.2.1 Effect of Feed Solids Concentration The influence of feed solids concentration on the separation efficiency of the cyclone has been recognized in the past by several authors. Braun and Bohnet (1990) developed and tested a theoretical model that considers the effects of both feed solids concentration and flow split ratio on separation efficiency and pressure drop. The results suggest that an increase in feed solids concentration, while keeping all other operating parameters constant, leads to a coarser cut size, reduced separation sharpness and higher pressure drop across the cyclone. According to the authors, at higher flow rates the pressure drop increases significantly with both feed concentration and flow split ratio. They concluded that this is partly caused by hindered settling, an effect produced when a large number of particles moving radially outwards increase the velocity of the fluid flowing towards the axis of the cyclone to satisfy continuity. High particle concentration promotes particles hampering the radial motion of one another and limiting the capacity of the apex valve, and this in turn produces changes in the flow field within the hydrocyclone and causes additional particles to be entrained by the overflow promoting the formation of a rotating bed of solid particles near the exit (Braun and Bohnet, 1990).

3.4.2.2 Particle-Fluid and Fluid-Particle Interactions Kraipech et al., (2005) investigated the effect of the particlefluid and particle particle interactions with the application of a time scale concept. They observed that the

81

liquidparticle interaction (drag) play a crucial role in the main body of a hydrocyclone. However, for particleparticle interactions both the lubrication and collision mechanisms are predominant within the regions near the wall and the air core. They concluded that these interactions play a key role on separation efficiency and that the results of solid mechanics should also be incorporated in modeling particleparticle collisions in the vicinity of the hydrocyclone walls, especially when solids concentrations are significant.

3.4.3

Effect of Temperature and Pressure A CFD model was used by Shi et al. (2006) to predict the pressure drop and

velocity profiles in cyclones at high temperatures and high pressures. The results showed that density had a considerable effect on the pressure distribution, while the effect of viscosity was insignificant. Temperature increase led to decrease in tangential velocity, while the reverse flow in the center of the cyclone became weaker, resulting in a decrease in the cyclones collection efficiency. On the other hand, an increase in pressure led to an increase in the collection efficiency for the same inlet velocity. Fluid density increases with pressure, and this in turn increases the tangential velocity in the outer vortex region. Su and Mao (2006) studied experimentally the effect of cyclone wall temperature on the flow field. They observed that the flow field became more uniform with increased suspension temperature. They also noticed that local vortices at the corners were weakened and the swirling intensity lowered, which led to decreased total mean separation efficiency from about 81 % to 76.5 %. These results are in agreement with observations by Shi et al. (2006).

82

3.4.4 Effect of the Air Core The air-core formed in the cyclone is a very important internal structure of the cyclone. Stability of the flow field is necessary for effective performance. The effect of the air core on the main flow field was investigated by Luo and Xu (1992) concluding that it is detrimental to particle classification. They observed that the air core enhanced instability and asymmetry of the flow field and disturbed the regular distribution of classified particles. Many researchers have neglected the effect of the air core in their modeling and simulation work for simplicity. However, this simplification can lead to inaccuracies in the prediction of the flow field and overall hydrocyclone separation efficiency. Some of the investigators that have addressed the effects of the air core are Barrientos et al. (1993), Dyakowsky and Williams (1995), Concha et al. (1996), and Narasimha et al. (2006), among others.

3.4.5 The Fish-Hook Effect in Classifiers The Fish-Hook effect consists in an increase in the recovery of fine particles in the underflow with decreasing particle size. Patil and Rao (2001) experimentally examined the factors affecting the recovery of very fine particles. They found that particle sizes at which this effect occurs is mainly a function of feed size distribution and solids concentration, and is less dependent on the design variables. This effect has also been studied by Nageswararao (2000), Kraipech et al. (2002), and Schubert (2003).

3.5

Instrumentation and Online Control of Hydrocyclones

Monitoring and controlling the operation of hydrocyclones is important as downstream processes could be seriously affected by particle size variations in the

83

cyclone outlet streams. The classifying efficiency parameter of the hydrocyclone, d50, cannot be measured directly. Thus, it is estimated from indirect or empirical methods based on the relationship between the weight fraction of each particle size in the overflow and underflow streams. In practical applications, the corrected cut size, d50c, is obtained by assuming a fraction of the heavier particles that can report to the overflow stream. This is equivalent to the fraction of liquid in the underflow. A good estimation of d50c is important for obtaining the overall efficiency. Any deviation from a desired d50c value can only be re-established by altering the operating conditions and/or geometry of the hydrocyclone. Monitoring changes in d50c is achieved by sampling both outlet streams. Eren and Gupta (1988) developed a computerized control system and various control algorithms for the automatic control and optimization of hydrocyclones. The automatic control is achieved by manipulation of the operational parameters, such as the spigot diameter, vortex finder height, inlet flowrate, and the density of the slurries, for a desired value of d50c. The output signal d50c cannot be sensed directly and thus, needs to be calculated from the operational parameters. The accurate prediction of d50c is essential to generate the control signals for the actuators. The application of Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) was proposed by Eren et al. (1997) to substantially improve the accuracy in the estimation of d50c, incorporating various non-conventional operational variables, such as water and solid split ratios, overflow and underflow densities, apex and spigot flowrates, as the input parameters. Despite the accurate predictions of d50c obtained by applying the ANN technique, the main drawback is its inability to transfer the acquired knowledge to the user, as the trained network is represented by a collection of inaccessible weights. Fuzzy logic

84

systems, which make use of human understandable rules, seem to be more appropriate. Fuzzy set theory is capable of handling vagueness and uncertainty in most engineering applications, allowing the incorporation of intelligent and human knowledge to deal with each considered case. This enables modeling of human observations, expressions and expertise. The approach seems to be suitable for d50c determination. In that sense, Wong et al. (2003) suggested the practical use of fuzzy interpolation rule for multidimensional input spaces for determining d50c. They used the improved multidimensional fuzzy interpolation technique to generate the d50c of the hydrocyclone. They showed that the sparse fuzzy rule base, extracted from the observed d50c can improve in-line hydrocyclone control. Karr and Weck (1998) also investigated fuzzy systems for modeling hydrocyclones, among other fine particle separation equipment.

85

CHAPTER 4
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

4.1

Introduction

This chapter describes the experimental work by Culwell et al., (1994), a group of oilfield researchers. These data are made public for the first time in the present study. The experimental program was aimed at understanding the solids removal performance of small diameter SLHC. Details of the experimental program, tested SLHC equipment, definitions of pertinent separation parameters, and a summary of obtained results are described in this chapter. Also described in detail are the data handling and compilation process that were performed as part of this thesis. This includes the development of a hydrocyclone database management system to facilitate the analysis of the experimental results and the mechanistic modeling verification process.

4.2

Test Objectives and Scope

The main goal of the experimental work was to establish whether small diameter hydrocyclones, such as the Mozley 1-inch and 10-mm SLHC, could be used to efficiently remove oilfield solids from produced water and make it suitable for reinjection, as an alternative to the use of filtering media. The quality of water suitable for reinjection must meet certain criteria to comply with special regulations in order to prevent injectivity decline in the reservoir.

86

4.3

Applications of SLHC

Produced water is treated for disposal at the surface or injection back into the reservoir to enhance production, or in some cases for downhole disposal. Efficient removal of solids and fine particulates is critical for water injection treatment systems in order to prevent plugging of the zone of reinjection, which can cause injection decline. Water cleaning is usually achieved utilizing different types of filters. The use of small diameter SLHC, also called mini-hydrocyclones, is an attractive alternative to the use of filters offering continuous operation at lower costs. Most available filters are bulky and require back-washing, and / or chemical additives to achieve maximum performance. In most cases, filter performance is reduced by excessive oil contamination.

4.4

Experimental Setup

Culwell et al. (1994) presented the range of conditions, equipment setup, and experimental facility for the field tests that they conducted. The experimental work was completed in two different phases. Phase I was carried out in the United Kindom and corresponded to laboratory evaluation of the cyclones under simulated oilfield conditions. Phase II of the program focused on the field examination of the SLHC for the removal of solids from produced water. More than 400 field tests were completed between 1992 and 1993 in La Habra, California. The efficiency of 1-inch and 10-mm diameter hydrocyclones for solids removal was investigated over a wide range of conditions and cyclone configurations. These included different sizes of vortex finders and spigots. Bundles of cyclones in parallel and two in series (dual configuration) were tested to

87

determine the most efficient configuration. The effects of different pressures and different pressure drops between the overflow (O/F) and the underflow (U/F) were also examined.

4.4.1 Test Site Description The test site was located at the Murphy-Coyote Field in California, approximately one mile south of the former La Habra laboratory facilities property of Chevron and close to the lease water treatment facility. The site was chosen owing to the availability of a suitable feed stream of produced water. Figure 4.1 shows a schematic of the test site and its main components.

4.4.2 Experimental Procedure The source water for the tests came from a 5,000 bbl residence time settling tank that was fed from a set of horizontal free water knockouts (FWKOs). The water had an oil content of 60-300 mg/L (Black Death oil). A six-stage Moyno progressing cavity pump with an operating range of 24-50 gpm at 90-350 psig fed the test loop. The main components of the loop were a Hydropack Liquid-Liquid Hydrocyclone (LLHC), a set of two SLHCs subject to the evaluation, and a solids injection / dosing system, as shown in Figure 4.2. The upstream LLHC was configured to reduce the oil concentration to about 40 ppm. The solids concentration was controlled by the injection of solids slurry with a small Moyno pump. For most of the experiments, the slurry was made of produced water and an oilfield solids concentrate (tank bottoms) in a 55-gallon drum. Solids concentration was controlled by varying pumping flow rates.

88

Figure 4.1 Schematic of Test Site and Experimental Setup

89

A maximum particle size of about 60 m was controlled by means of a strainer screen upstream of the SLHC to avoid clogging of the cyclones. The underflow pressure for each of the cyclones was either atmospheric or set up with a maximum backpressure of 25 psig. For atmospheric conditions, the underflow stream was drained into a 30gallon drum, and was then recycled or sent to a pit. In the case of back-pressured configuration, the underflow streams were hard piped into the loop and recycled back to the 55-gallon drum.

4.4.3 Description of Tested Equipment The research focused on small 1-inch and 10-mm diameter SLHCs. Tested equipment included a Mozley 10-mm x 40 cyclones assembly and a 1-inch x 20 cyclones assembly. The operating principle of both cyclones is similar and is described in Chapter 2.

4.4.3.1 Mozley 10-mm x 40 Hydrocyclone Assembly This unit consists of forty 10-mm hydrocyclones housed in a vessel designed according to BS:5500:1991:CAT 2 pressure code, manufactured from Stainless Steel Grade 316 S12. The cyclones are manufactured in 96% Alumina Ceramic or in L167 Polyurethane with 96% Alumina Ceramic inserts. Operating temperature ranges from 95oC to 130oC when the all-ceramic units are fitted. Three different vortex finder caps are available in sizes of 3.2 mm, 2.6 mm, and 2.0 mm, enabling the cyclone to yield d50 cut points of about 2 to 5 microns (SG 2.6). Body inserts with spigots having diameters of 2.0 mm, 1.5 mm and 1.0 mm allow for the control of volume split and underflow density.

90

Figure 4.2 SLHC Solids Dosing / Injection System and Test Setup

Flow rates in the range of 4 to 15 m3/h are attained by adjusting the vortex finder size and pressure drop. Blank vortex finder and dummy cyclones can be used to reduce the capacity of the assembly by taking some hydrocyclones out of operation. To control the volume split to the underflow, a restrictor plate can be fitted to the outlet of the underflow conical section. This allows the use of larger hydrocyclone spigots reducing the incidence of spigot blockage. Restrictor plates are available in outlet diameters ranging from 9.4 to 3.2 mm and are fitted with a single ceramic lined outlet inserts. The assembly feed, overflow, and underflow pipes diameter is 50 mm (nominal).

91

4.4.3.2

Mozley 1-inch x 20 Hydrocyclone Assembly

This unit consists of twenty one-inch diameter hydrocyclones housed in a vessel designed according to BS:5500:1991:CAT 2 pressure vessel code, manufactured using Stainless Steel Grade 316 S12. The cyclones are manufactured from either L167 Polyurethane or from 96% Alumina Ceramic with L167 Polyurethane sleeves. Operating temperature is up to 95oC. Two different vortex finder caps are available in the sizes of 7.0 mm and 5.5 mm, enabling the cyclone to yield d50 cut points of 4 to 6 microns (SG 2.6). Spigot caps with diameters of 3.2 mm and 1.5 mm allow for the control of volume split and underflow density. Flow rates in the range of 10 to 24 m3/h (for the assembly unit) are attained by adjusting the vortex finder size and pressure drop. Blank vortex finder and dummy cyclones can be used to reduce the capacity of the assembly by taking some hydrocyclones out of operation. To control the volume split to the underflow, a restrictor plate can be fitted to the outlet of the underflow conical section. This allows the use of larger hydrocyclone spigots reducing the incidence of spigot blockage. Restrictor plates are available in outlet diameters ranging from 9.4 to 3.2 mm and are fitted with a single ceramic lined outlet inserts. The assembly feed, overflow, and underflow pipes diameter is 50 mm (nominal).

4.4.4 Fluid Properties The continuous-phase consisted of produced oilfield water with traces of oil having the following properties:

92

Temperature: Oil API gravity: Water specific gravity (SG), avg: Differential oil-water specific gravity: Mean inlet oil droplet size: Inlet oil concentration:

100-160 oF (37.8 71.1 oC) 29o 0.989 0.133 5-15 m 20-100 ppm

4.4.5 Properties of Solid Particles The oilfield solids used in most of the experiments were sediments taken from the bottoms of oilfield tanks. In some cases, silica flour was used instead of the oilfield solids. Solids were stored in a 55-gallon drum provided with a slurry-mixer to homogenize the slurry concentration. The drum was shoveled, stirred, and then small samples were shoveled to the Solids Slurry Injection Drum where they were pumped by a small Moyno Solids Pump at varying rates to provide a wide range of solids concentrations. However, there was no complete control of the solids concentration since produced water used for the experiments contained a small amount of organic particulates. The feed and underflow solids were characterized by means of X-Ray fluorescence and electron microscopes (scanning and elemental resolution). The main bulk mineral composition included: Calcite, clay and Mica. Also present were: Quartz, Potassium, Feldspar, Plagioclase, Pyrite and Dolomite. The average density of the solids was about 2.0 gr/cc. The mean particle size was 14.4 m with a maximum size of about 60 m. In some tests, silica flour with an average particle density of 2.2 gr/cc was used. The range of solids concentrations was from 40 to 370 mg/L.

93

4.4.6 Test Configurations The experimental program included a variety of equipment configurations and geometries. Tests were performed by setting a single cyclone (solo) or bundles of cyclones in parallel and two in series (dual) to determine the most efficient setup. Both cyclones were tested with different vortex finders and spigot sizes, and varying the number of blanked cyclones. The effect of different flowrates, inlet pressures, and overflow/underflow counter-pressure was also examined by the researchers. Table 4.1 presents a summary of geometries and configurations of the tested hydrocyclones.

Table 4.1 Geometrical Configurations of Tested Hydrocyclones Hydrocyclone Unit 1-inch 10-mm Vortex Finders (mm) 2.0 / 5.5 2.0 / 2.2 / 2.6 Spigots (mm) 3.2 / 2.2 1.0 / 1.5

4.4.7 Data Acquisition Flow rates, pressure, and temperature were measured at different points in the loop, as shown in Figure 4.1. The data were collected through a real time telemetry system located in a trailer adjacent to the test facility where all data were processed.

4.4.7.1 Measurement of the Oil Concentration Oil concentration in the feed stream was determined by solvent extraction of the oil from water that contained 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCE) and using a spectrophotometer.

94

4.4.7.2 Measurement of Particle Size and Solids Concentration Particle size and total solids concentration were determined by direct sampling of water at the different sampling points located at the inlet, overflow and underflow; then filtering the sample to extract the solids; and finally measuring and counting the particles by means of a Coulter Counter (CC) Multisizer electronic device. The CC was calibrated using latex spheres, which produced accurate reproducible results, as long as oil and solvent were not present. The presence of oil in the feed stream represented a main challenge and a source of data processing errors. The measurement procedure was carefully formulated to avoid counting oil droplets as solids. Other difficulties experienced included: different characteristics of oily solids from plain solids; solids alteration and disintegration of organic solids by TCE; and coalescence, agglomeration and attrition of solids. According to the researchers, the most successful technique was to filter each sample, wash the filter paper with solvent, dry the paper, and finally loosen the solids by suspending them in isoton and using sonic vibration.

4.5

Data Preparation and Handling

4.5.1 Data Compilation Data from different experimental studies and different cyclones were recovered from a set of 27 different 3.5 floppy disks, most of them in MAC format. The data consisted of different spreadsheets, Coulter Counter files, plots, figures, macros, documents, and text delimited files. These data files corresponded to different oilfield testing of LLHC and SLHC performed between 1991 and 1993. Tested equipment included Vortoil, Hydroswirl, Mozley SLHC, and other cyclone separators.

95

The data compilation process included the inventory of available electronic and hardcopy records, data file conversion from MAC to PC files and disk recovery process, and data files organization. Table B.1 in Appendix B contains an inventory of the available floppy disks and a summary of their information content.

4.5.2 Data Integrity Evaluation

4.5.2.1 Review of Data Files and Test Procedures This process involved the review of files content, data filtering and sorting, and the understanding of testing and data acquisition procedures. This was accomplished through the examination of electronic data files, test reports and documentation (Culwell et al., 1994), field memos, equipment manuals, and data printouts. After completing this phase, a set of surveys or questionnaires were prepared for interviewing key personnel involved in the research to pursue missing data, clarify unknown information and become familiar with the experimental work. The review process shed some light about the origin of the data, data integrity, field-testing practices, fluid properties and test conditions, main sources of uncertainty, unreported data, used instrumentation and specifications of the tested cyclones and other test facility equipment.

4.5.2.2 Data Auditing A rigorous process was carried out that made possible the amendment and compilation of all available data sets. The process involved thoroughly examining

96

hardcopies to pursue unreported data, missing or damaged records, scan for typos, data inconsistencies and/or mishandling. This was done to improve data quality and integrity and estimate the uncertainty and confidence level of the available information. The auditing process revealed the occurrence of partially or completely missing electronic records of some test runs, unreported values such as the head temperature, data swap between different test runs, mistyped values of oil and solids concentrations, inlet to outlet pressures contradictions, and overlapped records of some data sets from dual cyclone experiments ran in series. Other less relevant discrepancies were observed in the determination of cut size diameters. A summary of the most common problems and discrepancies encountered is presented in Table B.2 in Appendix B.

4.6

Data Processing and Evaluation

This section presents the data processing approach, including a detailed description of the methods and techniques used to plot and present the experimental data results to facilitate the analysis and modeling processes. These include discrete volume frequency and cumulative volume particle size distribution plots, as well as separation efficiency plots and statistical parameters used to establish equipment performance confidence under a given set of operating conditions.

4.6.1 Discrete Particle Size Distributions Representative size intervals, d, were chosen based on a characteristic particle diameter corresponding to the midpoint of the interval. These size intervals were considered to be large enough to contain a representative number of particles, but yet

97

small enough to obtain sufficient detail for each characteristic diameter. The particle diameter of the samples taken varied from 2 to 60 microns. Size distributions can be described by using the number of particles per interval as the dependent variable. This approach is referred to as Number Frequency Distribution of Particle Size or Probability Density Function. Another approach uses the mass or the volume of the particles instead, as the dependent variable. Both methods are described next.

4.6.1.1

Number Frequency Distribution of Particle Size

The number of particles in each size interval is counted, recorded, and divided by the total number of particles in the sample. This process is repeated for the feed inlet and the overflow and underflow outlets. The results are plotted in the form of a frequency histogram, as the one shown in Figure 4.3. As described by Crowe (2005), the ordinate corresponding to each characteristic size interval is defined as the number

~ frequency, f n (d j ) . The sum of the number frequency of all the size intervals should be equal to one (normalized distribution), as given by:

f n (d j ) = 1
j =1

(4.1)

where N is the total number of size intervals, d.

98

Figure 4.3 Discrete Number Frequency Distribution of Particle Size (Crowe, 2005) 4.6.1.2 Volume Frequency Distribution of Particle Size

Volume frequency distributions were used to represent the particle size distributions data. Volume or mass frequency distributions are considered to be more representative than Number frequency distributions when dealing with very large number of particles and a large spread in particle sizes. Thus, the number of particles in each size interval is counted and recorded and the volume of each particle, Vp, is computed assuming a spherical shape, as follows: 4R 3 p 3

Vp =

(4.2)

where Rp is the radius of the characteristic particle size. Next, the volume fraction associated with each size interval (that is, the total volume for each size interval divided by the total sample volume) is used to construct the distribution. This process is repeated

99

for the feed inlet, the overflow (O/F) and underflow (U/F) outlets. The results are plotted in the form of a frequency histogram, as the ones shown in Figures 4.4 to 4.6. The ordinate corresponding to each characteristic size interval is given as the volume ~ frequency, f v (d j ) , and the sum of the volume frequency over of all the size intervals should be equal to one, for a normalized distribution (Crowe, 2005), and is given by:

f v (d j ) = 1
j =1

(4.3)

where N is the total number of size intervals, d, which in all cases of the present experimental data was N = 31, corresponding to the maximum number of channels in the Coulter Counter (CC) Multisizer.

4.6.1.3

Cumulative Volume Frequency Distribution of Particle Size

~ The cumulative volume frequency distribution of particle size, Fv , is the sum of

~ the volume frequency distribution, f v (d j ) , associated with size dk, and is given by (Crowe, 2005):
k ~ ~ Fv (d k ) = f v (d j )

j =1

(4.4)

~ The value of Fv (dk ) is the fraction of particles with sizes less than dk. The value
~ of Fv (dk ) for the largest particle is equal to unity (100%) for normalized distributions.

Figures 4.4 to 4.6 show both the volume and cumulative volume frequency distribution of particle size for the feed inlet, the overflow and the underflow streams. 100

16 14

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2.1 2.6 3.2 4.1 5.1 6.3 7.9 9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

Volume Frequency (%)

10 8 6 4 2 0

Particle Diameter (microns)

Inlet_Vol_pct Inlet_Cum_Vol_pct

Figure 4.4 Inlet Volume Frequency Distribution of Particle Size (Dataset 1)

9.0 8.0

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2.1 2.6 3.2 4.1 5.1 6.3 7.9 9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

Volume Frequency (%)

6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0

Particle Diameter (microns)

UF_Vol_pct UF_Cum_Vol_pct

Figure 4.5 U/F Volume Frequency Distribution of Particle Size (Dataset 1)

101

Cumulative Volume Frequency (%)

7.0

Cumulative Volume Frequency (%)

12

16 14

100 90 80

Volume Frequency (%)

70 60 50 40 30

10 8 6 4 2 0 2.1 2.6 3.2 4.1 5.1 6.3 7.9 9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

20 10 0

Particle Diameter (microns)

OF_Vol_pct OF_Cum_Vol_pct

Figure 4.6 O/F Volume Frequency Distribution of Particle Size (Dataset 1)

4.6.1.4

Weighted Volume Frequency Distribution of Particle Size

To analyze the SLHC separation performance, individual outlet streams distributions were normalized considering the split ratio between the outlet and the feed entry. In this case, both the volume and cumulative volume frequency distribution of particle size for the overflow and the underflow streams were normalized with respect to the feed inlet. The result is a weighted or normalized volume distribution that takes into consideration the individual outlet solids mass flow rates weighted against the feed.

~ The weighted volume frequency distributions, fwv (d j ) , for the underflow and the overflow are computed, respectively, as follows:
q c ~ ~ fwvu (d j ) = f vu (d j ) u su qi c si

- Underflow:

(4.5.1)

102

Cumulative Volume Frequency (%)

12

- Overflow:

q c ~ ~ fwvo (d j ) = f vo (d j ) o so qi c si

(4.5.2)

~ where f v (d j ) is the volume frequency distribution of particle size, q is the flowrate, and cs is the solids concentration. The subscripts u, o, and i, correspond to the underflow, the overflow and the inlet respectively.
~ Similarly, the weighted cumulative volume frequency distributions, Fwv (d k ) , for

the overflow and underflow are computed as follows:

q c ~ ~ Fwvu (d k ) = Fvu (d k ) u su qi c si

Underflow:

(4.6.1)

Overflow:

q c ~ ~ Fwvo (d k ) = Fvo (d k ) o so qi csi

(4.6.2)

Figures 4.7 and 4.8 show both the discrete weighted volume frequency (histogram) and the cumulative volume frequency (curve) distribution of particle size for the underflow and the overflow streams, respectively.

103

5.0 4.5 4.0

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2.1 2.6 3.2 4.1 5.1 6.3 7.9 9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

Particle Diameter (microns)

UF_Weighted_Vol_pct UF_Weighted_CumVol_pct

Figure 4.7 U/F Weighted Volume Frequency Distribution of Particle (Dataset 1)

3.0 2.5

18 16 14

2.0 1.5

12 10 8

1.0 0.5

6 4 2

0.0 2.1 2.6 3.2 4.1 5.1 6.3 7.9 9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

Particle Diameter (microns)

OF_Weighted_Vol_pct OF_Weighted_CumVol_pct

Figure 4.8 O/F Weighted Volume Frequency Distribution of Particle Size (Dataset 1)

104

Wt. Cum. Volume Frequency (%)

Wt. Volume Frequency (%)

Wt. Cum. Volume Frequency (%)

Wt. Volume Frequency (%)

4.6.1.5

Calculated U/F Volume Frequency Distribution of Particle Size

Particle size distribution and solids concentration for the inlet and outlet streams were not measured in real time during the experimental program. Instead, batch samples were collected at different times and at each of the sampling points. Solids were

continuously fed into the hydrocyclone at a certain rate and concentration. Nevertheless, solids tend to accumulate or reside inside the hydrocyclone for a certain period of time. This suggests that the total amount of solids measured at the feed entry is not equal to the sum of the amount of solids measured at the outlet streams. Therefore, to correct for this

& & & & effect and satisfy mass balance, that is, min = mout = mo + mu , the underflow calculated
~ weighted volume frequency distribution, fcvu (d j ) , was obtained from the difference between the inlet and the overflow frequency distributions, as follows:
~ ~ ~ fcvu (d j ) = f vi (d j ) fwvo (d j )

(4.7)

Similarly, the underflow calculated cumulative volume frequency distribution,

~ Fcvu (d k ) , was obtained from the following relationship: ~ ~ ~ Fcvu (d k ) = Fvi (d k ) Fwvo (d k )

(4.8)

The U/F calculated cumulative volume frequency distribution of particle size is also a measure of SLHC grade separation efficiency, and hence it is relevant for the present study. Figure 4.9 shows the discrete calculated volume frequency at the underflow stream, and the cumulative volume frequency distributions.

105

12 10

100 90 80

Calc. Wt. Volume Frequency (%)

8 6 4 2 0 2.1 2.6 3.2 4.1 5.1 6.3 7.9 9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Particle Diameter (microns)

UF_Calc_Wt_Vol_pct Inlet_Cum_Vol_pct UF_Calc_Wt_CumVol_pct OF_Weighted_CumVol_pct

Figure 4.9 U/F Calculated Weighted Volume Frequency Distribution of Particle Size Including Inlet / Outlet Cumulative Distributions (Dataset 1)

4.6.2 Statistical Parameters

4.6.2.1

Sauter Mean Diameter (d32)

The Sauter Mean Diameter (SMD) is the ratio of the particle volume to surface area in a distribution and is defined as:
N

d 3 f v (d j ) j
d 32 =

d 2 f v (d j ) j
j =1

j =1 N

106

Calc. Wt. Cum. Volume Freq. (%)

70

(4.9)

4.6.2.2

Volume-Average Mean Particle Diameter

The volume-average mean particle diameter of the distribution, d v , is obtained from the following relationship:
dv =

d j f v (d j )
j =1

(4.10)

4.6.2.3

Volume Variance

2 The volume variance, v , a measure of the spread of the distribution, is defined

by:
2 v =

N ~ ~ 2 (d j d v ) 2 f v (d j ) = d 2 f v (d j ) d v j j =1 j =1

(4.11)

4.6.2.4

Standard Deviation

The standard deviation is defined as the square root of the variance, as follows: (4.12)

2 v = v

4.7

Data Culling and Verification

After compiling more than 180 datasets from the experimental work of Culwell et al. (1994), the data were analyzed in an attempt to establish the uncertainty and confidence level of the available datasets. Some of the datasets had incomplete records or corresponded to experiments that examined the performance of dual cyclone arrangements, whereby no individual cyclone overflow outlet data were available. As a

107

result, only 155 datasets were complete and of value for the present study. A sample of the experimental data including test results for one every four datasets is shown in Table 4.2. The experimental data results and conditions for all datasets are shown in Tables A.1 and A.2, respectively in Appendix A. In general, the data acquisition process was affected by flow transients that were neither measured nor reported. Evidence of inaccuracies in the sampling methods and the solids content determination were reported but their magnitudes were not quantified. Besides, the lack of information about the instruments and calibration data impedes a thorough assessment of systematic uncertainties. On the other hand, the large number of datasets provides good confidence in the data and can be used to establish the uncertainty trend. The 155 available datasets underwent a thorough verification process to determine their overall uncertainty and confidence level. The first step consisted of analyzing the repeatability of the test results as a function of different flow and operating conditions and geometrical parameters. Next, the quality of the datasets was assessed by determining mass balance inconsistencies, and presence of significant differences between global and grade separation efficiency results. Finally, a stochastic simulation was performed to establish a probabilistic distribution of the separation efficiency.

108

Table 4.2 Sample of Experimental Data for Several Datasets

Feed Conditions
Inlet Pressure (psig) Solids Conc. (mg/L) Solids Mass Flowrate (kg/hr) Flow Rate 3 (m /hr) Dataset #

Feed Particle Size

Feed Dist. Std. Dev. (m) Feed d32 (m) Mean Part. Diam (m)

Geometric Specs
Inlet Slot Area 2 (mm ) Vortex Finder Diam. (mm) Spigot Diam. (mm)

Experimental Results
Grade-Global Effic. Diff. Global Effic. Avg. Grade Effic.

1 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 120 124 128 132 136 140 144 148 152 155

1.19 1.21 1.25 1.24 1.25 1.29 1.30 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.28 1.23 1.22 1.23 1.26 1.27 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.29 1.28 1.27 1.28 1.27 1.26 1.26 1.24 1.29 1.35 1.26 0.27 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.16 0.17

0.253 0.187 0.303 0.315 0.180 0.449 0.216 0.453 0.306 0.445 0.253 0.164 0.111 0.128 0.112 0.110 0.242 0.182 0.226 0.113 0.238 0.151 0.342 0.137 0.213 0.282 0.062 0.153 0.167 0.176 0.245 0.187 0.050 0.035 0.043 0.082 0.018 0.019 0.032 0.037

213 155 242 254 144 349 166 351 238 346 197 134 91 104 89 86 200 150 187 93 197 117 267 107 166 221 50 122 134 137 182 148 183 122 153 302 67 69 203 218

105 107 116 114 116 124 125 126 124 125 126 116 115 115 125 124 110 110 110 111 110 126 126 126 126 126 106 106 106 113 105 126 125 125 126 116 116 116 104 125

26.1 14.5 20.8 17.3 13.1 22.1 20.7 22.4 25.2 22.6 20.6 19.2 27.7 27.8 30.7 15.6 25.0 27.0 25.1 20.3 25.0 33.4 24.9 21.9 14.4 17.7 30.3 29.6 17.8 20.7 17.7 19.3 28.9 22.7 30.0 19.5 21.6 17.3 17.2 23.8

12.7 15.0 16.5 13.2 10.2 18.7 15.2 17.0 16.7 16.0 11.5 10.0 15.1 16.4 14.9 8.7 17.0 17.7 17.6 17.2 16.9 17.0 7.0 12.6 9.8 10.6 17.2 15.9 13.9 14.0 13.6 14.8 16.5 14.2 18.9 12.9 14.4 11.6 14.3 20.4

18.6 16.8 20.0 16.3 12.5 22.0 18.9 21.1 21.9 20.5 15.8 14.0 21.5 23.0 22.5 11.6 22.6 23.5 22.8 21.0 22.1 25.6 12.5 16.6 12.2 13.7 25.0 22.5 17.0 18.1 16.6 18.5 23.2 18.6 24.9 16.3 18.8 15.1 16.9 24.3

20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 3.2 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.2 3.2

5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 2.0 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.0 2.0

3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 3.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0

83.2% 81.9% 84.3% 83.3% 80.9% 90.0% 85.4% 88.1% 85.8% 86.4% 86.4% 79.2% 72.5% 84.9% 44.9% 59.5% 79.2% 78.8% 79.0% 82.8% 84.3% 67.2% 51.7% 81.6% 84.4% 82.1% 77.0% 79.7% 80.3% 85.7% 83.6% 80.1% 76.5% 82.8% 89.9% 89.0% 75.3% 79.5% 77.5% 81.0%

81.1% 44.0% 69.6% 79.3% 79.4% 74.6% 80.9% 82.2% 78.5% 79.0% 86.5% 75.5% 56.9% 73.8% 19.6% 42.4% 77.3% 71.8% 74.3% 72.2% 77.3% 47.2% 34.5% 76.7% 82.5% 80.2% 67.2% 70.6% 70.3% 74.8% 71.2% 72.0% 65.5% 71.4% 75.8% 80.1% 51.1% 68.7% 50.5% 45.7%

2.1% 37.9% 14.7% 4.0% 1.5% 11.6% 4.5% 5.9% 7.3% 7.4% 0.1% 3.7% 15.6% 11.1% 25.3% 17.1% 1.9% 7.0% 4.7% 10.6% 7.1% 20.1% 17.2% 4.9% 1.9% 1.8% 9.8% 9.1% 10.0% 10.9% 12.5% 8.1% 10.9% 11.4% 14.2% 8.9% 24.2% 10.8% 27.0% 35.3%

109

Following this verification process, a total of 117 datasets (or 76%) were considered to have the lowest uncertainty and to be most representative (95% confidence level) for the analysis of the data and for the verification of the proposed SLHC mechanistic model. The data verification process is explained in more detail in the following sections.

4.7.1 Repeatability of Test Results

The repeatability of results from a large number of experiments, which are performed under similar conditions and for the same geometrical parameters, can shed light on possible existence of systematic errors or measurement bias. Thus, in this study the relationship between the global separation efficiency data and different test variables was examined for all available datasets, as presented in Figures 4.10 to 4.15. The legend on the figures is as follows: VF is the vortex finder, IN is the inlet slot, UF is the underflow outlet and OF is the overflow outlet. The results show a small group of datasets with equipment efficiencies that departs from the general trend of the majority of the data (large spread). This dataset group generally shows equipment under-performance for the same flow conditions, as compared to the vast majority of the experiments. This can be considered just as an indication of possible systematic bias or higher uncertainty, and thus, further analysis is necessary to establish the uncertainty level of these dataset groups.

110

100% 90%

Global Efficiency (%)

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
3

1-inch [VF: 5.5mm; UF: 3.2mm (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 1-inch [VF: 5.5mm; UF: 2.2mm (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0mm; UF: 1.0mm (0.50 UF/VF; 1.0 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0mm; UF: 1.5mm (0.75 UF/VF; 1.0 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.6mm; UF: 1.5mm (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

Feed Liquid Flow Rate (m /hr)

Figure 4.10 Effect of Feed Liquid Flow Rate on Global Separation Efficiency

100% 90%

Global Efficiency (%)

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1-inch [VF: 5.5mm; UF: 3.2mm (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 1-inch [VF: 5.5mm; UF: 2.2mm (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0mm; UF: 1.0mm (0.50 UF/VF; 1.0 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0mm; UF: 1.5mm (0.75 UF/VF; 1.0 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.6mm; UF: 1.5mm (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

Inlet Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.11 Effect of Inlet Flow Velocity on Global Separation Efficiency

111

100% 90%

Global Efficiency (%)

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
1-inch [VF: 5.5mm; UF: 3.2mm (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 1-inch [VF: 5.5mm; UF: 2.2mm (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0mm; UF: 1.0mm (0.50 UF/VF; 1.0 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0mm; UF: 1.5mm (0.75 UF/VF; 1.0 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.6mm; UF: 1.5mm (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

Overflow Split Ratio

Figure 4.12 Effect of Overflow Split Ratio on Global Separation Efficiency

100% 90%

Global Efficiency (%)

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
1-inch [VF: 5.5mm; UF: 3.2mm (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 1-inch [VF: 5.5mm; UF: 2.2mm (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0mm; UF: 1.0mm (0.50 UF/VF; 1.0 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0mm; UF: 1.5mm (0.75 UF/VF; 1.0 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.6mm; UF: 1.5mm (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

Mass Flow Rate of Feed Solids (kg/hr)

Figure 4.13 Effect of Solids Mass Flow Rate on Global Separation Efficiency

112

100% 90%

Global Efficiency (%)

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
1-inch [VF: 5.5mm; UF: 3.2mm (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 1-inch [VF: 5.5mm; UF: 2.2mm (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0mm; UF: 1.0mm (0.50 UF/VF; 1.0 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0mm; UF: 1.5mm (0.75 UF/VF; 1.0 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.6mm; UF: 1.5mm (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

Feed Solids Concentration (mg/L)

Figure 4.14 Effect of Solids Concentration on Global Separation Efficiency

100% 90%

Global Efficiency (%)

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80
1-inch [VF: 5.5mm; UF: 3.2mm (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 1-inch [VF: 5.5mm; UF: 2.2mm (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0mm; UF: 1.0mm (0.50 UF/VF; 1.0 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0mm; UF: 1.5mm (0.75 UF/VF; 1.0 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.6mm; UF: 1.5mm (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

U/F to O/F Backpressure Ratio

Figure 4.15 Effect of U/F to O/F Backpressure on Global Separation Efficiency

113

4.7.2 Reported Sources of Systematic Uncertainties

4.7.2.1 Flow Rates and Mass Measurement As stated before, the water for the experiments was taken directly from the oilfield as it was produced, with these properties: Temperatures from 100 to 160 oF, oil content of up to about 100 ppm, and inlet solids concentrations up to 370 ppm. The Cahn microbalance that was utilized is sensitive to static electricity in the field environment. As inlet solids concentration had a significant effect on SLHC performance, the combined effects of particle size, solids concentration, and oil concentration makes it more difficult to examine the experimental results. At times, the underflow piping and flowmeter had to be removed in order to get good results and subsequently, the underflow was measured with a bucket and stopwatch, representing another source of measurement uncertainty. Also, many of the channel/channel mass balances showed a loss of volume through the system for the small particles and a gain in volume for the large particles. This suggests that particle agglomeration did occur in the SLHC, likely promoted by the oil droplets.

4.7.2.2 Removal of Oil Contained in Samples To accurately determine the solids concentration and the size distribution, it was needed to first remove the oil contained in the samples because the CC apparatus does not discriminate between oil droplets and solid particles. A double solvent extraction was initially used with Trichloroethane (TCE) at a solvent to TCE ratio of 1:1. However, this process became another source of error since each extraction required a phase separation, as solids could have settled into the heavier than water organic-phase or trapped at the

114

interface. Also, solvents have the potential of interacting with the dissolved oil to precipitate Asphaltenes or to dissolve organic solids. Thus, the phase separation is never 100% efficient as solids tend to stick at the interface and get discarded with it.

4.7.2.3 Shape and Density of Solids The solids were assumed to be all spheres with a measured average density of 2.0 g/cc. The error in the CC total particle volume measurement varied with sample dilution. Overflow and underflow samples required different dilutions in the CC, thus, increasing sampling discrepancy. As the experiments were involved with very fine particles the shape assumption may be a good approximation, but the average density assumption may be a source of error because of the wide variety of solids present in the sample. Coarser particles were filtered upstream of the SLHC to avoid clogging.

4.7.3 Mass Balance Verification

The sum of the particle volumes from the CC in most cases was not equal to the solids content measured by the filter cake. The main reason for this discrepancy was that the sample dilution was different for each sample. Additionally, an error of only one particle in a large channel size could have a significant effect in the calculated total sample volume. Therefore, the filter weight was used as the most accurate estimate of the total sample weight and volume, and the particle volume was estimated in each channel by distributing that total weight in accordance with the measured CC distribution. Even then, the channel/channel mass balance, which compared the inlet / outlet characteristic particle distributions in each CC channel, sometimes varied up to 200%.

115

These mass balance (MB) inconsistencies are an indication of higher uncertainty due to measurement error, unrecorded flow transients, or instrument calibration or operational problems. As mentioned previously, particle size distribution and solids concentration were sampled at different times, as continuous or real time measurement was not available. An example of such discrepancies in the feed-to-outlet stream mass balance, even after measurements were normalized, is shown in Figure 4.16.

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20

2.1

Separation Efficiency (%)

Channel Mass Balance inconsistency (O/F > Feed)

2.6

3.2

4.1

5.1

6.3

7.9

9.8

12.3

15.3

19.2

23.9

29.8

37.3

46.5

Particle Diameter (microns)

Inlet_Cum_Vol_pct UF_Calc_Wt_CumVol_pct OF_Weighted_CumVol_pct

Figure 4.16 Grade Separation Efficiency Curve (Dataset 4). G = 44%, E = 82%

As can be seen in Figure 4.16, the global separation efficiency is about 82% while the average grade efficiency is only 44%. Also note that the weighted O/F cumulative particle volume percent for particle sizes smaller than 5.4 microns is greater than the feed cumulative particle volume (mas out > mass in). In contrast, Figure 4.17 shows an example of a dataset having overall mass balance consistency.

116

58.1

100

Separation Efficiency (%)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
2.1 2.6 3.2 4.1 5.1 6.3 7.9 9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

Particle Diameter (microns)

Inlet_Cum_Vol_pct UF_Calc_Wt_CumVol_pct OF_Weighted_CumVol_pct

Figure 4.17 Grade Separation Efficiency Curve (Dataset 12). G = 79%, E= 83%

4.7.4 Differences in Separation Efficiency Results

The SLHC global separation efficiency is obtained considering the relationship of the outlet to inlet solids mass concentration ratio. On the other hand, the cyclones grade separation efficiency, a more rigorous approach, is a measure of the efficiency obtained for each characteristic particle size in the feed solids. The average grade separation efficiency should yield close results as those obtained using the global efficiency definition, provided that flowrates, solids concentrations, and mass or volume frequency distributions of particle size are representative and measured accurately. Significant differences between the global and the average grade efficiency could point to systematic bias or measurement error. Thus, major differences between both results can be used to qualify the uncertainty level of a particular dataset.

117

In an attempt to establish the quality of the data, differences between the global and the grade efficiencies were analyzed. As described in Chapter 2, the generalized definition for the global solids separation efficiency, E, is given by Eq. (2.3), as follows:
E = 1 q o c so qi c si 100%

(2.3)

Similarly, the solids grade or channel separation efficiency, G(x), is defined as the fraction of solid particles (by mass or volume) of a particular size range or grade, x, under consideration reporting to the underflow as compared to the feed, which is given by Eq. (2.5), as follows:

G ( x) =

mass in size grade ( x ) in underflow mass in size grade ( x ) in feed

100 %

(2.5)

As stated before, the global efficiency deals with the overall SLHC efficiency regardless of mass or volume fraction for each particle size in the feed; whereas the grade efficiency considers the particle size distribution for each characteristic particle diameter (by mass or volume) and normalizes the outlet distributions with respect to the feed solids using fraction concentrations. Thus, the volume grade efficiency for a characteristic diameter size, dj, is given by:
~ fwvo (d j ) G ( d j ) = 1 ~ f vi (d j )

(4.13)

The average grade separation efficiency is computed using the following expression:

118

~ fw (d ) 1 vo j ~ (d ) f vi j j =1 G = N
N

(4.14)

and the global-grade efficiency difference, Ed, is obtained as follows:

Ed = E G

(4.15)

Global and average grade efficiency results are compared in Figures 4.18 and 4.19. Good agreement is observed with about 117 of the datasets (or 76%) having differences lower than 15%. Also, 23 of the 38 datasets (or 61%) having efficiency differences greater than 15% also have mass balance inconsistencies.
100% 90%

38 datasets (or 24%)

80%

Global Efficiency

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (*) Dataset w / Mass Balance Inconsistency: OF >IN (*) 23 / 38 datasets (61%) 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

117 Datasets (or 76%)

Avg. Grade Efficiency

Figure 4.18 Comparison of Global and Average Grade Separation Efficiency Data

119

60% 55% 50%

1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (*) Dataset w / Mass Balance Inconsistency: OF >IN (*) 23 / 38 datasets (or 61%)

Avg. Grade vs. Global Efficiency Difference

45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0%

38 datasets (or 24%)

117 Datasets (or 76%)

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Global Efficiency (% )

Figure 4.19 Difference Between Global and Average Grade Separation Efficiency

Not surprisingly, almost half of the 38 experiments with higher efficiency difference and mass balance inconsistency correspond to tests performed on a single day or during few contiguous days. Figure 4.20 shows that at least 19 of the 38 tests were performed in three different days (10/5/92, 10/8/92, and 11/25/92) with 7, 9, and 3 tests, respectively. This may be another indication that systematic errors likely occurred during few particular days, which could have been caused by instrument failure, non-recorded significant flow transients, or any other measurement problems. Table 4.3 presents a summary of the experimental results for the 38 datasets with higher uncertainty (included in Groups B and C). The 23 datasets with MB inconsistencies (included in Group C) are highlighted and shown in bold blue font.

120

Table 4.3 Experimental Data for 38 Datasets with Higher Uncertainty (Groups B & C)
Feed Conditions
Inlet Pressure (psig) Solids Conc. (mg/L) Solids Mass Flowrate (kg/hr) Flow Rate 3 (m /hr) Dataset #

Feed Particle Size

Feed Dist. Std. Dev. (m) Feed d32 (m) Mean Part. Diam (m)

Geometric Specs
Inlet Slot Area 2 (mm ) Vortex Finder Diam. (mm) Spigot Diam. (mm)

Experimental Results
Grade-Global Effic. Diff. Global Effic. Avg. Grade Effic.

2 3 4 5 46 48 55 56 57 58 59 60 63 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 98 101 105 118 123 127 133 143 144 145 147 150 152 153 154 155

1.19 1.21 1.21 1.20 1.22 1.22 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.26 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.27 1.26 1.34 1.26 0.27 0.29 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17

0.392 0.153 0.187 0.252 0.111 0.111 0.112 0.112 0.112 0.110 0.110 0.110 0.199 0.151 0.151 0.151 0.208 0.208 0.208 0.342 0.342 0.342 0.213 0.282 0.062 0.059 0.236 0.024 0.028 0.021 0.018 0.015 0.010 0.009 0.032 0.026 0.010 0.037

330 127 155 210 91 91 89 89 89 86 86 86 157 117 117 117 163 163 163 267 267 267 166 221 50 44 187 87 98 77 67 52 36 54 203 167 64 218

105 106 107 106 115 115 125 125 125 124 124 124 126 126 126 126 124 124 124 126 126 126 126 126 106 124 126 125 126 117 116 126 116 116 104 104 104 125

30.3 30.9 14.5 16.7 24.2 27.7 14.9 30.7 22.8 14.9 10.3 15.6 27.2 29.1 30.3 33.4 24.4 20.8 20.8 24.9 25.5 25.0 22.3 23.9 30.8 19.6 29.2 25.5 29.4 20.8 21.6 16.9 17.1 18.3 17.2 24.1 14.1 23.8

24.4 35.6 15.0 14.7 14.7 15.1 8.7 14.9 12.7 8.8 7.4 8.7 11.5 15.5 12.9 17.0 12.6 11.3 11.7 7.0 7.1 6.6 15.7 16.0 18.8 13.9 19.4 17.3 19.3 12.9 14.4 13.1 12.1 12.9 14.3 16.1 10.9 20.4

30.6 38.7 16.8 17.1 20.0 21.5 11.5 22.5 18.1 11.7 9.2 11.6 17.8 22.8 20.4 25.6 18.3 16.0 16.3 12.5 12.8 11.9 19.6 20.4 26.5 17.7 25.5 22.7 25.6 17.0 18.8 16.0 15.4 16.3 16.9 20.7 13.1 24.3

20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 3.2 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2

5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 2.0 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 2.2 2.2 3.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

82.6% 84.0% 81.9% 83.2% 72.5% 72.5% 44.9% 44.9% 44.9% 59.5% 59.5% 59.5% 69.0% 67.2% 67.2% 67.2% 57.8% 57.8% 57.8% 51.7% 51.7% 51.7% 84.4% 82.1% 77.0% 68.4% 80.7% 76.0% 83.4% 75.5% 75.3% 72.4% 62.2% 62.3% 77.5% 84.8% 75.0% 81.0%

64.5% 52.7% 44.0% 51.8% 56.8% 56.9% 29.2% 19.6% 22.3% 44.1% 41.4% 42.4% 52.6% 48.6% 51.0% 47.2% 39.9% 39.2% 37.6% 34.5% 35.6% 35.6% 61.4% 59.7% 60.4% 47.9% 62.0% 56.1% 64.8% 53.8% 51.1% 43.9% 31.6% 30.4% 50.5% 63.0% 52.3% 45.7%

18.1% 31.4% 37.9% 31.3% 15.7% 15.6% 15.7% 25.3% 22.6% 15.4% 18.1% 17.1% 16.4% 18.6% 16.2% 20.1% 17.9% 18.6% 20.2% 17.2% 16.1% 16.1% 23.1% 22.3% 16.6% 20.5% 18.6% 19.9% 18.6% 21.6% 24.2% 28.5% 30.7% 31.9% 27.0% 21.8% 22.7% 35.3%

121

60% 55% 50%

1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (*) Dataset w / Mass Balance Inconsistency: OF >IN (*) 23 / 38 datasets (or 61%)

Avg. Grade vs. Global Efficiency Difference

45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1

11

21

31

41

51

61

71

81

91

101 111

121

131 141

151

Dataset # (in Chronological Order)

Figure 4.20 Grade vs. Global Efficiency Difference per Dataset (in Chronological Order)

4.7.5 Stochastic Forecast of Global Separation Efficiency

It is accepted that the true value of the efficiency (the target) is unknown and systematic uncertainty or bias is not observable within the data. However, a probabilistic forecast of the separation efficiency may shed some light on the likelihood of obtaining a certain range of results. It helps to have a large number of experiments performed under a wide range of conditions with good repeatability. Thus, a probabilistic frequency distribution of the global separation efficiency was forecasted by means of Montecarlo simulation and using a commercial application. The forecast was performed for each SLHC unit, namely, the 1-inch unit and the 10-mm unit. Figures 4.21 and 4.22 show the forecasted probabilistic distribution with a 90% certainty range for each of the equipment. Table 4.4 provides a summary of the statistical predictions for both forecasts.

122

.031

311

.023

233.2

.016

155.5

.008

77.75

Mean = 76.7% .000 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 75.0% 0 100.0%

Figure 4.21 Probabilistic Frequency Distribution of Global Efficiency (1-inch SLHC)

Figure 4.22 Probabilistic Frequency Distribution of Global Efficiency (10-mm SLHC)

123

Table 4.4 Summary of Statistical Parameters and Forecast Results

Statistical Parameter 1-inch SLHC 10-mm SLHC

Mean Median Standard Deviation Variance Skewness

Range of Results (90% Certainty)

76.7% 81.7% 18.1% 3.3% -3.2

56.9 to 96%

79.2% 83.1% 15.1% 2.3% -2.2

58.5 to 96.1%

According to forecasted results, the global separation efficiency should likely be between 56.9 to 96% for the 1-inch unit, and from 58.5 to 96.1% for the 10-mm unit with a 90% certainty. Note in Figure 4.18 that the measured separation efficiency is lower than that predicted by the Montecarlo simulation, for many of the questionable 38 datasets. After the complete data verification process, the datasets have been grouped and their confidence level has been assessed, as presented in Table 4.5. The 117 datasets (Group A) that exhibit better repeatability of results, mass balance consistency, and lower global-grade efficiency discrepancies (<15%) are believed to have a 95% confidence level. A second dataset group (Group B) with a total of 132 datasets is formed by adding to the first group the 15 datasets having efficiency differences in excess of 15% but with no mass balance inconsistencies. This group is said to have a 90% confidence level. Finally, a third dataset group (Group C) includes all 155 available datasets, which have been assigned 68% confidence level. Notice that this group does include the 23 datasets having mass balance inconsistencies.

124

Table 4.5 Classification and Definition of Dataset Groups

Dataset Groups Confidence Level 95% 90% 68% Premise Conditions Global-Grade Efficiency Difference, Ed < 15% All datasets excluding those with MB Inconsistency and Ed > 15% All available datasets # Datasets

A) B) C)

Culled Datasets MB Consistent Datasets ALL Datasets

117 132 155

4.8

Experimental Results

Table A.1 in Appendix A presents a summary of the experimental data including test conditions for all datasets. Analysis of the results follows in the next sections.

4.8.1 Summary of Results

Figure 4.23 shows a summary of global separation efficiency for the 117 culled datasets (Group A) in chronological order. Figure 4.24 shows the feed Sauter mean diameter (d32) for each dataset. The standard deviation of the feed particle size distribution per dataset is given in Figure 4.25. Results show that both SLHC units tested were able to remove about 75% to 92% of up to 370 ppm feed solids from a water mixture having a 14.8 m mean diameter (d32 of 23.1 m) with a standard deviation of 19.4 m. The U/F recovered an average 13.5 m mean particle diameter (18.8 m Std. Dev.). Also, both SLHCs recovered about 85% of the feed water through the O/F. This stream consisted of a 35 ppm of 7.8 m mean solids diameter (3.1 m Std. Dev.). A detailed discussion follows regarding results for each SLHC configuration.

125

100%

90%

Global Efficiency (%)

80%

70%

60% 50%
1-inch [VF: 5.5mm; UF: 3.2mm (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 1-inch [VF: 5.5mm; UF: 2.2mm (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0mm; UF: 1.0mm (0.50 UF/VF; 1.0 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0mm; UF: 1.5mm (0.75 UF/VF; 1.0 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.6mm; UF: 1.5mm (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

40% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

Dataset # (in Chronological Order)

Figure 4.23 Global Separation Efficiency by Dataset (Group A)

35 30

Feed d 32 Particle Diameter (microns)

25 20 15 10 5 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

Dataset # (in Chronological Order)

Figure 4.24 Feed Sauter Mean Diameter (d32) per Dataset (Group A)

126

30 STD. Deviation of Feed Particle Size Distribution (microns)

25

20

15

10
1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Dataset # (in Chronological Order)

Figure 4.25 Standard Deviation of Feed Particle Size Distribution per Dataset (Group A)

4.8.2 Grade Separation Efficiency

In general, of the 1-inch configurations, the cyclone with a 5.5 mm vortex finder (VF) and a 3.2 mm spigot (U/F) shows better capacity to remove larger sized particles (Datasets 1 and 22). On the other hand, of the 10-mm configurations, the cyclone with a 2.6 mm vortex finder and the 1.5 mm spigot exhibited the highest efficiency (Datasets 135 and 148). Overall, the least efficient setup was the 10-mm unit with the 2.0 mm vortex finder and 1.5 mm spigot. Detailed test conditions are shown in Table A.1 in Appendix A. Two examples of grade efficiency results for the 1-inch and 10-mm SLHC configurations are shown in Figures 4.26 to 4.29 and 4.30 to 4.35, respectively. Typical Volume Particle Size Distributions are shown in Figures 4.36 and 4.37.

127

100

Separation Efficiency (%)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
2.1

Qin: 1.19 m3/hr; Pin: 114 psig Cs,in: 213 ppm;

& min = 0.253 kg/hr

VF: 5.5 mm; U/F: 3.2 mm

2.6

3.2

4.1

5.1

6.3

7.9

9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

Particle Diameter (microns)

Inlet_Cum_Vol_pct UF_Calc_Wt_CumVol_pct OF_Weighted_CumVol_pct

Figure 4.26 Grade Separation Efficiency Curve 1 Unit (Dataset 1)

100

Separation Efficiency (%)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
2.1

Qin: 1.30 m3/hr; Pin: 126 psig Cs,in: 166 ppm;

& min = 0.216 kg/hr

VF: 5.5 mm; U/F: 3.2 mm

2.6

3.2

4.1

5.1

6.3

7.9

9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

Particle Diameter (microns)

Inlet_Cum_Vol_pct UF_Calc_Wt_CumVol_pct OF_Weighted_CumVol_pct

Figure 4.27 Grade Separation Efficiency Curve 1 Unit (Dataset 22)

128

100

Separation Efficiency (%)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
2.1

Qin: 1.25 m3/hr; Pin: 106 psig Cs,in: 220 ppm;

& min = 0.275 kg/hr

VF: 5.5 mm; U/F: 2.2 mm

2.6

3.2

4.1

5.1

6.3

7.9

9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

Particle Diameter (microns)

Inlet_Cum_Vol_pct UF_Calc_Wt_CumVol_pct OF_Weighted_CumVol_pct

Figure 4.28 Grade Separation Efficiency Curve 1 Unit (Dataset 110)

100

Separation Efficiency (%)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
2.1

Qin: 1.35 m3/hr; Pin: 105 psig Cs,in: 182 ppm;

& min = 0.245 kg/hr

VF: 5.5 mm; U/F: 2.2 mm

2.6

3.2

4.1

5.1

6.3

7.9

9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

Particle Diameter (microns)

Inlet_Cum_Vol_pct UF_Calc_Wt_CumVol_pct OF_Weighted_CumVol_pct

Figure 4.29 Grade Separation Efficiency Curve 1 Unit (Dataset 120)

129

100

Separation Efficiency (%)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
2.1

Qin: 0.26 m3/hr; Pin: 124 psig Cs,in: 63 ppm;

& min = 0.016 kg/hr

VF: 2.0 mm; U/F: 1.5 mm

2.6

3.2

4.1

5.1

6.3

7.9

9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

Particle Diameter (microns)

Inlet_Cum_Vol_pct UF_Calc_Wt_CumVol_pct OF_Weighted_CumVol_pct

Figure 4.30 Grade Separation Efficiency Curve 10mm Unit (Dataset 126)

100

Separation Efficiency (%)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
2.1

Qin: 0.27 m3/hr; Pin: 125 psig Cs,in: 183 ppm;

& min = 0.050 kg/hr

VF: 2.0 mm; U/F: 1.5 mm

2.6

3.2

4.1

5.1

6.3

7.9

9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

Particle Diameter (microns)

Inlet_Cum_Vol_pct UF_Calc_Wt_CumVol_pct OF_Weighted_CumVol_pct

Figure 4.31 Grade Separation Efficiency Curve 10mm Unit (Dataset 128) 130

100

Separation Efficiency (%)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
2.1

Qin: 0.28 m3/hr; Pin: 126 psig Cs,in: 17 1 ppm;

& min = 0.048 kg/hr

VF: 2.6 mm; U/F: 1.5 mm

2.6

3.2

4.1

5.1

6.3

7.9

9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

Particle Diameter (microns)

Inlet_Cum_Vol_pct UF_Calc_Wt_CumVol_pct OF_Weighted_CumVol_pct

Figure 4.32 Grade Separation Efficiency Curve 10mm Unit (Dataset 135)

100

Separation Efficiency (%)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
2.1

Qin: 0.28 m3/hr; Pin: 116 psig Cs,in: 69 ppm;

& min = 0.019 kg/hr

VF: 2.6 mm; U/F: 1.5 mm

2.6

3.2

4.1

5.1

6.3

7.9

9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

Particle Diameter (microns)

Inlet_Cum_Vol_pct UF_Calc_Wt_CumVol_pct OF_Weighted_CumVol_pct

Figure 4.33 Grade Separation Efficiency Curve 10mm Unit (Dataset 148)

131

100

Separation Efficiency (%)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
2.1

Qin: 0.17 m3/hr; Pin: 116 psig Cs,in: 136 ppm;

& min = 0.022 kg/hr

VF: 2.0 mm; U/F: 1.0 mm

2.6

3.2

4.1

5.1

6.3

7.9

9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

Particle Diameter (microns)

Inlet_Cum_Vol_pct UF_Calc_Wt_CumVol_pct OF_Weighted_CumVol_pct

Figure 4.34 Grade Separation Efficiency Curve 10 mm Unit (Dataset 149)

100

Separation Efficiency (%)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
2.1

Qin: 0.16 m3/hr; Pin: 116 psig Cs,in: 196 ppm;

& min = 0.031 kg/hr

VF: 2.0 mm; U/F: 1.0 mm

2.6

3.2

4.1

5.1

6.3

7.9

9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

Particle Diameter (microns)

Inlet_Cum_Vol_pct UF_Calc_Wt_CumVol_pct OF_Weighted_CumVol_pct

Figure 4.35 Grade Separation Efficiency Curve 10 mm Unit (Dataset 151)

132

5.0 4.5

Volume Frequency (%)

4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 2.1 2.6 3.2 4.1 5.1 6.3 7.9 9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

Particle Diameter (microns)

Figure 4.36 O/FU/F Weighted Volume Frequency Distribution of Particle Size (Dataset 5)

7.0 6.0

Volume Frequency (%)

5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 2.1 2.6 3.2 4.1 5.1 6.3 7.9 9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

Particle Diameter (microns)

UF_Weighted_Vol_pct OF_Weighted_Vol_pct

Figure 4.37 O/FU/F Weighted Volume Frequency Distribution of Particle Size (Dataset 129)

133

4.8.3 Global Separation Efficiency

Analysis of the effects that the most relevant flow variables have on SLHC global separation efficiency is presented in this section.

4.8.3.1

Effect of Inlet Liquid Flow Rate and Velocity

The effect of inlet flowrate on the efficiency is not very evident from the data for any of the SLHC configurations (Figure 4.38). Instead, analysis of the inlet velocities seems more important, as it accounts for the effect of the inlet slot area. Figure 4.39 reveals that optimum feed velocities are between 16 to 17.5 m/s for both units. High enough inlet velocities are necessary to create sufficient swirl to promote efficient particle separation. However, this effect seems to be reversed at higher velocities as they may promote greater turbulence that can destabilize the inner vortex.

100%

90%

Global Efficiency (%)

80%

70%

60%
1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

50%

40% 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
3

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

Feed Liquid Flow Rate (m /hr)

Figure 4.38 Effect of Feed Liquid Flow Rate on Global Separation Efficiency 134

100% 90% 80% 70%

Global Efficiency (%)

60% 50% 40% 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

Inlet Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.39 Effect of Inlet Velocity on Global Separation Efficiency

4.8.3.2

Effect of Overflow to Inlet Feed Split Ratio

Optimum O/F to inlet split ratio for the 10-mm SLHC appears to be from 0.83 to 0.87, and from 0.87 and 0.93 for the 1-inch unit. Split ratios outside of these ranges appear to be detrimental to cyclones separation efficiency, as shown in Figure 4.40.
100% 90%

Global Efficiency (%)

80% 70%

60% 50%
1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

40% 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00

Overflow Split Ratio

Figure 4.40 Effect of O/F Split Ratio on Global Separation Efficiency 135

4.8.3.3

Effect of Inlet Solids Mass Flow Rate and Solids Concentration

The experimental results suggest that solids removal efficiency increases as the feed mass flow rates and solids concentrations increase. As evidenced in Figures 4.41 and 4.42, particle carry-over is sharply reduced at higher mass flow rates and feed solids concentrations, regardless of equipment configuration. However, this effect might be reversed if the solids concentration continues to increase. This phenomenon cannot be observed from the available data due to the narrow range of solids concentrations used for the experiments. Nevertheless, literature data suggest that an increase in solids mass flow rates and in feed solids concentration, while keeping all other operating parameters constant, leads to a coarser cut size, reduced separation sharpness, and results in a higher pressure drop across the cyclone (Braun and Bohnet, 1990).
100%

90%

Global Efficiency (%)

80%

70%

60%
1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] Li (1 i h [VF 5 5 UF 3 2 (0 60 UF/VF 0 85 IN/VF)])

50%

40% 0.00 0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

Mass Flow Rate of Feed Solids (kg/hr)

Figure 4.41 Effect of Solids Mass Flow Rate on Global Separation Efficiency

136

100%

90%

Global Efficiency (%)

80%

70%

60% 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] Li (10 [VF 2 6 UF 1 5 (0 60 UF/VF 0 85 IN/VF)]) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

50%

40%

Feed Solids Concentration (mg/L)

Figure 4.42 Effect of Solids Concentration on Global Separation Efficiency

4.8.3.4

Effect of the Feed Oil to Solids Concentration Ratio

Separation efficiency decreases when the feed oil to solids concentration ratio increases, regardless of geometry. As shown in Figure 4.43, high feed oil to solids concentration ratios are detrimental to separation efficiency as oil tends to agglomerate solids and carry (buoy) them into the overflow.

4.8.3.5

Effect of Inlet Temperature

Efficiency seems to slightly improve with higher flow temperatures due to viscosity reduction. However, inlet temperatures maintained during the experiments were not broad enough to confirm this assessment, and thus, further investigation is recommended under a wider range of temperatures (see Figure 4.44)

137

100%

90%

Global Efficiency (%)

80%

70%

60%
1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5 (1 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 3 2 (0 60 / 08

50%

40% 0.00

))

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

Oil / Solids Concentration Ratio

Figure 4.43 Effect of Oil/Solids Concentration Ratio on Global Efficiency

100% 90% 80% 70%

Global Efficiency (%)

60% 50% 40% 90 100 110 120 130 140

o

1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5

(0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

150

160

170

Inlet Temperature ( F)
Figure 4.44 Effect of Temperature on Global Separation Efficiency

138

4.8.3.6

Effect of Inlet Pressures and Outlet Backpressures

The effect of inlet pressure on separation efficiency cannot be established clearly from the data, as shown in Figure 4.45. Instead, an analysis of the effect of imposed O/F and U/F backpressures was performed but neither showed a clear trend. In general, the O/F backpressure seems to improve the efficiency of the 1-inch unit but has an opposite effect on the 10-mm geometry. Similarly, the efficiency seems to be unaffected by the U/F backpressure in the 1-inch geometry, but the 10-mm unit is negatively affected by an increase in U/F backpressure. It seems though, that the ratio of U/F to O/F backpressure is important for optimal operation (see Figure 4.46). Caution is advised as to maintaining U/F to O/F backpressure ratios greater than 50% as this may promote the formation of a gas core that could disturb the vortex.

100%

90%

Global Efficiency (%)

80%

70%

60%
1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

50%

40% 100 105 110 115 120 125 130

Inlet Pressure (psig)

Figure 4.45 Effect of Inlet Pressure on Global Separation Efficiency

139

100%

90%

Global Efficiency (%)

80%

70% 60%
1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

50%

40% 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

U/F to O/F Backpressure Ratio

Figure 4.46 Effect of U/F to O/F Backpressure Ratio on Global Separation Efficiency

Further investigation is recommended to establish the optimum limits of outlet backpressure to inlet pressure ratios that would maximize efficiency.

4.8.3.7

Effect of the Feed Solids Mean Particle Size

In general, solids carry-over decreases with larger particle diameters regardless of geometrical configuration of the SLHC, as shown in Figures 4.47 and 4.48. This is in agreement with Dwari et al. (2004) observations who reported that the larger particles are more easily removed. Thus, with an increase in particle size, and keeping the rest of the variables constant, the separation efficiency increases.

140

100% 90%

G lobal Efficiency (%)

80% 70%

60% 50%
1-inch [VF: 5.5mm; UF: 3.2mm (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 1-inch [VF: 5.5mm; UF: 2.2mm (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0mm; UF: 1.0mm (0.50 UF/VF; 1.0 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0mm; UF: 1.5mm (0.75 UF/VF; 1.0 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.6mm; UF: 1.5mm (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] Li (1 i h [VF 5 5 UF 3 2 (0 60 UF/VF 0 85 IN/VF)])

40% 12 14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

Feed d32 Particle Diameter (microns)

Figure 4.47 Effect of Sauter Mean Diameter (d32) on Global Efficiency

100%

90%

G lobal Efficiency (%)

80%

70%

60% 50%
1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] Li (10 [VF 2 6 UF 1 5 (0 60 UF/VF 0 85 IN/VF)])

40% 10

12

14

16

18

20

22

Feed Particle Volume-Averaged MEAN Size (microns)

Figure 4.48 Effect of Feed Particle Volume-Averaged Mean Size on Global Efficiency

141

4.9

Database Management System

A database (DB) management system, named CycloneMaster, was created to store, organize and consolidate all the available SLHC data. The amount of information and other requirements suggested the use of relational database management software like Microsoft Access. This reduces data redundancy, boosts storage capacity, improves accessibility and facilitates benchmarking of mechanistic models and available simulators. The DB consists of a set of different data tables that are related by a Unique or Primary key, and has the flexibility to accommodate a variety of data from other types of cyclones. Figure 4.49 shows the main screen menu of the CycloneMaster. Detailed description of the DB system is included in Appendix B.

Figure 4.49 Main Screen of the CycloneMaster DB System

142

CHAPTER 5
MECHANISTIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT

A mechanistic model for liquid-liquid hydrocyclones (LLHC) was proposed by Caldentey (2000). Later, Gomez (2001) carried out an experimental program aimed at validating and refining the original model. The final model was presented by Caldentey et al. (2002). The SLHC mechanistic model developed in this study is a modification of the model proposed by Caldentey et al. (2002) LLHC model. The SLHC model takes into account the fundamental differences between solidliquid and liquid-liquid systems and the hydrodynamic implications of such differences. Detailed fundamental differences between solid-liquid and liquid-liquid separation in hydrocyclones can be found in Thew (1986). Some of these differences include:

The density difference between the dispersed and the continuous phases is generally higher for solid-liquid systems, but still requires operating at high centrifugal forces, especially for the efficient separation of fine particles.

Unlike liquid droplets, solid particles can be considered rigid spheres that do not deform, break up or coalesce due to interaction with external forces. Instead, agglomeration of solids could occur, especially if the particles are oilcoated or the liquid phase contains a significant amount of oil.

The operational parameters for the continuous phase in the SLHC differ from that of the LLHC. For solid-liquid separation, about 90% of the flow exits

143

from the top of the hydrocyclone (overflow outlet). In the LLHC about 10% of the flow exits from the overflow.

In the LLHC more attention is given to the reverse core region (away from the wall) where separation occurs. Instead, the wall region and boundary layer are relatively more important for the SLHC case (Bloor et al., 1980). Solid particles tend to move outward until they reach the wall and fall to the underflow outlet due to the centrifugal force.

The proposed model enables the prediction of the hydrodynamic flow behavior in the SLHC, as well as the characteristic particle size grade separation efficiency. Due to its simplicity and general formulation, the model also allows detailed and timely analysis and performance prediction for any given SLHC geometry and operating conditions, including separation efficiency and flow capacity (pressure drop flow rate relationship). The model has been verified experimentally using oilfield data gathered by Culwell et al. (1994) in facilities of Chevron in California, as presented in Chapter 4.

5.1 Modeling Assumptions

In order to obtain a sufficiently simple model, yet accurate, the physical phenomena is simplified by neglecting some of the effects occurring inside the hydrocyclone. These assumptions reduce the numerical effort without compromising the model prediction capability. Following is a summary of the main modeling assumptions: 1. The model is limited to mixtures of two immiscible liquids, namely, a continuous-phase formed by a mixture of water with trace amounts of oil and a dispersed-phase composed of very fine solid particulates.

144

2. The feed slurry is a highly diluted water solution (very low solids concentration, < 5 g/L or 5000 ppm) of very small particles (< 150 m). 3. The rheological properties of the slurry are assumed to be Newtonian. The mixture density is expressed as a linear combination of component densities. 4. The flow in the main body of the hydrocyclone is regarded as inviscid and highly rotational, and thus, all flows are subjected to the centrifugal field. 5. The feed slurry is considered to have a homogeneous or uniform distribution of solid particles throughout the carrier liquid and across the inlet entry. 6. The solid particles of the dispersed phase are considered rigid spheres and are assumed to have a known feed particle size distribution. 7. Steady-state flow and separation process occurs inside the hydrocyclone, with no accumulation of material (or agglomeration) and break-up or grinding of dispersed-phase particles. 8. No turbulence effects are considered on the particle trajectory. 9. Collision effects among particles and with the wall or the center core region interface are also neglected. This is considered as a sound assumption for highly dilute systems (low solid concentrations). According to Kraipech et al. (2005) particleparticle interactions play a key role only in the near wall region and close to the air core, owing to lubrication and collision mechanisms. In the remaining region, particlefluid interactions were observed to be dominating. 10. The separation is isothermal or has negligible temperature changes.

145

11. Oil properties and concentrations are only considered in the calculation of the continuous-phase density and viscosity. Oil droplet trajectories and their direct effect on separation efficiency are not modeled. 12. No gas core occurring in the hydrocyclone. This is considered a valid assumption as long as the gas dissolved in the oil droplets contained in the continuous-phase is not sufficient enough to migrate to the core region and disturb the vortex (Smyth and Thew, 1996). 13. Inlet slot cross sectional area, regardless of shape, is considered by the model. Thus, rectangular and circular inlets are therefore treated in the same manner. 14. Both involuted single inlet and the twin inlets, the two most commonly used inlet configurations, are modeled. 15. The angle of the tapered section is an important geometrical parameter considered in the model. 16. Axis-symmetric flow is considered where there is no variation in the tangential velocity component. Schematic of the SLHC and nomenclature is presented in Figure 5.1. The model is divided into a continuous-phase and a dispersed-phase sub-models. The continuousphase sub-model includes the swirl intensity, velocity field and the pressure drop equations. The dispersed-phase sub-model is composed by the particle trajectory and the separation efficiency relationships. These are described in the following sections.

146

Overflow (O/F) Outlet

do, dvf, o, qo

Feed Inlet
SLHC Characteristic Diameter

di i, qi DC

LVF

Lb = Barrel (Cylindrical Section)

Length

Reverse Flow Core

Lc = Length of Conical Section

du, u, qu
Underflow (U/F) Outlet

Figure 5.1 Schematic of the SLHC and Model Nomenclature

147

5.2

Continuous Phase Modeling

5.2.1 Swirl Intensity

The swirl intensity is produced by the feed tangential inlet of the hydrocyclone. The definition of the swirl intensity relates the ratio between the axial fluxes of the angular and axial momentums. The swirl intensity number, , is thus defined as the ratio of the local tangential momentum flux to the total momentum flux (Chang and Dhir, 1994 and Mantilla, 1998) and is presented by the following expression:

2c

Rz

2 2 c Rz U avz

uwrdr

Tangential Momentum Flux Axial Momentum Flux

(5.1)

The axial velocity of the continuous phase is u, w is its tangential velocity, r is the radial position, c is the density of the continuous phase, Rz is the SLHC radius at given axial position, z, and Uavz is the average axial velocity. Since these velocities are not known in advanced, a swirl number correlation was utilized by Caldentey et al. (2002) to predict the swirl intensity and its decay along the axis of the hydrocyclone. The swirl number equation utilized by Caldentey et al. (2002) is a modification of the Mantilla (1998) correlation, based on Erdal (2001) CFD simulations, which takes into account the effect of the semi-angle of the tapered section. The modified correlation is given by:

148

 = 0.49Re

0.118

Mt 2 M I T

0.93

(1 + 1.2 tan( ) 0.15 ) *

0.35 1 M 1 t I 4 EXP Re 2 M T z

0.16

z Dc

0.7

(1 + 2 tan( ) )
0.12

(5.2)

where is the semi-angle of the conical sections; Dc is the characteristic diameter of the SLHC; Mt/MT is the ratio of inlet to the axial momentum fluxes at Dc; Re is the Reynolds number at the inlet section, and Rez is the Reynolds number at any given axial position. The Reynolds number is calculated using the average flow velocity in the cylindrical section, UDc. It is computed again for each given axial location, z, to account for the swirl decay in the conical or tapered section starting from Dc and using the average axial velocity at z, Uavz,. The Reynolds Number at the inlet cylindrical section is given by:

U Dc Re = c Dc c

(5.3)

Similarly, the Reynolds Number at a given axial location, z, of the conical section is given by:

U D Re z = c avz z c

(5.4)

where c is the viscosity of the continuous fluid.

149

In this study, the average inlet flow velocity, UDc, in the cylindrical section is calculated using the annular area, ADc, existing between the barrel or cylinder section wall and the vortex finder outside diameter, as follows:

q (1 F ) U Dc = i ADc
where qi is the inlet feed flow rate, F is the split ratio, and ADc is calculated by:

(5.5)

ADc =

( Dc 2 ODvf 2 )
4

(5.6)

In Eq. (5.6), ODvf is the external diameter of the vortex finder that runs from the SLHC cap to some length into the cylindrical barrel. On the other hand, the average axial velocity, U avz , is the average velocity changing with axial diameter, Dz, from the beginning to the end of the tapered section, and is defined as follows:

q (1 F ) U avz = 4 i ( Dz ) 2

(5.7)

The split ratio, F, is defined as the ratio of the overflow rate to the inlet flow rate, and is expressed as follows:
qo qi

F=

100%

(5.8)

150

The ratio of the inlet momentum flux to the axial momentum flux, Mt/MT, at the characteristic diameter position, is obtained using the following relationship:

& & Mt miVi m / A A = = i c i = c & & M T miU avc mi / c Ac Ai

(5.9)

where c is the density of the continuous-phase; Vi is the flow velocity at the inlet slot;
& Uavc is the average axial velocity at Dc; mi is the total inlet mass flow rate; Ai and Ac are

the cross sectional area of the feed inlet slot and the cross sectional area of the SLHC characteristic diameter respectively. The total feed mass flowrate is equal to the sum of the O/F and U/F mass flowrates, assuming no accumulation of material in the hydrocyclone. The material
& balance equation for the feed mass flowrates, mi , can be expressed as:

& & & mi = mo + mu

Similarly, the total volumetric flow rate is given by:

(5.10)

qi = qo + qu

(5.11)

where qi, qo, qu are the total volumetric flow rates at the inlet, O/F, and U/F respectively. The inlet factor, I, as suggested by Erdal (2001) is defined as:

n I = 1 EXP 2
where n = 1 for involuted single inlet and n = 1.5 for twin inlets.

(5.12)

151

5.2.2 Velocity Field

The tangential and axial velocities are calculated following a similar procedure to the one proposed by Mantilla (1998). The first step is to predict the swirl intensity at a specific axial location and then use it to predict the local axial and tangential velocities, as these are related by definition, to the swirl intensity (Mantilla, 1998). The radial velocity is the smallest in magnitude and can be obtained using the continuity equation, accounting for the wall effect. Following is a detailed description of the calculation procedure.

5.2.2.1 Tangential Velocity

The tangential injection of the pressurized fluid mixture into the hydrocyclone produces a swirling motion of the flow having a pattern consisting of a spiral within another spiral moving in the same circular direction (Seyda and Petty, 1991). This behavior is known as Rankine Vortex and has been confirmed by Weispfennig and Petty (1991) using LDA measurements. The tangential velocity profile within the hydrocyclone is then a combination of a forced vortex near the hydrocyclone axis, and a free vortex in the outer wall region, neglecting the effect of the wall boundary layer. The outer (free-like) vortex moves downward carrying suspended particles or material along the axis of the cyclone to the underflow outlet. It can be represented by a linearly increasing velocity with decreasing radius. The inner (forced) vortex is located in the region close to the cyclone axis and moves upward (reverse direction) carrying mainly a clean liquid stream to the overflow outlet and it is represented by an increasing velocity with increasing radius, reaches a

152

maximum and then decreases until it reaches zero at the cyclones centerline (Rushton et al., 2000). This velocity profile can be seen in Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.2. Rankine Vortex Tangential Velocity Profile The proposed model utilizes an equation proposed by Algifri et al. (1988), also used by Caldentey et al. (2002), to predict the flow tangential velocity profile, given by the following relationship:
r 1 EXP B Rc

T w = m U avc r R c

(5.13)

where w is the local tangential velocity normalized using the average axial velocity, Uavc, at the characteristic diameter; Rc is the radius at the characteristic location and r is the radial location; Tm is the maximum momentum of the tangential velocity at the section; and B represents the radial location at which the maximum tangential velocity is attained. The following expressions, which are functions of the swirl intensity, were obtained by Algifri et al. (1988) by curve-fitting several sets of experimental data.

153

Tm =

(5.14)

Involuted single inlet:

B = 55.7 1.7

(5.15)

Twin inlets:

B = 245.8 2.35

(5.16)

5.2.2.2 Axial Velocity

The high swirling tangential motion at the inlet region promotes the rise of centrifugal forces pushing the fluid toward the outer region (Algifri 1988). The pressure is high near the wall region and very low towards the centerline, in the core region. Such a radial shift of the fluid also results in a reduction of the axial velocity near the axis. Also, the pressure gradient profile across the cyclone diameter decreases with downstream position and therefore the pressure at the downstream end of the core is greater than at the upstream, causing flow reversal in the region along the cyclone axis when the swirl intensity is sufficiently high (Hargreaves, 1990). This characteristic reverse flow phenomenon around the SLHC axis allows the separation of fluids and materials of different densities. A typical axial velocity profile is shown in Figure 5.3. The positive values of the axial velocity represent downward flow near the wall, which is the main flow direction. Negative values represent upward reverse flow near the SLHC axis. The flow reversal radius, rrev, is the radial position where the axial velocity is equal to zero.

154

Figure 5.3 Typical Axial Velocity Profile along the Radial Position of the Cyclone Caldentey et al. (2002) assumed an axis-symmetric geometry and neglecting the effects of turbulence near the wall region (boundary layer). This resulted in an axial velocity profile that is only function of the swirl intensity, , and is given by:

u U avz

2 r = C Rz

3 3 r C Rz

2 0.7 + +1 C

(5.17)

where the constant C, is defined as:

r C = rev R z

rrev 3 2 R z

0.7

(5.18)

and,

155

rrev = 0.21 0.3 Rz

(5.19)

5.2.2.3 Radial Velocity

The radial velocity of the continuous-phase, v, is very small as compared to the tangential and axial velocities. The continuity equation and wall conditions suggested by Kelsall (1952) and Wolbert (1995) can be used to predict the radial velocity profile in the SLHC, as follows:

v=

r u tan( ) Rz

(5.20)

The radial velocity is a function of the axial velocity and the geometrical parameters, as can be observed in Eq. (5.20). In the particular case of cylindrical

sections, where tan() = 0, the radial velocity, v, is equal to zero.

5.2.3 Pressure Drop

Caldentey et al. (2002) presented a modification of the Bernoullis equation for the prediction of the pressure drop from the inlet to the underflow outlet of the LLHC. A centrifugal force correction factor, n, in the centrifugal losses term was used to compensate for the use of Bernoullis Equation under a high swirling flow condition. The modified pressure drop equation was described as follows:

Pi +

1 1 2 cVi2 = Pu + cU u + c (hcf + h f ) + c g sin L 2 2

(5.21)

156

In a similar manner, this modified pressure drop equation can be used to predict the pressure drop in the SLHC. In such case, c is the density of the continuous phase; Pi and Pu are the inlet and underflow outlet pressures respectively; Vi is the average inlet velocity and Uu is the underflow average axial velocity; L is the SLHC total length, that is L = Lb + Lc; where Lb and Lc are the length of the barrel and conical sections, respectively. The Greek letter is the angle of the SLHC axis with the horizontal. The variable hcf corresponds to the centrifugal force losses, which are the most relevant as they account for most of the total pressure drop in the SLHC. Frictional losses are described by the variable hf. Following is a procedure proposed by Caldentey et al. (2002) to calculate the pressure drop that can also be adopted for the SLHC: 1. Calculate the frictional losses. These are calculated in a similar manner as in pipe flow as follows:

h f ( z) = f ( z)

z Vr2 ( z ) D( z ) 2

(5.22)

where f is the friction factor and Vr is the resultant velocity. In the conical sections, all parameters in Eq. (5.22) are dependent of the axial position, z. The calculation procedure divides the conical section into m segments and assumes a cylindrical geometry in each segment. Then, the total frictional losses are the sum of the losses in each of the m segments, and are given by:

157

h f ( z ) , conical = f (z )
n =1

Vr2 z D n 1 + D n 2

( at ( 2 n 1)

z/2 )

(5.23)

where Vr, is the resultant velocity and is calculated as the vector sum of the average axial and tangential velocities. In this case, only the annular downward flow region is considered, as given in the following equations:
2 Vr2 ( z ) = U z + Wz2

(5.24)

Wz =

0 rrev Wrdrd 0 rrev

2 R z

2 R z

rdrd

(5.25)

To simplify the calculations, the average axial velocity in Eq. (5.24), Uz, is calculated assuming plug flow, that is, Uz is equal to the total flow rate over the annular area from the wall to the reverse radius, rrev. The Moody friction factor is calculated using Halls Correlation (Hall, 1957).
1/ 3 10 6 4 f ( z ) = 0.00551 + 2 x10 D ( z ) + Re( z )

(5.26)

where is the pipe roughness factor and Re is the Reynolds Number at a given z location, calculated based on the resultant velocity computed in Eq. (5.24).

158

2. Calculate the centrifugal losses using the following expression:

hcf

( nWu ) 2 (r ) = dr rrev r
Ru

(5.27)

where Wu is calculated from Eq. 5.25 at the underflow outlet. In this case, the centrifugal force correction factor, n, is equal to 2 for twin inlets, and to 3.2 for involuted single inlet.

5.3 Dispersed Phase Modeling

5.3.1 Particle Trajectories The trajectory of a given size particle is mainly a function of the SLHC velocity field and the physical properties of the dispersed and continuous phases. In this study, the same Lagrangian approach utilized by Caldentey et al. (2002) is adapted to track particle trajectories in the continuous liquid phase. The physical model is described in Figure 5.4 that shows a solid particle at times t and t + dt respectively. During the differential time dt, the particle moves radially with a velocity Vr = dr/dt and axially with a velocity Vz = dz/dt. The particle velocity in the tangential direction is assumed to be the same as that of the continuous fluid (no slip condition). This is considered a valid assumption for the small particles that are in the size range of the proposed SLHC model (< 150 m).

159

Figure 5.4 Schematic of Particle Trajectory Model The governing equation for the particle trajectory displacement is obtained by combining the axial and radial velocity equations, and solving for the axial distance as follows:

dz dz dt Vz = = dr dr Vr dt

V z = z dr Vr

(5.28)

Again, assuming no-slip conditions in the axial direction, in other words, neglecting the axial buoyancy force, the particle axial velocity, Vz is equal to the fluid axial velocity; u. Caldentey et al. (2002) considered this a reasonable simplification since centrifugal acceleration in the radial direction is thousand times larger than the acceleration due to gravity. On the other hand, the particle velocity in the radial direction is equal to the fluid radial velocity, v, plus the slip velocity, Vsr. Thus, the total trajectory displacement of the particle, z, can be obtained by rearranging Eq. (5.28) as follows: 160

u r =r z = r = r2 v +V 1 sr

(5.29)

The radial slip velocity, Vsr, is solved by balancing the forces acting on the particle in the radial direction, as shown in Figure 5.4, and assuming a local equilibrium momentum, as described by the following relationship:

(d c )

w 2 d 3 1 d 2 = C D cVsr 2 r 6 2 4

(5.30)

The left side of Eq. (5.30) is the centripetal force, and the right side is the drag force. Solving for the radial slip velocity, results in:
1

Vsr

4 c = d 3 c

w d 2 r C D
2

(5.31)

where d is the particle diameter, d is the density of the dispersed phase, c is the density of the continuous phase and CD is the drag coefficient. The drag coefficient is calculated using a relationship presented by Morsi and Alexander, (1971) and Hargreaves, (1990), as follows:

C D = b1 +

b b2 + 3 Re d Re 2 d

(5.32)

The b coefficients are dependent on the Reynolds Number of the particles (dispersedphase), which is defined as:

161

Re d =

c d Vsr c

(5.33)

Table 5.1 shows values for the b coefficients, as functions of the range of Red. Table 5.1. Drag Coefficient Constants
Range Red < 0.1 0.1 < Red < 1 1 < Red < 10 10 < Red < 100 b1 0 3.69 1.222 0.6167 b2 24 22.73 29.1667 46.5 b3 0 0.0903 -3.8889 -116.67

Finally, the axial location of the given particle is determined by numerically integrating Eq. (5.29), as a function of the radial position.

5.3.2 Separation Efficiency The SLHC separation efficiency is determined based on the particle trajectory approach discussed in the previous section. The particle separation probability is a function of its radial position, r, along the hydrocyclone axial length, Lc. As illustrated in Figure 5.5, the approach used in this study consists of launching a particle of a given size at the SLHC centerline (r = 0) right above the underflow outlet (Lcrit = 0). The trajectory of the particle is then tracked as it moves upward with axial and radial velocities to determine whether it is able to reach the downward flow region (Rc > r > rrev). If the particle reaches the downward flow region before reaching the top end of the conical section, (Lcrit < Lc), it has a higher probability to be separated through the U/F outlet.

162

Conversely, particles that remain longer in the reverse core region are more likely to be carried upward by the clean liquid phase and be discharged through the O/F outlet. If a particle is within the reverse core region (r < rrev) and its axial position is greater than the length of the conical section (Lcrit > Lc), the particle is not separated, and therefore has a separation efficiency equal to zero ((d) = 0). Also, if a particle moving down (in the downward flow region) reaches again the reversed core region at any given length before the U/F exit (Lcrit > 0), the tracking process is repeated until the particle exits either through the underflow [(d) = 1)] or the overflow outlet [(d) = 0].

Figure 5.5 Schematic of Particle Trajectory and Separation Efficiency

163

Assuming a homogeneous distribution of particles inside the SLHC, the separation efficiency of a given particle diameter, (d), can be expressed as the ratio of the length within which the particle reaches the downward flow region and is separated (Lcrit), over the total trajectory length, Lc. Thus, the particle separation efficiency prediction proposed in this study is given by:

0, L (d ) = c 1,

if

Lcrit Lc , if 0 < Lcrit < Lc

(5.34)

Lcrit Lc if

Lcrit 0

Repeating this tracking procedure for the different feed particle sizes, yields the grade separation efficiency curve, as given in Figure 5.6. This curve normally has an S shape and represents the grade separation efficiency, (d), as a function of particle diameter, d. As can be observed, smaller particles have efficiencies close to zero while increasing particle size sharply increases (d) until d100 is reached. The parameter d100 represents the smallest particle size with a 100% separation probability.

Figure 5.6 Grade Separation Efficiency Probability Curve

164

The grade separation efficiency curve is known as the characteristic separation curve for a given SLHC configuration, set of conditions and properties of the continuous and dispersed phases. This curve is independent of the feed particle size distribution and is used in many cases to evaluate the separation sharpness of a given SLHC geometry. Using the grade separation efficiency curve, (d) and the feed particle size distribution, another separation efficiency parameter known as the O/F purity, o, can be determined as follows:

~ (d j )V i j j o = 1 ~ Vi j j

(5.35)

~ where V i j is the cumulative feed percent volume distribution of particle size, dj. The O/F purity also measures the ability of the SLHC to separate the dispersed phase from the continuous phase.

5.4

Design Code

A design code for the SLHC was developed based on the proposed SLHC mechanistic model. The Caldentey et al. (2002) design code for the LLHC was coupled with the new SLHC design code; resulting in a comprehensive hydrocyclone design tool for either LLHC or SLHC equipment. The program provides the industry with a more flexible and efficient design and performance analysis tool, as compared to costly and lengthy CFD simulations.

165

CHAPTER 6
MODEL COMPARISONS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents comparisons between the proposed SLHC mechanistic model predictions and the experimental data acquired by Culwell et al. (1994). Comparisons are made for each of the different SLHC configurations, and against global and average grade separation efficiencies for all available datasets. A detailed analysis of model discrepancies with Dataset Group A (117 datasets) as a function of different operational and flow conditions is also presented in an attempt to establish the sensitivity of the model to these parameters. Table 6.1 shows results of model predictions versus experimental data for one every four datasets. Datasets with mass balance (MB) inconsistencies are highlighted and shown in bold font. Table A.1 in Appendix A shows results for all datasets.

6.1

Definition of Model Discrepancy

The global efficiency discrepancy, ED, between model predictions and experimental data is calculated as follows:

ED =

E p Em Em

(6.1)

where Ep is the efficiency predicted by the model and Em is the measured global efficiency. Model agreement with global efficiency data is defined as 1-ED. 166

Table 6.1 Summary of Model Predictions and Experimental Results

Feed Conditions
Inlet Pressure (psig) Solids Conc. (mg/L) Solids Mass Flowrate (kg/hr) Flow Rate 3 (m /hr) Dataset #

Geometric Specs
Inlet Slot Area 2 (mm ) Vortex Finder Diam. (mm) Spigot Diam. (mm)

Experimental Results
Grade-Global Effic. Diff. Global Effic. Avg. Grade Effic.

Model Predictions
Global Effic. Discrep. Grade Effic. Discrep. Model Effic.

1 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 120 124 128 132 136 140 144 148 152 155

1.19 1.21 1.25 1.24 1.25 1.29 1.30 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.28 1.23 1.22 1.23 1.26 1.27 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.29 1.28 1.27 1.28 1.27 1.26 1.26 1.24 1.29 1.35 1.26 0.27 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.16 0.17

0.253 0.187 0.303 0.315 0.180 0.449 0.216 0.453 0.306 0.445 0.253 0.164 0.111 0.128 0.112 0.110 0.242 0.182 0.226 0.113 0.238 0.151 0.342 0.137 0.213 0.282 0.062 0.153 0.167 0.176 0.245 0.187 0.050 0.035 0.043 0.082 0.018 0.019 0.032 0.037

213 155 242 254 144 349 166 351 238 346 197 134 91 104 89 86 200 150 187 93 197 117 267 107 166 221 50 122 134 137 182 148 183 122 153 302 67 69 203 218

105 107 116 114 116 124 125 126 124 125 126 116 115 115 125 124 110 110 110 111 110 126 126 126 126 126 106 106 106 113 105 126 125 125 126 116 116 116 104 125

20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 3.2 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.2 3.2

5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 2.0 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.0 2.0

3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 3.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0

83.2% 81.9% 84.3% 83.3% 80.9% 90.0% 85.4% 88.1% 85.8% 86.4% 86.4% 79.2% 72.5% 84.9% 44.9% 59.5% 79.2% 78.8% 79.0% 82.8% 84.3% 67.2% 51.7% 81.6% 84.4% 82.1% 77.0% 79.7% 80.3% 85.7% 83.6% 80.1% 76.5% 82.8% 89.9% 89.0% 75.3% 79.5% 77.5% 81.0%

81.1% 44.0% 69.6% 79.3% 79.4% 74.6% 80.9% 82.2% 78.5% 79.0% 86.5% 75.5% 56.9% 73.8% 19.6% 42.4% 77.3% 71.8% 74.3% 72.2% 77.3% 47.2% 34.5% 76.7% 82.5% 80.2% 67.2% 70.6% 70.3% 74.8% 71.2% 72.0% 65.5% 71.4% 75.8% 80.1% 51.1% 68.7% 50.5% 45.7%

2.1% 37.9% 14.7% 4.0% 1.5% 11.6% 4.5% 5.9% 7.3% 7.4% 0.1% 3.7% 15.6% 11.1% 25.3% 17.1% 1.9% 7.0% 4.7% 10.6% 7.1% 20.1% 17.2% 4.9% 1.9% 1.8% 9.8% 9.1% 10.0% 10.9% 12.5% 8.1% 10.9% 11.4% 14.2% 8.9% 24.2% 10.8% 27.0% 35.3%

82.6% 82.0% 82.0% 82.2% 80.2% 81.0% 81.3% 81.5% 81.0% 81.6% 85.8% 89.2% 88.5% 84.6% 87.0% 86.5% 82.8% 82.8% 83.6% 84.6% 85.4% 81.5% 82.2% 86.8% 86.4% 86.8% 83.0% 83.4% 83.4% 83.6% 78.5% 80.7% 75.5% 78.2% 78.6% 77.2% 77.5% 80.3% 84.2% 82.5%

-0.7% 0.1% -2.8% -1.4% -0.9% -10.0% -4.8% -7.5% -5.6% -5.5% -0.6% 12.7% 22.1% -0.3%

1.8% 86.3% 17.7% 3.7% 0.9% 8.5% 0.5% -0.9% 3.2% 3.4% -0.8% 18.2% 55.5% 14.6%

93.9% 344.4% 45.4% 104.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.9% 2.1% 1.3% 21.3% 6.4% 2.3% 5.8% 7.7% 4.6% 3.8% -2.4% -6.2% 0.8% -1.2% -5.6% -12.5% -13.3% 2.8% 1.1% 8.7% 1.9% 7.1% 15.4% 12.5% 17.2% 10.5% 72.9% 13.2% 4.7% 8.2% 23.5% 18.1% 18.6% 11.8% 10.3% 12.1% 15.3% 9.5% 3.8% -3.7% 51.6% 17.0% 66.7% 80.7%

59.0% 138.3%

167

Similarly, the grade efficiency discrepancy, experimental data is calculated as follows:

D, between

model predictions and

D =

Ep m

(6.2)

where m is the measured average grade efficiency. Model agreement with average grade efficiency data is defined as 1-D.

6.2

Verification of Mechanistic Model Predictions

6.2.1 Global Separation Efficiency Comparison A summary of model predictions agreement with global efficiency data for the three different dataset groups is given in Table 6.2. As can be seen in this table, model predictions are in very good agreement with experimental global separation efficiency data. Table 6.2 Global Model Discrepancy Results per Dataset Group
Dataset Groups Average Confidence # Level Datasets Agreement 95% 90% 68% 117 132 155 94.7% 92.9% 89.5%

A) B) C)

Culled Datasets MB Consistent Datasets ALL Datasets

168

As can be observed, the average agreement of Dataset Group A is about 94.7% (or 5.3% discrepancy). Also, about 91% of this group has data-model differences lower than 10%, as can be observed in Figure 6.1. As can also be seen in Figure 6.2, about 88% of the culled datasets (Group A) have discrepancies lower than 10% and about 95% of them have discrepancies below 15%. For instance, only 2.6% of the culled datasets have discrepancies above 25%, with a maximum global discrepancy of +28.7%.

100% 90% 80%

91% of Datasets < 10% difference

Experimental Global Efficiency

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (*) Dataset w / Mass Balance Inconsistency: OF >IN

Model Efficiency Predictions

Figure 6.1 Experimental Global Efficiency Results vs. Model Predictions

169

50%

Model vs. Global Efficiency Discrepancy - [(Ep - Em) / Em]

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% 1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131 141 151
1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

Dataset # (in Chronological Order)

Figure 6.2 Discrepancy of Model Predictions vs. Global Efficiency for each Dataset Model predictions appear to be in good agreement with the data regardless of SLHC geometry. However, very few data are available for some of the geometrical configurations (e.g. 10-mm SLHC with 2.0 mm VF and 1.5 mm spigot), and therefore, further investigation is recommended for these geometrical setups.

6.2.2 Average Grade Separation Efficiency Comparison A summary of results showing model discrepancy with the three different dataset groups is shown in Table 6.3. As can be seen, model predictions are in very good agreement with the average experimental grade separation efficiency results. The overall average agreement with the culled datasets (having 95% confidence level) is about 88.2% (or 11.8% discrepancy). Figure 6.3 shows that more than 70% of the culled datasets have differences lower than 10%.

170

Table 6.3: Average Grade Model Discrepancy Results per Dataset Group
Dataset Groups Average Confidence # Level Datasets Agreement 95% 90% 68% 117 132 155 88.2% 81.5% 68.5%

A) B) C)

Culled Datasets MB Consistent Datasets ALL Datasets

100% 90% 80%

Experimental Avg. Grade Efficiency

70% of Datasets < 10% difference

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0%

1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (*) Dataset w / Mass Balance Inconsistency: OF >IN

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Model Efficiency Predictions

Figure 6.3 Experimental Average Grade Efficiency Results vs. Model Predictions

As shown in Figure 6.4, more than 70% of the culled datasets have discrepancies lower than 15%, and about 86% have discrepancies lower than 20%. For instance, only 5.1% of the culled datasets have discrepancies in excess of 25% and only 2.6% of the datasets have discrepancies greater than 30%, with a maximum discrepancy observed of +44.7%.

171

50%

Model vs. Avg. Grade Efficiency

m]
Discrepancy - [(Ep - m ) /

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% 1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131 141 151
1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

Dataset # (in Chronological Order)

Figure 6.4 Discrepancy of Model Predictions vs. Average Grade Efficiency per Dataset

6.2.3 Grade Separation Efficiency Predictions Experimental grade efficiency curves presented in Chapter 4 are now compared against the mechanistic model predictions, as shown in Figures 6.5 to 6.14. These include two sample datasets for each of the five different geometrical configurations tested. As can be observed, in most cases the model grade efficiency curves show very good agreement with the experimental curves for a wide range of conditions for all geometrical arrangements. The 10-mm SLHC with 2.0 mm VF and 1.5 mm spigot (U/F) shows the highest disagreement. However, very few experiments are available for this unit configuration, and therefore further investigation is recommended for this and other geometrical setups.

172

100 90 Grade Separation Efficiency (Data vs. Model) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

2.1 2.6 3.2 4.1 5.1 6.3 7.9 9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

Qin: 1.19 m3/hr; Pin: 114 psig Cs,in: 213 ppm;

& min = 0.253 kg/hr

VF: 5.5 mm; U/F: 3.2 mm

Particle Diameter (microns)

Inlet_Cum _Vol_pct OF_Weighted_Cum Vol_pct Model_UF_CUMVol_pct UF_Calc_Wt_Cum Vol_pct Model_OF_CUMVol_pct

Figure 6.5 Grade Separation Efficiency - Data vs. Model Predictions (Dataset 1)

100 90 Grade Separation Efficiency (Data vs. Model) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

2.1 2.6 3.2 4.1 5.1 6.3 7.9 9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

Qin: 1.30 m3/hr; Pin: 126 psig Cs,in: 166 ppm;

& min = 0.216 kg/hr

VF: 5.5 mm; U/F: 3.2 mm

Particle Diameter (microns)

Inlet_Cum _Vol_pct OF_Weighted_Cum Vol_pct Model_UF_CUMVol_pct UF_Calc_Wt_Cum Vol_pct Model_OF_CUMVol_pct

Figure 6.6 Grade Separation Efficiency - Data vs. Model Predictions (Dataset 22)

173

100 90 Grade Separation Efficiency (Data vs. Model) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

2.1 2.6 3.2 4.1 5.1 6.3 7.9 9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

Qin: 1.25 m3/hr; Pin: 106 psig Cs,in: 220 ppm;

& min = 0.275 kg/hr

VF: 5.5 mm; U/F: 2.2 mm

Particle Diameter (microns)

Inlet_Cum _Vol_pct OF_Weighted_Cum Vol_pct Model_UF_CUMVol_pct UF_Calc_Wt_Cum Vol_pct Model_OF_CUMVol_pct

Figure 6.7 Grade Separation Efficiency - Data vs. Model Predictions (Dataset 110)

100 90 Grade Separation Efficiency (Data vs. Model) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

2.1 2.6 3.2 4.1 5.1 6.3 7.9 9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

Qin: 1.35 m3/hr; Pin: 105 psig Cs,in: 182 ppm;

& min = 0.245 kg/hr

VF: 5.5 mm; U/F: 2.2 mm

Particle Diameter (microns)

Inlet_Cum _Vol_pct OF_Weighted_Cum Vol_pct Model_UF_CUMVol_pct UF_Calc_Wt_Cum Vol_pct Model_OF_CUMVol_pct

Figure 6.8 Grade Separation Efficiency - Data vs. Model Predictions (Dataset 120)

174

100 90 Grade Separation Efficiency (Data vs. Model) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

2.1 2.6 3.2 4.1 5.1 6.3 7.9 9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

Qin: 0.26 m3/hr; Pin: 124 psig Cs,in: 63 ppm;

& min = 0.016 kg/hr

VF: 2.0 mm; U/F: 1.5 mm

Particle Diameter (microns)

Inlet_Cum _Vol_pct OF_Weighted_Cum Vol_pct Model_UF_CUMVol_pct UF_Calc_Wt_Cum Vol_pct Model_OF_CUMVol_pct

Figure 6.9 Grade Separation Efficiency - Data vs. Model Predictions (Dataset 126)

100 90 Grade Separation Efficiency (Data vs. Model) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

2.1 2.6 3.2 4.1 5.1 6.3 7.9 9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

Qin: 0.27 m3/hr; Pin: 125 psig Cs,in: 183 ppm;

& min = 0.050 kg/hr

VF: 2.0 mm; U/F: 1.5 mm

Particle Diameter (microns)

Inlet_Cum _Vol_pct OF_Weighted_Cum Vol_pct Model_UF_CUMVol_pct UF_Calc_Wt_Cum Vol_pct Model_OF_CUMVol_pct

Figure 6.10 Grade Separation Efficiency - Data vs. Model Predictions (Dataset 128)

175

100 90 Grade Separation Efficiency (Data vs. Model) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

2.1 2.6 3.2 4.1 5.1 6.3 7.9 9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

Qin: 0.28 m3/hr; Pin: 126 psig Cs,in: 17 1 ppm;

& min = 0.048 kg/hr

VF: 2.6 mm; U/F: 1.5 mm

Particle Diameter (microns)

Inlet_Cum _Vol_pct OF_Weighted_Cum Vol_pct Model_UF_CUMVol_pct UF_Calc_Wt_Cum Vol_pct Model_OF_CUMVol_pct

Figure 6.11 Grade Separation Efficiency - Data vs. Model Predictions (Dataset 135)

y
100 90 Grade Separation Efficiency (Data vs. Model) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
2.1 2.6 3.2 4.1 5.1 6.3 7.9 9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

Qin: 0.28 m3/hr; Pin: 116 psig Cs,in: 69 ppm;

& min = 0.019 kg/hr

VF: 2.6 mm; U/F: 1.5 mm

Particle Diameter (microns)

Inlet_Cum _Vol_pct OF_Weighted_Cum Vol_pct Model_UF_CUMVol_pct UF_Calc_Wt_Cum Vol_pct Model_OF_CUMVol_pct

Figure 6.12 Grade Separation Efficiency - Data vs. Model Predictions (Dataset 148)

176

100 90 Grade Separation Efficiency (Data vs. Model) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

2.1 2.6 3.2 4.1 5.1 6.3 7.9 9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

Qin: 0.17 m3/hr; Pin: 116 psig Cs,in: 136 ppm;

& min = 0.022 kg/hr

VF: 2.0 mm; U/F: 1.0 mm

Particle Diameter (microns)

Inlet_Cum _Vol_pct OF_Weighted_Cum Vol_pct Model_UF_CUMVol_pct UF_Calc_Wt_Cum Vol_pct Model_OF_CUMVol_pct

Figure 6.13 Grade Separation Efficiency - Data vs. Model Predictions (Dataset 149)

100 90 Grade Separation Efficiency (Data vs. Model) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

2.1 2.6 3.2 4.1 5.1 6.3 7.9 9.8 12.3 15.3 19.2 23.9 29.8 37.3 46.5 58.1

Qin: 0.16 m3/hr; Pin: 116 psig Cs,in: 196 ppm;

& min = 0.031 kg/hr

VF: 2.0 mm; U/F: 1.0 mm

Particle Diameter (microns)

Inlet_Cum _Vol_pct OF_Weighted_Cum Vol_pct Model_UF_CUMVol_pct UF_Calc_Wt_Cum Vol_pct Model_OF_CUMVol_pct

Figure 6.14 Grade Separation Efficiency - Data vs. Model Predictions (Dataset 151)

177

6.3

Analysis of Model Sensitivity to Different Experimental Parameters

This section presents the analysis of model discrepancy with global and grade separation efficiency data, as a function of several experimental conditions. This analysis seeks to evaluate trends of model disagreement with the data and the sensitivity of the model to different flow and geometrical parameters.

6.3.1 Inlet Liquid Flow Rate and Feed Velocity The model closely predicts the global efficiency for the entire range of experimental inlet flowrates and feed velocities as shown in Figures 6.15 and 6.16. Good agreement is observed for low as well as high range of inlet flow velocities. The more significant discrepancies are observed for the mid range of feed velocities; however, this could be due to the effect of a different variable, and thus, further analysis follows.

50% 40%

Model vs. Global Efficiency Discrepancy - [(Ep - Em) / Em]

30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
3

1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5

(0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

Feed Liquid Flow Rate (m /hr)

Figure 6.15 Global Efficiency Discrepancy as a Function of Feed Liquid Flow Rate

178

50%

Model vs. Global Efficiency Discrepancy - [(Ep - Em) / Em]

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

Inlet Velocity (m/s)

Figure 6.16 Global Efficiency Discrepancy as a Function of Inlet Velocity

6.3.2 Overflow Split Ratio Good agreement of model predictions is observed for split ratios lower than 0.95 (Figure 6.17). Above this value, the discrepancy increases as efficiency is over-estimated.

50%

Model vs. Global Efficiency Discrepancy - [(Ep - Em) / Em]

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

Overflow Split Ratio

Figure 6.17 Global Efficiency Discrepancy as a Function of Overflow Split Ratio

179

6.3.3 Feed Solids Mass Flow Rate and Feed Solids Concentration In general, model agreement with the data deteriorates at low feed solids mass flow rates and concentrations, regardless of geometry (Figures 6.18 and 6.19). Nevertheless, this effect might be reversed if solids concentration continues to increase, and therefore further verification of model predictions at higher solids concentrations is necessary. Particle interactions become more significant at high solids concentrations and the assumptions in the model regarding particle-particle interactions might not be realistic. As discussed earlier, Braun and Bohnet (1990) suggested that an increase in solids mass flow rates or in feed solids concentration, while keeping all other operating parameters constant, leads to a coarser cut size, reduced separation sharpness, and higher pressure drop across the cyclone. They also suggested that at higher mass flow rates, the pressure drop increases due in part to the hindered settling effect.

50% 40%

Model vs. Global Efficiency Discrepancy - [(Ep - Em) / Em]

30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

Mass Flow Rate of Feed Solids (kg/hr)

Figure 6.18 Global Efficiency Discrepancy as a Function of Solids Mass Flow Rate

180

50%

Model vs. Global Efficiency Discrepancy - [(Ep - Em) / Em]

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50%

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

Feed Solids Concentration (mg/L)

Figure 6.19 Global Efficiency Discrepancy as a Function of Solids Concentration

6.3.4 Feed Oil to Solids Concentration Ratio Model predictions do not seem to be affected by the feed oil to solids concentration ratio increases, as shown in Figure 6.20. There is only a slight increase in model discrepancy as the concentration ratio increases, but further investigation under higher concentration ratios is recommended to better establish this connection.

6.3.5 Inlet Temperature Model predictions do not seem to be sensitive to inlet temperature under the given experimental conditions, and therefore, to its effect on fluid viscosity (Figure 6.21). However, further investigation at higher temperatures is also recommended to establish the sensitivity of the model to a wider range of fluid viscosity changes.

181

50% 40%

Model vs. Global Efficiency Discrepancy - [(Ep - Em) / Em]

30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

Oil / Solids Concentration Ratio

Figure 6.20 Global Efficiency Discrepancy as a Function of Oil/Solids Concentration Ratio

50%

M odel vs. Global E fficiency Discrepancy - [(E p - E m ) / E m ]

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% 90 100 110 120 130 140
o

1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5

(0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

150

160

170

Inlet Temperature ( F)

Figure 6.21 Global Efficiency Discrepancy as a Function of Inlet Temperature

182

6.3.6 Underflow (U/F) to Overflow (O/F) Backpressure Ratio As explained in Chapter 4, it is critical that constant outlet backpressures be applied to avoid disturbing the vortex and creating instabilities. The ratio of U/F to O/F backpressure is also very important for optimal operation and to avoid the formation of a gas core. The model does not consider the effect of the imposed outlet backpressures, resulting in greater discrepancies at higher backpressure ratios, as shown in Figure 6.22.

50% 40%

Model vs. Global Efficiency Discrepancy - [(Ep - Em) / Em]

30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80
1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

U/F to O/F Backpressure Ratio

Figure 6.22 Global Efficiency Discrepancy as a Function of U/F to O/F Backpressure Ratio

6.3.7 Effect of the Feed Solids Mean Particle Size The model shows good agreement for the range of experimental particle size (Figures 6.23 and 6.24). However, model sensitivity is observed for finer particles (< 10 m). This could be explained as finer particles become more easily entrained by the continuous liquid phase and carried-over, and therefore, modeling their trajectories requires a more rigorous approach.

183

50% 40%

Model vs. Global Efficiency Discrepancy - [(Ep - Em) / Em]

30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

Feed Particle Volume-Averaged MEAN Size (microns)

Figure 6.23 Global Efficiency Discrepancy as a Function of Feed Particle VolumeAveraged Mean Size

50%

Model vs. Global Efficiency Discrepancy - [(Ep - Em) / Em]

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34

1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 3.2 1-inch [VF: 5.5; UF: 2.2 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.0 10-mm [VF: 2.0; UF: 1.5 10-mm [VF: 2.6; UF: 1.5 (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.40 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)] (0.50 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.75 UF/VF; 1.00 IN/VF)] (0.60 UF/VF; 0.85 IN/VF)]

Feed Mean Sauter d32 Diameter (microns)

Figure 6.24 Global Efficiency Discrepancy as a Function of Sauter Mean Diameter

184

CHAPTER 7
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents a summary of results, conclusions, and contributions of the present study, as well recommendations for future research.

7.1

Summary and Conclusions

7.1.1 Experimental Results The experimental data used in the present study to validate the proposed mechanistic model were acquired by Culwell et al. (1994). The data include 155 experimental datasets performed utilizing two small diameter SLHCs, namely, 10-mm and 1-inch units, for a wide range of flow conditions and configurations, including: inlet velocities between 14 to 24 m/s, inlet pressures from 100 to 130 psig, feed solids concentrations from 50 to 370 mg/L, feed solids particle size distribution ranging from 2 to 60 m, Sauter mean diameter (d32) from 12 to 32 m, oil concentrations from 30 to 400 ppm, specific gravity of the continuous-phase of 0.989, and average oilfield solids density of 2.0 gr/cc. The experimental data underwent a rigorous evaluation process to determine their consistency and certainty level. Subsequently, the datasets were

185

classified according to their confidence level, namely 95% confidence (Group A), 90% confidence (Group B), and 68% confidence (Group C or all datasets). Group A with the highest confidence level (95%) contains a total of 117 culled datasets representing 76% of the total available datasets. This group exhibits better repeatability of results, mass balance consistency, and smaller differences between global and grade separation efficiencies (< 15%). Results from the culled datasets show that both SLHC units tested were able to remove about 75% to 92% of up to 60 ppm feed solids from produced water having a 14.8 m mean diameter (d32 of 23.1 m) with a 19.4 m standard deviation. Also, the SLHCs recovered 85% of the feed water through the O/F outlet, with a 35 ppm of 7.8 m mean diameter (3.1 m std. dev.). The U/F recovered an average 13.5 m mean particle diameter with 18.8 m standard deviation. Regarding equipment dimensions and configurations, the best 1-inch unit efficiency was attained with the 5.5 mm vortex finder (VF) and a 3.2 mm spigot, also showing better capacity to remove larger sized particles. The best 10-mm unit was attained with a 2.6 mm vortex finder and a 1.5 mm spigot. Of the two units tested, the 10-mm SLHC showed slightly higher solids removal efficiency, with a smaller particle size cut point. However, the number of tests on the 10-mm unit was fewer, and therefore further investigation of such assessment is recommended.

186

Overall, the less efficient setup seems to be the 10-mm unit having a 2.0 mm vortex finder and a 1.5 mm spigot, but very few data are available for this configuration, and therefore the observations are not conclusive.

The optimum feed velocities are between 16 to 17.5 m/s for both SLHC units. The optimum O/F to inlet split ratio for the 10-mm SLHC is in the range of 0.83 to 0.87, and from 0.87 to 0.93 for the 1-inch unit. Split ratios outside these ranges appear to be detrimental to separation efficiency.

Solids removal efficiency increases as the feed mass flow rates and solids concentrations increase, regardless of equipment geometry. However, this effect might be reversed if solids concentrations continue to increase beyond a certain limit, according to Braun and Bohnet (1990).

Separation efficiency is affected by high feed oil to solids concentration ratio, regardless of equipment configuration. This is likely to be caused by the oil tendency to agglomerate solids and carry (buoy) them into the O/F.

Efficiency seems to slightly improve with higher flow temperatures due to viscosity reduction. However, the experimental temperature range was not broad enough to confirm this statement, and thus, further investigation is recommended.

The effect of inlet pressure on separation efficiency could not be clearly established from the data, and therefore an analysis of the imposed backpressures in the O/F and U/F outlets was performed. Results reveal that

187

imposing outlet backpressures may help stabilize fluctuations due to flow transients and reduce or avoid the formation of a gas core. According to the results, the optimum U/F to O/F backpressure ratio is below 0.5. However, further investigation is recommended to establish the optimum limits of outlet to inlet pressure ratios that would maximize efficiency. In general, solids carry-over deteriorates with larger particle diameters regardless of SLHC geometrical configuration. This is in agreement with Dwari et al. (2004) and several other observations reported in the literature.

7.1.2 Mechanistic Modeling The proposed SLHC mechanistic model is a modification of the model proposed by Caldentey et al. (2002) for liquid-liquid hydrocyclones (LLHC). The model enables the prediction of the hydrodynamic flow behavior in the SLHC, as well as the solids global and grade separation efficiency curves. These efficiency curves are determined based on swirl intensity prediction and particle trajectory analysis. The inlet-to-U/F pressure drop is estimated utilizing an energy balance equation, as proposed by Caldentey et al. (2002). The required input for the model includes the hydrocyclone geometry, properties of the dispersed and continuous phases, inlet particle size distribution, feed solids concentration, and operational conditions. Very good agreement is observed between model predictions and the experimental data. The model is able to predict the global separation

188

efficiency with a 94.7% agreement and the average grade separation efficiency with an 88.2% agreement for Group A datasets. Model predictions appear to be in good agreement with the data regardless of unit geometry. However, further investigation is recommended for the 10-mm SLHC with 2.0 mm VF and 1.5 mm spigot. A detailed analysis of model discrepancies with the culled datasets as a function of different operational and flow conditions was performed in an attempt to establish the sensitivity of the model to these parameters. The model is capable of closely predicting global efficiency for the entire range of experimental inlet flow rates and feed velocities. Also, good and consistent agreement is observed for split ratios lower than 0.95. Above this value, model discrepancy increases generally overestimating equipment separation efficiency. In general, model agreement deteriorates at low feed solids mass flow rates and concentrations, regardless of SLHC geometry. Further verification of the model at higher solids concentrations is necessary, as particle interactions become more significant at higher concentrations. It is likely that the assumptions of the model regarding particle-particle interactions might not capture these effects and their impact on separation efficiency. Model predictions do not seem to be affected by variations in the feed oil to solids concentration ratio and in inlet temperatures. This might be due to

189

simplifications in the model regarding continuous phase densities and slurry viscosities. Further verification is also recommended regarding this issue. The model considers neither the effect of the gas core nor of the imposed outlet backpressures, resulting in greater model discrepancies at higher backpressures ratios. The model shows good agreement for the range of particle size used in the experiments. However, some sensitivity is observed for the smaller particle sizes (< 10 m) as compared to the coarser particles. This is probably due to the fact that smaller particles become more easily entrained by the continuous liquid phase and carried-over, and therefore, it is more challenging to model their trajectories.

7.2 Main Contributions

A new mechanistic model for the efficient design and performance analysis of small diameter Solid-Liquid Hydrocyclones (SLHC) has been developed and validated against available experimental data from the industry.

A design code for the SLHC was developed based on the proposed SLHC mechanistic model. The Caldentey et al. (2002) design code for the LLHC was coupled with the new SLHC design code; resulting in a comprehensive hydrocyclone design tool for either LLHC or SLHC equipment. The program provides the industry with a more flexible and efficient design and performance analysis tool, as compared to costly and lengthy CFD simulations. 190

A database (DB) management system, known as CycloneMaster, was developed to store, organize and consolidate all the available SLHC data. The DB system is also a powerful tool to benchmark this and other simulators and mechanistic models, as model predictions versus experimental data can be easily plotted side-by-side, compared and analyzed. The DB interface provides users with the most relevant information of the experimental program, including equipment documentation, test objectives, test

configurations, and the description of the experimental procedures. The DB management system enables addition of future data sets.

7.3

Recommendations

General recommendations for future work have been included and discussed throughout this manuscript. Other more specific recommendations include: The effect of variations in solids density needs to be addressed. The available experimental data utilized oilfield produced solids having an average density of 2.0 gr/cc. Very few experiments were conducted using silica flour with a 2.2 gr/cc density. However, most of these datasets had mass balance inconsistencies or high global-grade efficiency differences, and therefore, results are inconclusive. As a result, it is recommended that additional data be gathered under a wider range of solid particles densities to further validate the proposed model. The proposed model has been verified for very fine particles (2 to 60 m) and small diameter hydrocyclones. Caution is advised in using the model for

191

larger geometries and coarser particles, and therefore, further investigation needs to be conducted to establish the validity of the model, or to adapt it to such conditions. The effect of the vortex finder length is not considered in the proposed model. Thus, it would be a good contribution to model and validate the influence of this geometrical parameter on the equipment efficiency. Investigate the effect of other types of continuous fluid medium on solids separation, in particular, fluids of different viscosities and densities. Future research should consider comparing the proposed SLHC model to the model proposed by Lagutkin et al. (2004) and Lagutkin and Baranov (2004) using the available oilfield data, new acquired data, and other published data. This will be particularly useful to study the effect of the Coriolis force on solids separation efficiency. In future experimental investigations, it is recommended to continuously monitor and record flow transients. In-line (real time) particle size distribution measurement is also recommended. Finally, it is recommended that in further experimental investigations, tests under same or similar range of conditions as those with the higher uncertainty level of the experimental work of Culwell et al. (1994) be conducted.

192

NOMENCLATURE A = cross sectional area / constant cylindrical-conical hydrocyclone structural and operating conditions (Baranov et al., 1996) a = diameter of air core in cyclone, m acor = Coriolis acceleration B = peak tangential velocity radius factor / overflow output of the hydrocyclone c = concentration cs = concentration of solids, mg/L C1 = concentration of solids in suspension, kg/m3 CD = drag coefficient D = diameter d = diameter of a particle, mm dr/dt = flow tangential velocity / particle radial velocity component, m/s d50 = cut size diameter of particle, mm Dc = characteristic diameter of the hydrocyclone, m Dvf = inside diameter of vortex finder, m E = global separation efficiency, % F = split ratio Fcor = Coriolis force FD = steady-state drag force

193

FApp = added mass force FBas = Basset force FLS = Saffman lift force FLM = Magnus lift force FPG = pressure gradient force
~ Fv (d k ) = cumulative volume frequency distribution of particle size

~ f v (d j ) = volume frequency distribution of particle size f = friction factor G(x) = grade separation efficiency, % G(x) = reduced grade separation efficiency, % g = acceleration due to gravity, m/s2 h = losses I = inlet factor L = total length of cyclone from top plate to apex, m m = N of segments / mass (Ternovskii and Kutepov, 1994; Baranov et al., 1996)
& m = mass flow rate

& M p = mass flow rate of solids, kg/s

MT = axial momentum flux at the characteristic diameter position Mt = momentum flux at the inlet slot n = centrifugal force correction factor / inlet factor / number N = total number of size intervals of characteristic particle size (CC channels) P = pressure p = static pressure, N/m2 194

Q = volumetric flow rate, m3/s q = volumetric flow rate, m3/s R = radius, m R1= R 1/2a 1/2Di Re = Reynolds number Rf = underflow-to-throughput ratio Rte = cyclone radius (Ternovskii and Kutepov, 1994) r = any radius, m / radial position, m rZ0 = maximum radius of the hydrocyclone body at r = 0 (Povarov, 1978) S = regression constant t = time Tm = maximum tangential velocity momentum U = bulk axial velocity / radial velocity of liquid, m/s u = continuous phase local axial velocity, m/s up = particle instantaneous velocity, m/s Up = radial velocity of particle relative to the liquid, m/s v = continuous phase local radial velocity, m/s

e = tangential flow velocity of the dispersion medium, m/s

in = inlet flow velocity, m/s (Ternovskii and Kutepov, 1994) r, = radial velocity, m/s V = volumetric fraction / fluid velocity, m/s ~ V i j = cumulative feed percent volume distribution of particle size, dj.
& V = volumetric flow rate, m3/h

195

V1 = tangential velocity in cyclone, m/s Vr = particle radial velocity, m/s Vsr = particle slip velocity in the radial direction Vz = particle axial velocity W = axial velocity in cyclone, m/s
w = continuous phase tangential velocity / radial velocity (Braun and Bohnet, 1990)

z = axial position Greek Letters:

= angle
= swirl intensity = taper section semi-angle / Stokes resistance coefficient (Baranov et al., 1996) d = size of the intervals of characteristic particle diameter

p = pressure drop

= grade efficiency / purity / pipe roughness

= coefficient of hydraulic resistance (Ternovskii and Kutepov, 1994)
= particle separation efficiency
= axis inclination angle to horizontal = viscosity

= kinematic viscosity of the dispersion medium

= density / flow density, kg/m3 = horizontal plane angle

196

Subscripts: av = average b = barrel or cylindrical section c = characteristic diameter location / continuous phase / corrected / conical section cf = centrifugal cy = cyclone crit = critical d = dispersed phase / particle f = frictional / fluid g = gravity acceleration / body acceleration (Akbar et al. 2001) i = inlet in = inlet j = No. of iterations for frequency distributions of particle size k = index of maximum particle size in a cumulative volume frequency distribution m = dispersion medium n = number o = overflow p = particle r = resultant rev = reverse sr = slip radial velocity s = solids u = underflow

197

v = volume z = axial position Abbreviations: ANN = Artificial Neural Networks CFD = Computational Fluid Dynamics CC = Coulter Counter Multisizer EIT = Electrical Impedance Tomography DRSM = Differential Reynolds Stress Model DSM = Differential Stress Turbulence Model FEM = Finite Element Method LDA = Laser Doppler Anemometry LDV = Laser Doppler Velocimetry LES = Large Eddy Simulation LIF = Laser Induced Fluorescence LLHC = Liquid-Liquid Hydrocyclones MB = Mass Balance O/F = overflow outlet PDA = Particle Dynamics Analyzer RSM = Reynolds-Stress turbulence model RNG = Renormalization Group (k-) UST = Ultrasound Tomography U/F = underflow outlet VOF = Volume of Fluid

198

REFERENCES Abbott, J.: The Design and Performance of Hydrocyclones on Viscous Suspensions, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Leeds, England, 1968. Adupeasah, S.P., Diosady, L.L., Rubin, L.J.: A Multistage Hydrocyclone Stirred-Tank System for Countercurrent Extraction of Canola Oil, Journal of American Oil Chemists Society 70, 1993, pp. 755-762. Agar, G.E. and Herbst, J.A.: The Effect of Fluid Viscosity on Cyclone Classification, Soc. Min. Eng., June 1966, pp. 145149. Ahmed, A.A., Ibraheim, G.A. and Doheim, M.A.: Influence of Apex Diameter on The Pattern of Solid/Liquid Ratio Distribution Within a Hydrocyclone, Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology, Chemical Technology, vol. 35, no. 8, Nov, 1985, pp. 395-402. Akbar, M.K., Sharif, M.A.R., and Bradt R.C.: Effect of Forces on a Particle in a Straight Channel Turbulent Flow, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Multiphase Flow, vol. 53, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 27June 1, Institution of Chemical Engineers, 2001, pp. 16. Algifri, A., Bhardwaj, R. and Rao, Y., Turbulence Measurements in Decaying Swirl Flow in a Pipe, Applied Scientific Research, vol. 45, 1988, pp. 233-250. Allen, T.: Critical Review of Particle Size Analysis, Powder Metallurgy, vol. 26, no. 2, 1983, pp. 95-100

199

Banisi, S. and Deghan-Nayeri, H.: Effect of Angle of Hydrocyclone Iinclination on Cut Size, Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly, vol. 44, no. 1, 2005, pp. 79-84. Baranov, D.A., Kutepov, A.M. and Lagutkin, M.G.: Analysis of Separation Processes in Hydrocyclones, Teor. Osn. Khim. Tekhnol., 30, no. 2, 1996, pp. 117122. Barrientos, A. and Concha, F.: Phenomenological Model of Classification in Conventional Hydrocyclones, Comminution-Theory and Practice, SME publication, 1992, pp. 287-305. Barrientos, A., Sampio, R. and Concha, F.: Effect of the Air Core on the Performance of a Hydrocyclone, XVIII International Mineral Processing Congress, Sydney, 23-28 May 1993, pp. 267-270. Bednarski, S., and Listewnik, J.: Hydrocyclones for Simultaneous Removal of Oil and Solid Particle from Ships Oily Waters, Filtration and Separation, March/April 1988, pp. 92-97. Bendixen, B. and Rickwood, D.: Effects of Hydrocyclones on the Integrity of Animal and Microbial Cells, Bioseparation 4, pp.21-27. Besendorfer, C.:. Exert force of hydrocyclone, Chemical Engineering 9, 1996, pp.108 114. Bhattacharyya, P.: The Flow Field Inside a Conventional Hydrocyclone, 2nd International Conference on Hydrocyclones, Bath, England, 1984, pp.H2. Bloor, M. and Ingham, D.: Theoretical Investigation of the Flow in a Conical Hydrocyclone, Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs., vol. 51, 1973, pp. 36-41. Bloor, M.I G., Ingham, D.B. and Laverack, S.D.: Analysis of Boundary Layer Effects in a Hydrocyclone, BHRA Fluid Engineering, 1980, pp. 49-62.

200

Bloor, M. and Ingham, D.: The Influence of Vorticity on the Efficiency of the Hydrocyclone, In 2nd International Conference on Hydrocyclones, BHRA, Bath, England, paper B2, 1984, pp. 19-21. Bloor, M. and Ingham, D.: The Flow in Industrial Cyclones, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 178, 1987, pp. 507-519. Bloor, M.: On Axially Symmetric Flow Models for Hydrocyclones, 3rd International Conference on Hydrocyclones, Wood, P. (ed), Elsevier, Oxford, England, 1987 pp. 8389. Bradley, D. and Pulling, D.J.: Flow Patterns in the Hydraulic Cyclone and their Interpretation in Terms of Performance, Transactions of the Institute of Chemical Engineers 37, 1959, pp. 34-45. Bradley, D.: The Hydrocyclone, Pergamon Press, 1965. Braun, T. and Bohnet, M.: Influence of Feed Solid Concentration on the Performance of Hydrocyclones, Chemical Engineering and Technology 13, 1990, pp. 1520. Brennan, M.S., Narasimha, M. and Holtham, P.N.: pp. 395-406. Bretney, E.: U.S. Patent No. 453105, 1891. Caiden, R., Fedkiw, R.P. and Anderson, C.: A Numerical Method for Two-Phase Flow Consisting of Separate Compressible and Incompressible Regions, Journal of Computational Physics, 166 (1), 2001, pp. 1-27. Caldentey, J.: A Mechanistic Model for Liquid Hydrocyclones, M.S. Thesis. The University of Tulsa, U.S.A, 2000. Multiphase Modelling of

Hydrocyclones - Prediction of Cut-Size, Minerals Engineering, vol. 20, Issue 4, 2007,

201

Caldentey, J., Gomez, C., Wang, S., Gomez, L., Mohan, R. and Shoham, O.: Oil-Water Separation in Liquid-Liquid Hydrocyclones (LLHC): Part 2 Mechanistic Modeling, SPE Journal, vol.7, no.4. December 2002, pp. 362-372. Chakraborti, N. and Miller, J.: Fluid Flow in Hydrocyclones: A Critical Review, Mineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy Review, Vol. 11, 1992, pp. 211-244. Chang, F and Dhir, V.: Turbulent Flow Field in Tangentially Injected Swirl flows in Tubes, International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, vol. 15, 1994, pp. 346-356. Chen, W., Zydek, N. and Parma, F.: Evaluation of Hydrocyclone Models for Ppractical Applications, Chemical Engineering Journal 80, 2000, pp. 295303. Choi, M.S.: Hydrocyclone Produced Water Treatment for Offshore Developments, 1990, SPE 20662. Chu, L.Y. and Chen, W.M.: Research on the Motion of Solid Particles in the Hydrocyclone, Separation Science and Technology 28: 1993, pp. 1875-1886. Colman, D., Thew, M. and Corney, D.: Hydrocyclones for Oil/Water Separation, International Conference on Hydrocyclones, BHRA, Cambridge, United Kingdom, paper 11, 1980, pp. 143-165. Colman, D. and Thew, M.: Correlation of Separation Results From Light Dispersion Hydrocyclones, Chem. Eng. Res. Des., vol. 61, 1983, pp. 233-240. Concha, F., Barrientos, A., Montero, J. and Sampio, R.: Air Core and Roping in Hydrocyclones, Int. Journal of Mineral Processing 44/45, 1996, pp. 743-749. Crowe C.T.: (Ed.). Multiphase Flow Handbook. CRC Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, Florida, Sep. 2005.

202

Cullivan, J.C., Williams, R.A. and Cross, C.R.: Verification of Theoretical 3D-flow in a Hydrocyclone using Tomography, Fourth World Congress for Particle Technology, Sydney, 2001, pp. 19. Cullivan, J.C., Williams, R.A. and Cross, C.R.: Understanding the Hydrocyclone Separator Through Computational Fluid Dynamics, Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers 81A, 2003, pp. 455465. Cullivan, J.C., Williams, R.A., Dyakowski, T. and Cross, C. R.: New Understanding of a Hydrocyclone Flow Field and Separation Mechanism from Computational Fluid Dynamics, Minerals Engineering, Volume 17, Issue 5, Hydrocyclones '03, May 2004, pp. 651-660. Culwell J., Machen K., and Hubred G.: Technical Report: Investigation of Solids Separation using Small Diameter Hydrocyclones, Mozley Engineering (Natco)Chevron, 1994. Dabir, B.: Mean Velocity Measurements in a 3''-Hydrocyclone Using Laser Doppler Anemometry, Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, Michigan, 1983. Dabir, B. and Petty, C.A.: Laser Doppler Anemometry Measurements of Tangential and Axial Velocities in a Hydrocyclone Operating without an Air Core, 2nd International Conference on Hydrocyclones, Bath, England, 1984, pp.A2. Dabir, D.: Mean Velocity Measurements in a 3-inch Hydrocyclone using Laser Doppler Anemometry, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Chemical Engineering, Michigan State University, 1983. Dabir, B. and Petty, C.A.: Measurements of Mean Velocity Profiles in a Hydrocyclone using Laser Doppler Anemometry, Chem. Eng. Commun., 1986, pp.377-388.

203

Dahlstrom, D.A.: Fundamentals and Applications of the Liquid Cyclone, Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series no. 15, Mineral Engineering Techniques 50, 1951, pp. 41-56. Dai, G.Q., Li, J.M., and Chen, W.M.: Numerical Prediction of the Liquid Flow within a Hydrocyclone, Chemical Engineering Journal 74 (3), 1999, pp. 217-223. Delgadillo, J.A. and Rajamani, R.K.: A Comparative Study of Three TurbulenceClosure Models for the Hydrocyclone Problem, International Journal of Mineral Processing 77, 2005, (4), pp. 217230. Delgadillo J.A.: Modeling of 75 mm and 250 mm Hydrocyclones and Exploration of Novel Designs using Computational Fluid Dynamics. Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Utah, U.S.A, 2006. De Souza J. and Silveira-Neto A.: Preliminary Results of Large Eddy Simulations of a Hydrocyclone, Thermal Engineering 3, 2004, (2), pp. 168173. Devulapalli, B., and Rajamani, R.K.: Application of LDV to the Modeling of Particle Size Classification in Industrial Hydrocyclones, Laser Anemometry: Advances and Applications, ASME FED-Vol.191, June 1994, pp.44-62. Devulapalli, B.: Hydrodynamic Modelling of SolidLiquid Flows in Large Scale Hydrocyclones, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Utah, 1997. Dhamo, N.: An Electrochemical Hydrocyclone Cell for the Treatment of Dilute Solutions-Approximate Plug-Flow Model for Electro Deposition Kkinetics, Journal of Applied Electrochemistry 24, 1994, pp. 745-750. Dickey, L.C., Daliner, M.F., Radewonuk, E.R., Parris, N., Kurantz, M. and Craig, J.C.: Hydrocyclone Separation of Dry-Milled Corn, Cereal Chemistry 74, 1997, pp. 676-680.

204

Doby, M., Kraipech, W. and Nowakowski, A.F.: Numerical Prediction of Outlet Velocity Patterns in SolidLiquid Separators, Chemical Engineering Journal 111, 2005, pp. 173180. Dwari, R.K., Biswas, M.N. and Meikap, B.C.: Performance Characteristics for Particles of Sand FCC and Fly Ash in a Novel Hydrocyclone, Chemical Engineering Science 59, 2004, pp. 671 684. Dyakowski, T. and Williams, R.A.: Prediction of Air-Core Size and Shape in a Hydrocyclone, International Journal of Mineral Processing, April 1995, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 1-14. Dyakowski, T., and Williams, R.A.: Prediction of High Solids Concentration Regions within a Hydrocyclone, Powder Technology, vol. 83, no. 1, April 1996, pp. 43-47. Erdal, F.: Local Velocity Measurements and CFD Simulations, Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of Tulsa, U.S.A., 2001. Eren, H. 301-306. Eren, H., Fung, C.C., Wong, K.W. and Gupta, A.: Artificial Neural Networks In and Gupta, A.: Instrumentation and Online Control of Hydrocyclones,

International Conference on Control, Oxford, UK, CONTROL 88, 13-15 April 1988, pp.

Estimation of Hydrocyclone Parameter d50c with Unusual Input Variables, IEEE Trans. Instrumentation and Measurement, Aug. 1997, vol. 46, Issue 4, pp. 908 912. Fahlstorm, P.H.: Studies of the Hydrocyclone as Classifier, Mineral Processing, Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress, Cannes, 1963. Fanglu, G. and Wenzhen, L.: Measurements and Study of Velocity Field in Various Cyclones by Use of Laser Doppler Anemometry, 3rd International Conference on Hydrocyclones, Wood, P. (ed), Elsevier, Oxford, England, 1987, pp. 65-74.

205

Fisher, M.J.: Laser Velocimetry Measurements in a Cyclone Separator, MS Thesis, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Virginia, 1998. Fisher, M.J.and Flack, R.D.: Velocity Distributions in a Hydrocyclone Separator, Experiments in Fluids 32 (3), 2002, pp. 302-312. Flintoff, B.C., Plitt, L.R. and Turak, A.A.: Cyclone Modelling a Review of Present Technologies, CIM Bulletin 80, 1987, pp. 39-50. Fontein F.J. and Dijksman C.: In: Inst. Mining and Metallurgy Symposium on Recent Developments in Mineral Dressing, 1952, pp. 229. Fraser, S. and Abdullah, M.: LDA Measurement on a Modified Cyclone, ASME Laser Anemometry, FED-Vol. 229, 1995, pp. 395-403. Gu, F. and Li, W.: Measurement and Study of Velocity Field in Various Ccyclones by use of Laser Doppler Anemometry, 3rd International Conference on Hydrocyclones, Oxford, England, 1987, pp.C2. Gutierrez, J.A., Dyakowski, T., Beck, M.S., and Williams, R.A.: Using Electrical Impedance Tomography for Controlling Hydrocyclone Underflow Discharge, 2000. Hall, N.: Thermodynamics of Fluid Flow, Longmans, Green, New York, 1957. Hargreaves, J.: Computing and Measuring the Flow field in a Deoiling Hydrocyclone, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southampton, England, 1990. He, P., Salcudean, M., Branion, R. and Gartshore, I.S.: Mathematical Modeling of Hydrocyclones, ASME Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting, FEDSM97-3315, 1997.

206

He, P., Salcudean, M. and Gartshore, I.S.: A Numerical Simulation of Hydrocyclones, Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers 77A, 1999, pp. 429441. Hsieh, K. T.: Phenomenological Model of the Hydrocyclone, Ph.D. Dissertation, Comminution Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1988. Hsieh, K. and Rajamani, R.: Mathematical Model of the Hydrocyclone Based on Physics of Fluid Flow, AIChE Journal, vol. 37, no. 5, 1991, pp. 735-746. Hubred, G., Mason, A., Parks, S. and Petty, C.: Dispersed Phase Separations: Can CFD Help? Proceeding of ETCE/OMAE Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2000. Jirun, X., Qian, L. and Qui, J.: Studying the Flow Field in a Hydrocyclone With no Forced Vortex I, II, Filtration and Separation, July/August 1990, pp. 276-278, September/October 1990, pp. 356-359. Johnson, R., Gibson, W.E., and Libby, D.R.: Performance of Liquid-Liquid Cyclones, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam, vol. 15, no. 2, 1976. Kang, J.: On the Analysis of the Flow and Particle Motion in a Hydrocyclone, Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE 13407, 1984. Kang H. and Choi S.: Reynolds Stress Modelling of Rectangular Open-Channel Flow, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2006, 51, pp. 13191334. Karr, C.L. and Weck, B.: Fuzzy Modeling of Fine Particle Separating Equipment, Conference of the North AmericanFuzzy Information Processing Society - NAFIPS, 2021, Pensacola Beach, Florida, USA, Aug. 1998, pp. 10-14. Kelsall, D.: A Study of the Motion of Solid Particles in a Hydraulic Cyclone, Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs., vol. 30, 1952, pp. 87-108.

207

Ketcham, V., Upadrahsta, K. and Miller, J.D.: Study of Fluid Flow Pattern and Particle Trajectories in the Hydrocyclone using a High-Speed Motion Analyzer Video System, 1st and 2nd Quaterly Progress Reports to the U.S. Bureau of Mines Generic Mineral Technology Center in Comminution on Grant Gl 125149, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1984. Klima, M.N., Kim, B.H.: Multi-Stage Wide-Angle Hydrocyclone Circuits for Removing High Density Particles from a Low Density Soil Matrix, Journal of Environmental Science and Health 32, 1997, pp. 715-733. Knowles, S.R., Woods, D.R. and Feuerstein, I.A.: The velocity distribution within a hydrocyclone operating without an air core, Can. J. Chem. Eng., 1973, pp. 262-271. Ko, J., Zahrai, S., Macchion, O. and Vomhoff, H.: Numerical Modeling of Highly

Swirling Flows in a Through-Flow Cylindrical Hydrocyclone, Fluid Mechanics and Transport Phenomena, AIChE Journal, October 2006, vol. 52, no. 10, pp. 3334-3344. Kraipech, W., Chen, W. and Parma, F.: Prediction of Hydrocyclone Performances How Much Can the Models Do? American Filtration & Separation Society Annual Conference, Myrtle Beach, SC, March 14-17, 2000. Kraipech, W., Chen, W., Parma, F.J. and Dyakowski, T.: Modelling the Fish-Hook Effect of the Flow within Hydrocyclones, International Journal of Mineral Processing, vol. 66, no. 1-4, September, 2002, pp. 49-65. Kraipech, W., Nowakowski, A., Dyakowski, T. and Suksangpanomrung, A.: Flow within a Hydrocyclone, Chemical Engineering Journal 111, 2005 pp. 189197. Kraipech, W., Chen, W., Dyakowski, T. and Nowakowski, A.: The Performance of the Empirical Models on Industrial Hydrocyclone Design, International Journal of Mineral Processing, vol. 80, Issues 2-4, September 2006, pp. 100-115. An

Investigation of the Effect of the ParticleFluid and ParticleParticle Interactions on the

208

Kure, K. A., Dahlqvist, G., Ekstrm, J., Helle, T.: Hydrocyclone Separation, Reject Refining, of Thick-Walled Mechanical Pulp Fibres, Nordic Pulp & Paper Research Journal 14 (2), 1999, pp. 104. Lagutkin, M.G., Baranov, D.A., Bulychev, S.Y. and Baranov, E.Y.: Calculation of the Separation Efficiency of a Cylindroconical Hydrocyclone Using a Deterministic Approach, Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, vol. 40, no. 56 2004. Lagutkin M.D. and Baranov D.A.: Estimation of the Coriolis-force effect in vessels with a convoluted flow, Teor. Osn. Khim. Tekhnol. 38, no. 1, 2004, pp. 1-6. Lilge E.O., Fregren T.E. and Purdy G.R.: Apparent Viscosities of Heavy Media and the Driessen Cone, Transactions Inst. Min. Metallurgy London 67: 1957, pp. 229-249. Luo, Q., Deng, C, Xu, J.R., Yu, L. and Xiong, G.: Comparison of the Performance of Water-Sealed and Commercial Hydrocyclones, Int. J. Min. Proc, 1989, pp.297-310. Luo, Q. and Xu, J.R.: The Effect of the Air Core on the Flow Field within Hydrocyclones, 4th International Conference on Hydrocyclones, Southampton, England, September 1992, pp.51-62. Lynch, A.J. and Rao, T.C.: Studies on the Operating Characteristics of Hydrocyclone Classifiers, Indian Journal of Technology 6, 1968, pp.106 114. Lynch, A.J. and Rao, T.C.: Modeling and scale-up of hydrocyclone classifiers, Carta, M., Editor, 1975. Proc. 11th Int. Miner. Process. Congr., Cagliari. Aziende Tipografiche Bardi, Rome, Italy, 1975, pp. 245269. Malhotra, A., Branion, R.M.R. and Hauptmann, E.G.: Modeling the Flow in a Hydrocyclone, The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 72, 1994, pp. 953960.

209

Mantilla, I.: Bubble Trajectory Analysis in Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separators, M.S. Thesis. The University of Tulsa, 1998. Matvienko, O.V.: Analysis of Turbulence Models and Investigation of the Structure of the Flow in a Hydrocyclone, Journal of Engineering Physics and Thermophysics, vol. 77, no. 2, March, 2004, pp. 316-323. Moder, J.J., and Dahlstrom, D.A.: Fine-size, Close-Specific Solid Separation with the LiquidSolid Cyclone, Chemical Engineering Progress 48, 1952, pp. 7588. Moir, D.N.: Selection and Use of Hydrocylones, The Chemical Engineer, January 1985, pp. 20-27. Monredon, T.C.: Hydrocyclone: Investigation of the fluid flow model, MS Thesis, Comminution Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1990. Monredon, T.C., Hsieh, K.T. and Rajamani R.K.: Fluid Flow Model of the Hydrocyclone: an Investigation of Device Dimensions, International Journal of Mineral Processing, June, vol. 35, no. 1-2, 1992, pp. 65-83. Morandi M. and Salasnich, L.: Turbulence and Bifurcation in the Motion of an Hydrocyclone, keynote lecture at the 'V World Congress on Computational Mechanics', July 1998, Buenos Aires (Argentina), in S. Idelsohn, E. Onate and E. Dvorkin (eds.), Computational Mechanics, paper 447 (CIMNE, Barcelona, 1998). Morsi, S. and Alexander, A.: "An Investigation of Particle Trajectories in Two-Phase Flow Systems, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 55, part 2, 1971, pp. 193-208. Mueller M. and Bohnet M.: Pressure Drop and Grade Efficiency of a Newly Developed Hydrocyclone for the Separation of Two Different Solids from a Liquid Flow, Third International Conference on Multiphase Flow, Lyon, France, 1998.

210

Narasimha, M., Sripriya, R. and Banerjee, P.K.: CFD Modelling of HydrocyclonePrediction of Cut-Size, International Journal of Mineral Processing 71, 2005, pp. 5368. Narasimha, M., Brennan, M. and Holtham, P.N.: Large Eddy Simulation of

Hydrocyclone-Prediction of Air-Core Diameter and Shape, International Journal of Mineral Processing, vol. 80, Issue 1, August 2006, pp. 1-14. Nageswararao, K.: A Generalized Model for Hydrocyclone Classifiers, AusIMM Proceedings 300, 1995, pp. 2129. Nageswararao, K.: Critical Analysis of the Fish Hook Effect in Hydrocyclone Classifiers, Chemical Engineering Journal, vol. 80, no. 1-3, Dec, 2000, pp. 251-256. Nowakowski, A.F., Kraipech, W., Williams, R.A. and Dyakowski, T.: The Hydrodynamics of a Hydrocyclone Based on a Three Dimensional Multi-Continuum Model, Chemical Engineering Journal 80, 2000, (13), pp. 275282. Nowakowski, A.F., Cullivan, J.C., Williams, R.A. and Dyakowski, T.: Application of CFD to Modelling of the Flow in Hydrocyclones, Is this a realizable option or still a research challenge? Minerals Engineering 17, 2004, pp. 661669. Ohashi H. and Maeda S.: Motion of Water in a Hydraulic Cyclone, Chemical Engineering. Japan 22: 1958, pp. 200. Osher, S. and Sethian, J.: Fronts Propagating with Curvature Dependent Speed: Algorithms Based on Hamilton-Jacobi Formulations, Journal of Computational Physics 79 (12), 1988, pp. 12-49. Patankar, N.A. and Joseph, D.D.: Modeling and Numerical Simulation of Particulate Flows by the Eulerian-Lagrangian Approach, International Journal of Multiphase Flow 27 (10), 2001, pp. 1659-1684.

211

Patil, D.D., and Rao, T.C.: Studies on the Fishhook Effect in Hydrocyclone Classification Curves, Minerals and Metallurgical Processing, November, 2001, pp. 190-194. Peng, W., Boot, P.J.A.J., Hoffmann, A.C., Dries, H.W.A., Kater, J. and Ekker, A.: Flow in the Inlet Region in Tangential Inlet Cyclones, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 40, 2001, pp. 56495655. Plitt, I.R.: A mathematical Model of the Hydrocyclone Classifier, CIM Bull., 1976, pp. 114123. Plitt, L.R.: An Improved Method of Calculating the Water-Split in Hydrocyclones, Minerals Engineering, vol. 3, no. 5, 1990, pp. 533-535. Povarov A. I.: Hydrocyclones at Concentrating Mills [in Russian], Nedra, Moscow , 1978. Kanungo, D. and Rao, T.C.: Study on the Performance of a 3-in Hydrocyclone Classifier, Can Min Metall Bull, vol. 66, no. 735, July 1973, pp. 78-80. Rajamani, K. and Devulapalli, B.: Hydrodynamic Modeling of Swirling Flow and Particles Classification in Large-Scale Hydrocyclones, KONA Powder and Particle, No. 12, 1994, pp. 95-104. Rajamani, K. and Hsieh, K.: Hydrocyclone Model: A Fluid Mechanic Approach, Society of Mineral Engineers Annual Meeting, Phoenix, Arizona, preprint, 1988, pp. 88163. Rietema, K.: Performance and Design of Engineering Science, vol. 15, 1961, pp. 298-320. Hydrocyclones - I,II,III,IV, Chemical vol. 18, no. 4,

212

Rushton A., Ward A.S. and Holdich R.G.: Solid-liquid Filtration and Separation Technology, 2nd ed., Wiley- VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 2000. Salcudean, M., Gartshore I. and Statie E.: Test Hydrocyclones Before they are Built, Chemical Engineering (www.che.com), April 2003, pp. 66-71. Schubert, H. and Neesse, T.: On the Hydrodynamics and the Scale-up of Flotation Processes, DDR, 1980a, pp. 636-649. Schubert, H. and Neesse, T.: A Hydrocyclone Separation Model in Consideration of the Turbulent Multi-Phase Flow, Proc. Int. Conf. on Hydrocyclones (Cambridge, 1980). Paper 3, pp.23-36, BHRA Fluid Engineering, Cranfield. Schubert, H.: On the Origin of Anomalous Shapes of the Separation Curve in Hydrocyclone Separation of Fine Particlesabove all on the so-called Ffish-HookEffect, Aufbereitungstechnik 44 (2), 2003, pp. 5-17. Seyda, B. and Petty, C.: Separation of a Light Dispersion in a Cylindrical Vortex Chamber, Technical Report No. HDC-R6. Hydrocyclone Development Consortium, Michigan State University, 1991. Shah, H., Majumder, A.K. and Barnwal, J.P.: Development of Water Split Model for a 76 mm Hydrocyclone, Minerals Engineering, vol. 19, Issue 1, January 2006, pp. 102104. Sheng, H.P.: Liquid-Liquid Separation in a Conventional Hydrocyclone, The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 52, August 1974. Shi, L., Bayless, D.J.; Kremer, G. and Stuart, B.: CFD Simulation of the Influence of Temperature and Pressure on the Flow Pattern in Cyclones. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, Vol. 45, No. 22, Oct 25, 2006, pp. 7667-7672.

213

Siato N and Ito K.: On the Velocity Distribution in a Simple Vortex, Geophysics Magazine 22: 1951, pp. 283. Sparks, R.G., and Dobbs, C.: The Use of Laser Backscatter Instrumentation for the online Measurement of the Particle Size Distribution of Emulsions, Particle and Particle Systems Characterization, vol. 10, Issue 5, 1993, pp. 279-289. Slack, M., Cokljat, D. and Vasquez, S.A.: Reynolds-Stress Model for Eulerian Multiphase, Proc 4th Int. Symposium on Turbulence Heat and Mass Transfer, Begell House Inc., 2003, pp. 10471054. Smagorinsky, J.: General circulation Experiments with the Primitive Equations, I. The Basic Experiment, Monthly Weather Review 91, 1963, pp. 99164. Smyth, I. and Thew, M.: A Study of the Effect of Dissolved Gas on the Operation of Liquid-Liquid Hydrocyclones, Hydrocyclones 96, Claxton, D., Svarovsky, L. and Thew, M. (eds), M.E.P., London, England, 1996, pp 357-368. Su Y. and Mao Y.: Experimental Study on the Gas-Solid Suspension Fflow in a Square Cyclone Separator, Chemical Engineering Journal, vol. 121, Issue 1, 1 August 2006, pp. 51-58. Svarovsky, L.: Hydrocyclones Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1984. Svarovsky, L.: A Short Course in Cyclones, Manual to Course at the Dow Chemical Co., Freeport, Texas, USA, January 10-11, 1994. Svarovsky, L.: Hydrocyclones Technomics, Lancaster, 1994. Svarovsky, L.: A Critical Review of Hydrocyclones Models, Hydrocyclones 96, Claxton, D., Svarovsky, L. and Thew, M. (eds), M.E.P., London, England, 1996, pp 1730.

214

Syed, K.A.: The Use of Small Hydrocyclones for Produced Water Clarification. Michigan State University, 1994. Tarjan, G.: Some Theoretical Questions on Classifying and Separating in Hydrocyclones, Acta Technica Hungaria 32, 1961, pp.357 388. Ternovskii I.G. and Kutepov A.M.: Hydrocycloning [in Russian], Nauka, Moscow 1994. Thew, M., Wright, C. and Colman, D.: R.T.D. Characteristics of Hydrocyclones for the Separation of Light Dispersions, 2nd International Conference on Hydrocyclones, BHRA, Bath, England, paper E1, 1984, pp. 163-176. Thew, M.: Hydrocyclone Redesign for Liquid-Liquid Separation, The Chemical Engineer, July/August, 1986, pp. 17-21. Weispfennig, K. and Petty, C.: Flow Visualization in a Confined Vortex Flow, Technical Report No. HDC-R5. Hydrocyclone Development Consortium, Michigan State University, 1991. Wolbert, D., Ma, B. and Aurelle, Y.: Efficiency Estimation of Liquid-Liquid Hydrocyclones Using Trajectories Analysis, AIChE Journal, vol. 41, no. 6, 1995, pp 1395-1402. Wong, K., Fung, C., Eren, H. and Gedeon, T.: Fuzzy Rule Interpolation for Multidimensional Input Spaces in Determining d50c of Hydrocyclones, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, v 52, n 6, December, 2003, Reliable Digital Instrumentation, pp. 1865-1869. Yablonskii, V.O.: Analysis of Degree of Extraction of Solid-Phase Particles during Separation of Non-Newtonian Suspensions in a Cylindrical Direct-Flow Hydrocyclone

215

with Forced Flotation, Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, vol. 39, nos. 1112, 2003, pp. 697-703. Yablonskii, V.O. and Ryabchuk, G.V.: Modeling of Settling of Solid-Phase Particles in a Cylindroconical Hydrocyclone in Separation of Suspensions with a non-Newtonian Dispersion Medium, Theoretical Foundations of Chemical Engineering, vol. 40, no. 4, July, 2006, p 357-363. Yoshiota, N. and Hotta, Y.: Liquid cyclone as a hydraulic classifier, Chem. Eng. Jpn. 19 12, 1955, pp. 632640.

216

APPENDIX A
EXPERIMENTAL DATA AND MODELING RESULTS

Detailed experimental data and model prediction results are presented in this section. Datasets shown in boldface blue font identify those having MB inconsistency. Table A.1 Experimental Data and Model Prediction Results for All Datasets
Feed Conditions
Split Ratio (%) Inlet Pressure (psig) Feed d32 (m) Solids Conc. (mg/L) Solids Mass Flowrate (kg/hr) Flow Rate 3 (m /hr) Dataset #

SLHC Specs
Inlet Slot Area 2 (mm ) Vortex Finder Diam. (mm) Spigot Diam. (mm)

Efficiency Data
Grade-Global Effic. Differ. Global Effic. Avg. Grade Effiiency

Model Predictions
Global Effic. Discrep. Grade Effic. Discrep. Model Effic.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

1.19 1.19 1.21 1.21 1.20 1.20 1.26 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.24 1.24 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.29 1.29 1.29

0.253 0.392 0.153 0.187 0.252 0.247 0.404 0.303 0.258 0.255 0.238 0.315 0.236 0.180 0.180 0.180 0.449 0.449 0.449 0.449 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.247 0.453 0.453

213 330 127 155 210 207 322 242 207 204 190 254 189 144 144 144 349 349 349 349 166 166 166 166 166 166 191 351 351

89% 89% 89% 88% 89% 90% 88% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 88% 86% 86% 87% 87% 87% 87% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88%

105 105 106 107 106 105 119 116 117 117 117 114 116 116 116 116 124 124 124 124 125 125 125 125 125 125 126 126 126

26.1 30.3 30.9 14.5 16.7 17.2 23.9 20.8 20.3 18.3 20.4 17.3 24.1 21.9 14.2 13.1 19.6 25.7 25.9 22.1 22.5 18.2 26.9 20.7 23.1 21.7 22.8 22.4 17.8

20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6

5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5

3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2

83.2% 82.6% 84.0% 81.9% 83.2% 82.7% 84.6% 84.3% 84.9% 85.1% 84.1% 83.3% 84.9% 80.5% 80.9% 80.9% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% 85.4% 85.4% 85.4% 85.4% 85.4% 85.4% 86.0% 88.1% 88.1%

81.1% 64.5% 52.7% 44.0% 51.8% 81.5% 71.8% 69.6% 76.0% 78.1% 70.1% 79.3% 70.3% 71.8% 80.4% 79.4% 88.5% 87.8% 84.2% 74.6% 80.3% 82.1% 79.2% 80.9% 80.9% 79.6% 78.0% 82.2% 86.2%

2.1% 18.1% 31.4% 37.9% 31.3% 1.2% 12.7% 14.7% 8.9% 6.9% 14.1% 4.0% 14.6% 8.7% 0.5% 1.5% 1.4% 2.2% 5.7% 11.6% 5.1% 3.3% 6.2% 4.5% 4.5% 5.8% 7.9% 5.9% 1.9%

82.6% 82.5% 82.2% 82.0% 82.3% 83.4% 81.9% 82.0% 82.7% 82.7% 82.3% 82.2% 82.2% 81.6% 80.2% 80.2% 81.0% 81.0% 81.0% 81.0% 81.3% 81.3% 81.3% 81.3% 81.3% 81.3% 81.5% 81.5% 81.5%

-0.7% -0.1% -2.2% 0.1% -1.1% 0.8% -3.2% -2.8% -2.6% -2.8% -2.1% -1.4% -3.1% 1.4% -0.9% -0.9% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -4.8% -4.7% -4.8% -4.8% -4.8% -4.8% -5.2% -7.5% -7.4%

1.8% 28.0% 56.0% 86.3% 58.7% 2.3% 14.0% 17.7% 8.8% 5.9% 17.5% 3.7% 17.0% 13.6% -0.3% 0.9% -8.5% -7.8% -3.8% 8.5% 1.2% -0.9% 2.6% 0.5% 0.6% 2.2% 4.5% -0.9% -5.4%

217

Table A.1 Experimental Data and Model Prediction Results for All Datasets (Contd)
Feed Conditions
Split Ratio (%) Inlet Pressure (psig) Feed d32 (m) Solids Conc. (mg/L) Solids Mass Flowrate (kg/hr) Flow Rate 3 (m /hr) Dataset #

SLHC Specs
Inlet Slot Area 2 (mm ) Vortex Finder Diam. (mm) Spigot Diam. (mm)

Efficiency Data
Grade-Global Effic. Differ. Global Effic. Avg. Grade Effiiency

Model Predictions
Global Effic. Discrep. Grade Effic. Discrep. Model Effic.

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

1.29 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21

0.453 0.306 0.306 0.306 0.445 0.445 0.445 0.472 0.472 0.472 0.253 0.253 0.253 0.164 0.164 0.164 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.217 0.217 0.217 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.112 0.112 0.112 0.110 0.110 0.110 0.199 0.199 0.199 0.242 0.242 0.242 0.182 0.182 0.182 0.226 0.226

351 238 238 238 346 346 346 368 368 368 197 197 197 134 134 134 91 91 91 178 178 178 104 104 104 89 89 89 86 86 86 157 157 157 200 200 200 150 150 150 187 187

88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 93% 93% 93% 92% 92% 92% 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 96% 96% 96% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 90% 90%

126 124 124 124 125 125 125 126 126 126 126 126 126 116 116 116 115 115 115 116 116 116 115 115 115 125 125 125 124 124 124 126 126 126 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110

24.9 25.4 25.2 25.1 23.7 25.5 22.6 20.7 24.5 21.8 20.6 26.9 23.0 16.8 19.2 20.4 24.2 30.4 27.7 17.8 25.8 21.7 27.8 30.4 32.4 14.9 30.7 22.8 14.9 10.3 15.6 16.6 16.5 27.2 25.0 28.7 26.9 25.4 27.0 27.9 25.5 28.3

20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6

5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5

3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2

88.1% 85.8% 85.8% 85.8% 86.4% 86.4% 86.4% 89.2% 89.2% 89.2% 86.4% 86.4% 86.4% 79.2% 79.2% 79.2% 72.5% 72.5% 72.5% 84.1% 84.1% 84.1% 84.9% 84.9% 84.9% 44.9% 44.9% 44.9% 59.5% 59.5% 59.5% 69.0% 69.0% 69.0% 79.2% 79.2% 79.2% 78.8% 78.8% 78.8% 79.0% 79.0%

85.1% 76.3% 78.5% 77.6% 80.9% 78.8% 79.0% 85.4% 85.4% 86.4% 86.5% 76.3% 83.3% 75.8% 75.5% 73.5% 56.8% 60.9% 56.9% 70.6% 73.5% 77.7% 73.8% 75.2% 76.5% 29.2% 19.6% 22.3% 44.1% 41.4% 42.4% 61.5% 61.4% 52.6% 77.3% 71.9% 73.3% 74.2% 71.8% 72.2% 74.1% 73.9%

3.0% 9.5% 7.3% 8.2% 5.5% 7.6% 7.4% 3.9% 3.9% 2.9% 0.1% 10.0% 3.1% 3.4% 3.7% 5.7% 15.7% 11.6% 15.6% 13.5% 10.7% 6.4% 11.1% 9.7% 8.4% 15.7% 25.3% 22.6% 15.4% 18.1% 17.1% 7.5% 7.6% 16.4% 1.9% 7.3% 6.0% 4.6% 7.0% 6.6% 4.9% 5.0%

81.5% 81.0% 81.0% 81.0% 81.6% 81.6% 81.6% 86.3% 86.3% 86.3% 85.8% 85.8% 85.8% 89.2% 89.2% 89.2% 88.5% 88.4% 88.5% 85.9% 85.8% 85.9% 84.6% 84.6% 84.6% 87.1% 87.0% 87.1% 86.5% 86.5% 86.5% 88.8% 88.8% 88.8% 82.8% 82.8% 82.8% 82.8% 82.8% 82.8% 83.6% 83.6%

-7.5% -5.6% -5.6% -5.6% -5.5% -5.5% -5.5% -3.3% -3.3% -3.3% -0.6% -0.6% -0.6% 12.7% 12.7% 12.7% 22.1% 22.1% 22.1% 2.1% 2.0% 2.1% -0.3% -0.4% -0.4% 94.0% 93.9% 94.0% 45.4% 45.4% 45.4% 28.7% 28.7% 28.7% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.9% 5.8%

-4.2% 6.2% 3.2% 4.5% 0.9% 3.6% 3.4% 1.1% 1.0% -0.1% -0.8% 12.4% 3.1% 17.7% 18.2% 21.4% 55.8% 45.3% 55.5% 21.7% 16.8% 10.5% 14.6% 12.5% 10.6% 198.1% 344.4% 290.5% 96.4% 109.0% 104.0% 44.5% 44.7% 68.9% 7.1% 15.1% 13.0% 11.6% 15.4% 14.7% 12.8% 13.0%

218

Table A.1 Experimental Data and Model Prediction Results for All Datasets (Contd)
Feed Conditions
Split Ratio (%) Inlet Pressure (psig) Feed d32 (m) Solids Conc. (mg/L) Solids Mass Flowrate (kg/hr) Flow Rate 3 (m /hr) Dataset #

SLHC Specs
Inlet Slot Area 2 (mm ) Vortex Finder Diam. (mm) Spigot Diam. (mm)

Efficiency Data
Grade-Global Effic. Differ. Global Effic. Avg. Grade Effiiency

Model Predictions
Global Effic. Discrep. Grade Effic. Discrep. Model Effic.

72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113

1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.24 1.24

0.226 0.160 0.160 0.160 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.238 0.238 0.238 0.151 0.151 0.151 0.208 0.208 0.208 0.342 0.342 0.342 0.137 0.137 0.137 0.137 0.213 0.213 0.213 0.213 0.282 0.282 0.282 0.282 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.153 0.153 0.153 0.275 0.275 0.275 0.167 0.167

187 132 132 132 93 93 93 197 197 197 117 117 117 163 163 163 267 267 267 107 107 107 107 166 166 166 166 221 221 221 221 50 50 50 122 122 122 220 220 220 134 134

90% 92% 92% 92% 91% 91% 91% 92% 92% 92% 88% 88% 88% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 94% 94% 94% 94% 93% 93% 93% 93% 94% 94% 94% 94% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 91% 91% 91% 90% 90%

110 111 111 111 111 111 111 110 110 110 126 126 126 124 124 124 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106

25.1 28.5 27.6 23.8 20.3 28.1 26.6 25.3 25.0 26.8 29.1 30.3 33.4 24.4 20.8 20.8 24.9 25.5 25.0 18.9 21.9 16.0 20.2 17.1 14.4 22.7 22.3 23.5 17.7 23.9 20.0 30.9 30.3 30.8 22.7 30.7 29.6 24.2 15.2 15.7 17.8 20.5

20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6

5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5

3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2

79.0% 84.9% 84.9% 84.9% 82.8% 82.8% 82.8% 84.3% 84.3% 84.3% 67.2% 67.2% 67.2% 57.8% 57.8% 57.8% 51.7% 51.7% 51.7% 81.6% 81.6% 81.6% 81.6% 84.4% 84.4% 84.4% 84.4% 82.1% 82.1% 82.1% 82.1% 77.0% 77.0% 77.0% 79.7% 79.7% 79.7% 84.5% 84.5% 84.5% 80.3% 80.3%

74.3% 77.1% 77.4% 80.1% 72.2% 71.7% 74.6% 78.9% 77.3% 75.6% 48.6% 51.0% 47.2% 39.9% 39.2% 37.6% 34.5% 35.6% 35.6% 77.2% 76.7% 67.3% 70.6% 82.0% 82.5% 70.5% 61.4% 76.6% 80.2% 59.7% 67.5% 67.4% 67.2% 60.4% 69.6% 69.7% 70.6% 78.0% 79.5% 79.1% 70.3% 70.2%

4.7% 7.8% 7.4% 4.8% 10.6% 11.1% 8.2% 5.4% 7.1% 8.8% 18.6% 16.2% 20.1% 17.9% 18.6% 20.2% 17.2% 16.1% 16.1% 4.4% 4.9% 14.3% 11.1% 2.5% 1.9% 13.9% 23.1% 5.5% 1.8% 22.3% 14.6% 9.6% 9.8% 16.6% 10.1% 10.0% 9.1% 6.5% 5.1% 5.5% 10.0% 10.1%

83.6% 85.4% 85.4% 85.4% 84.6% 84.5% 84.5% 85.4% 85.4% 85.4% 81.5% 81.5% 81.5% 82.2% 82.2% 82.2% 82.2% 82.2% 82.2% 86.8% 86.8% 86.8% 86.8% 86.4% 86.4% 86.4% 86.4% 86.8% 86.8% 86.8% 86.8% 83.0% 83.0% 83.0% 83.4% 83.4% 83.4% 83.8% 83.8% 83.8% 83.4% 83.4%

5.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 21.3% 21.3% 21.3% 42.3% 42.3% 42.3% 59.0% 59.0% 59.0% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% -0.9% -0.9% -0.9% 3.8% 3.8%

12.5% 10.9% 10.3% 6.7% 17.2% 18.0% 13.3% 8.2% 10.5% 13.0% 67.8% 59.8% 72.9% 106.1% 110.0% 118.6% 138.3% 131.0% 131.0% 12.4% 13.2% 29.0% 23.1% 5.4% 4.7% 22.4% 40.7% 13.4% 8.2% 45.3% 28.6% 23.0% 23.5% 37.3% 19.8% 19.6% 18.1% 7.3% 5.4% 5.9% 18.6% 18.8%

219

Table A.1 Experimental Data and Model Prediction Results for All Datasets (Contd)
Feed Conditions
Split Ratio (%) Inlet Pressure (psig) Feed d32 (m) Solids Conc. (mg/L) Solids Mass Flowrate (kg/hr) Flow Rate 3 (m /hr) Dataset #

SLHC Specs
Inlet Slot Area 2 (mm ) Vortex Finder Diam. (mm) Spigot Diam. (mm)

Efficiency Data
Grade-Global Effic. Differ. Global Effic. Avg. Grade Effiiency

Model Predictions
Global Effic. Discrep. Model Effic. Grade Effic. Discrep.

114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155

1.24 1.30 1.29 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.35 1.34 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.27 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17

0.167 0.139 0.176 0.218 0.059 0.116 0.245 0.176 0.164 0.236 0.187 0.153 0.016 0.024 0.050 0.031 0.020 0.050 0.035 0.028 0.034 0.048 0.043 0.047 0.023 0.063 0.082 0.051 0.056 0.021 0.018 0.015 0.019 0.010 0.019 0.022 0.009 0.031 0.032 0.026 0.010 0.037

134 107 137 163 44 87 182 131 130 187 148 121 63 87 183 103 67 164 122 98 119 171 153 179 88 242 302 188 207 77 67 52 69 36 69 136 54 196 203 167 64 218

90% 91% 91% 89% 89% 90% 84% 85% 88% 87% 87% 90% 74% 74% 73% 85% 86% 85% 86% 84% 86% 87% 87% 85% 86% 87% 84% 84% 84% 85% 85% 84% 84% 90% 88% 89% 89% 91% 89% 88% 88% 87%

106 115 113 125 124 125 105 106 126 126 126 126 124 125 125 125 124 125 125 126 126 126 126 116 115 116 116 116 116 117 116 126 126 116 116 117 116 116 104 104 104 125

19.2 20.0 20.7 17.2 19.6 20.4 17.7 20.3 18.8 29.2 19.3 15.7 29.8 25.5 28.9 21.5 21.7 21.3 22.7 29.4 28.6 23.2 30.0 28.2 23.6 25.8 19.5 17.4 25.0 20.8 21.6 16.9 25.5 17.1 17.3 11.8 18.3 24.9 17.2 24.1 14.1 23.8

20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2

5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

80.3% 84.5% 85.7% 80.2% 68.4% 79.7% 83.6% 80.8% 80.0% 80.7% 80.1% 76.5% 75.8% 76.0% 76.5% 83.7% 82.5% 83.4% 82.8% 83.4% 88.5% 89.3% 89.9% 91.5% 84.8% 92.2% 89.0% 92.3% 92.4% 75.5% 75.3% 72.4% 79.4% 62.2% 79.5% 83.0% 62.3% 84.1% 77.5% 84.8% 75.0% 81.0%

71.7% 74.2% 74.8% 66.5% 47.9% 67.9% 71.2% 66.5% 65.8% 62.0% 72.0% 75.0% 60.8% 56.1% 65.5% 72.3% 68.0% 70.3% 71.4% 64.8% 81.4% 79.2% 75.8% 79.6% 70.4% 85.0% 80.1% 83.1% 86.6% 53.8% 51.1% 43.9% 69.0% 31.6% 68.7% 68.4% 30.4% 75.6% 50.5% 63.0% 52.3% 45.7%

8.7% 10.3% 10.9% 13.6% 20.5% 11.8% 12.5% 14.3% 14.2% 18.6% 8.1% 1.4% 15.0% 19.9% 10.9% 11.4% 14.5% 13.1% 11.4% 18.6% 7.1% 10.2% 14.2% 11.8% 14.4% 7.1% 8.9% 9.1% 5.7% 21.6% 24.2% 28.5% 10.4% 30.7% 10.8% 14.6% 31.9% 8.5% 27.0% 21.8% 22.7% 35.3%

83.4% 83.4% 83.6% 82.6% 82.6% 83.0% 78.5% 78.7% 81.5% 80.7% 80.7% 83.5% 76.3% 75.8% 75.5% 77.5% 78.0% 77.4% 78.2% 76.7% 78.1% 78.7% 78.6% 77.7% 78.5% 79.4% 77.2% 76.7% 77.1% 77.4% 77.5% 77.4% 77.1% 81.3% 80.3% 84.1% 84.2% 85.2% 84.2% 83.7% 83.2% 82.5%

3.8% -1.3% -2.4% 3.0% 20.8% 4.1% -6.2% -2.6% 1.9% 0.1% 0.8% 9.2% 0.6% -0.2% -1.2% -7.4% -5.5% -7.2% -5.6% -8.1% -11.8% -11.9% -12.5% -15.0% -7.5% -13.8% -13.3% -16.8% -16.6% 2.5% 2.8% 6.9% -2.8% 30.6% 1.1% 1.3% 35.1% 1.3% 8.7% -1.3% 10.9% 1.9%

16.3% 12.5% 11.8% 24.1% 72.4% 22.2% 10.3% 18.3% 23.9% 30.1% 12.1% 11.2% 25.5% 35.1% 15.3% 7.2% 14.7% 10.1% 9.5% 18.3% -4.1% -0.6% 3.8% -2.4% 11.5% -6.6% -3.7% -7.7% -11.1% 43.7% 51.6% 76.1% 11.8% 157.5% 17.0% 22.9% 176.8% 12.7% 66.7% 32.8% 59.1% 80.7%

220

Table A.2 Experimental Conditions and Equipment Specifications for All Datasets
Feed Conditions
Mean Part. Diam (m) Mean Part. Diam (m) Mean Part. Diam (m) Oil Concent. (mg/L) Head Temp. (oF) Solids Conc. (mg/L) Solids Conc. (mg/L) Barrel Diam. (mm) Cone Length (mm) Feed d32 (m) O/F Pressure (psig) U/F Pressure (psig) Inlet Pressure (psig) O/F Flow Rate (m3/hr) U/F Flow Rate (m3/hr) Barrel Length (mm) Dist. Std. Dev. (m) Dist. Std. Dev. (m) Split Ratio (%) Dist. Std. Dev. (m)

O/F Conditions

U/F Conditions

SLHC Geometric Specs

Cone Angle (deg) Inlet Slot Area 2 (mm ) Vortex Finder Diam. (mm) Spigot Diam. (mm)

Dataset #

Flow Rate (m3/hr)

Solids Mass Flowrate (kg/hr)

1 89% 89% 89% 88% 89% 90% 88% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 88% 86% 86% 87% 87% 87% 87% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 53 124 104 53 126 136 53 126 136 17.8 24.9 25.4 53 126 136 22.4 53 126 136 22.8 13.4 17.0 13.0 15.0 17.8 49 125 116 21.7 14.4 49 125 116 23.1 14.6 19.1 18.7 18.0 21.1 16.2 19.7 23.0 49 125 116 20.7 15.2 18.9 49 125 116 26.9 16.2 21.8 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 49 125 116 18.2 13.7 17.0 1.14 49 125 116 22.5 15.9 20.1 1.14 28 28 28 28 28 28 31 48 48 48 39 49 124 126 22.1 18.7 22.0 1.12 40 49 124 126 25.9 11.3 17.2 1.12 40 25 25 26 26 26 26 26 26 25 25 25 25 24 49 124 126 25.7 12.9 18.9 1.12 40 25 49 124 126 19.6 11.4 15.6 1.12 40 25 101 116 111 13.1 10.2 12.5 1.08 32 15 11.2 5.7 5.7 5.5 6.9 9.8 10.4 10.0 12.4 8.2 7.8 5.2 8.6 8.4 8.2 6.9 101 116 111 14.2 10.9 13.4 1.08 32 15 14.3 101 116 111 21.9 14.7 19.0 1.10 32 15 9.2 1.7 2.6 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.8 21.0 21.8 19.8 1.5 1.4 0.9 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 55 116 135 24.1 16.4 20.9 1.10 32 16 8.6 1.5 55 114 136 17.3 13.2 16.3 1.10 48 16 10.1 1.8 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 62 117 141 20.4 13.7 17.8 1.11 34 16 5.8 1.0 0.14 62 117 141 18.3 12.9 16.3 1.12 34 17 6.2 1.1 0.14 1578 1627 2083 1491 1656 1656 1656 1866 1866 1866 1866 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1182 2421 2421 2421 1910 62 117 141 20.3 13.3 17.3 1.12 35 17 6.3 1.1 0.14 1635 62 116 114 20.8 16.5 20.0 1.11 43 16 9.1 1.6 0.14 2123 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 414 119 130 23.9 16.2 20.4 1.11 56 16 8.0 1.4 0.14 2924 1 44 105 133 17.2 11.0 14.4 1.08 40 5 18.2 44.3 0.11 1936 1 16.8 16.5 18.0 15.8 15.0 16.5 11.9 15.8 13.9 16.2 13.8 21.5 21.5 21.5 22.2 20.0 20.0 20.0 18.7 18.7 18.7 25.5 20.2 20.2 20.2 24.2 79 106 138 16.7 14.7 17.1 1.07 40 5 7.7 1.4 0.11 1563 1 20.3 88 107 135 14.5 15.0 16.8 1.07 32 5 3.2 0.6 0.11 969 1 25.8 28.1 23.3 19.2 19.2 21.1 18.7 18.0 19.2 13.4 18.4 16.6 19.3 16.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 26.1 24.2 24.2 24.2 22.3 22.3 22.3 29.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 26.6 88 106 134 30.9 35.6 38.7 1.07 23 5 13.9 2.5 0.11 826 1 19.7 23.6 40 105 139 30.3 24.4 30.6 1.06 64 5 7.6 1.4 0.11 2649 1 18.4 21.6 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 40 105 139 26.1 12.7 18.6 1.06 40 5 7.2 1.3 0.11 1363 1 19.3 22.2 22

1.19

0.253

Solids Conc. (mg/L)

213

15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135

7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0

20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6

5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5

3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2

1.19

0.392

330

1.21

0.153

127

1.21

0.187

155

1.20

0.252

210

1.20

0.247

207

1.26

0.404

322

1.25

0.303

242

1.25

0.258

207

10

1.25

0.255

204

11

1.25

0.238

190

221

12

1.24

0.315

254

13

1.24

0.236

189

14

1.25

0.180

144

15

1.25

0.180

144

16

1.25

0.180

144

17

1.29

0.449

349

18

1.29

0.449

349

19

1.29

0.449

349

20

1.29

0.449

349

21

1.30

0.216

166

22

1.30

0.216

166

23

1.30

0.216

166

24

1.30

0.216

166

25

1.30

0.216

166

26

1.30

0.216

166

27

1.29

0.247

191

28

1.29

0.453

351

29

1.29

0.453

351

30

1.29

0.453

351

31

1.29

0.306

238

Table A.2 Experimental Conditions and Equipment Specifications for All Datasets (Cont'd)
Feed Conditions
Mean Part. Diam (m) Mean Part. Diam (m) Mean Part. Diam (m) Oil Concent. (mg/L) Head Temp. o ( F) Solids Conc. (mg/L) Solids Conc. (mg/L) Barrel Diam. (mm) Cone Length (mm) Feed d32 (m) O/F Pressure (psig) U/F Pressure (psig) Inlet Pressure (psig) O/F Flow Rate 3 (m /hr) U/F Flow Rate 3 (m /hr) Barrel Length (mm) Dist. Std. Dev. (m) Split Ratio (%) Dist. Std. Dev. (m) Dist. Std. Dev. (m)

O/F Conditions

U/F Conditions

SLHC Geometric Specs

Cone Angle (deg) Inlet Slot Area 2 (mm ) Vortex Finder Diam. (mm) Spigot Diam. (mm)

Dataset #

Flow Rate 3 (m /hr)

Solids Mass Flowrate (kg/hr)

32 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 93% 93% 93% 92% 92% 92% 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 96% 96% 43 126 136 43 126 136 16.6 16.5 43 124 116 15.6 43 124 116 10.3 7.4 8.7 8.9 9.2 43 124 116 14.9 8.8 43 125 128 22.8 12.7 43 125 128 30.7 14.9 22.5 18.1 11.7 9.2 11.6 12.5 12.8 43 125 128 14.9 8.7 11.5 29 115 104 32.4 15.6 23.7 1.13 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.21 1.21 29 115 104 30.4 18.3 26.1 1.13 29 115 104 27.8 16.4 23.0 1.13 17 17 17 52 52 52 37 37 37 51 51 29 116 134 21.7 12.9 17.8 1.13 30 29 116 134 25.8 15.4 21.2 1.13 30 15 15 14 14 14 25 25 25 24 24 24 25 25 29 116 134 17.8 12.3 15.9 1.13 30 15 88 115 119 27.7 15.1 21.5 1.17 26 16 6.3 5.5 4.9 4.9 4.6 4.8 4.6 5.8 5.0 5.1 5.1 4.5 5.9 4.8 4.9 88 115 119 30.4 16.7 23.9 1.17 26 16 10.0 88 115 119 24.2 14.7 20.0 1.17 26 16 5.7 1.0 32.0 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.1 0.9 0.9 88 116 133 20.4 13.5 18.1 1.18 29 16 7.9 1.4 88 116 133 19.2 10.0 14.0 1.18 29 16 6.1 1.1 88 116 133 16.8 11.3 14.8 1.18 29 16 10.4 1.9 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 88 126 138 23.0 15.4 20.4 1.19 29 25 6.7 1.2 0.08 88 126 138 26.9 16.3 22.2 1.19 29 25 7.6 1.4 0.08 2939 2939 1621 1621 1621 1196 1196 1196 1921 1921 1921 1139 1139 1139 656 656 656 822 822 822 1897 1897 88 126 138 20.6 11.5 15.8 1.19 29 25 9.1 1.6 0.08 2939 88 126 137 21.8 13.5 18.0 1.20 42 25 8.2 1.5 0.08 5340 11 10 10 10 11 11 11 10 10 10 5 5 5 4 4 4 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 88 126 137 24.5 15.9 21.0 1.20 42 25 7.7 1.4 0.08 5340 11 88 126 137 20.7 14.2 18.1 1.20 42 25 8.1 1.5 0.08 5340 11 28.2 28.2 28.2 24.1 24.1 24.1 26.6 26.6 26.6 21.2 21.2 21.2 27.9 27.9 27.9 24.6 24.6 24.6 22.4 22.4 22.4 23.7 23.7 23.7 24.2 24.2 53 125 121 22.6 16.0 20.5 1.13 53 26 6.9 1.2 0.16 2512 1 19.1 53 125 121 25.5 17.8 22.8 1.13 53 26 8.0 1.4 0.16 2512 1 19.1 22.2 22.2 31.1 31.1 31.1 26.5 26.5 26.5 30.2 30.2 30.2 23.9 23.9 23.9 31.3 31.3 31.3 28.0 28.0 28.0 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.4 27.4 27.4 28.5 28.5 53 125 121 23.7 15.5 20.3 1.13 53 26 8.1 1.5 0.16 2512 1 19.1 22.2 53 124 104 25.1 18.2 23.1 1.13 39 24 7.6 1.4 0.16 1910 1 24.2 26.6 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 53 124 104 25.2 16.7 21.9 1.13 39 24 7.2 1.3 0.16 1910 1 24.2 26.6 22

1.29

0.306

Solids Conc. (mg/L)

238

15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135

7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0

20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6

5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5

3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2

33

1.29

0.306

238

34

1.29

0.445

346

35

1.29

0.445

346

36

1.29

0.445

346

37

1.28

0.472

368

38

1.28

0.472

368

39

1.28

0.472

368

40

1.28

0.253

197

41

1.28

0.253

197

42

1.28

0.253

197

222

43

1.23

0.164

134

44

1.23

0.164

134

45

1.23

0.164

134

46

1.22

0.111

91

47

1.22

0.111

91

48

1.22

0.111

91

49

1.22

0.217

178

50

1.22

0.217

178

51

1.22

0.217

178

52

1.23

0.128

104

53

1.23

0.128

104

54

1.23

0.128

104

55

1.26

0.112

89

56

1.26

0.112

89

57

1.26

0.112

89

58

1.27

0.110

86

59

1.27

0.110

86

60

1.27

0.110

86

61

1.26

0.199

157

62

1.26

0.199

157

Table A.2 Experimental Conditions and Equipment Specifications for All Datasets (Cont'd)
Feed Conditions
Mean Part. Diam (m) Mean Part. Diam (m) Mean Part. Diam (m) Oil Concent. (mg/L) Head Temp. o ( F) Solids Conc. (mg/L) Solids Conc. (mg/L) Barrel Diam. (mm) Cone Length (mm) Feed d32 (m) O/F Pressure (psig) U/F Pressure (psig) Inlet Pressure (psig) O/F Flow Rate 3 (m /hr) U/F Flow Rate 3 (m /hr) Barrel Length (mm) Dist. Std. Dev. (m) Split Ratio (%) Dist. Std. Dev. (m) Dist. Std. Dev. (m)

O/F Conditions

U/F Conditions

SLHC Geometric Specs

Cone Angle (deg) Inlet Slot Area 2 (mm ) Vortex Finder Diam. (mm) Spigot Diam. (mm)

Dataset #

Flow Rate 3 (m /hr)

Solids Mass Flowrate (kg/hr)

63 96% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 90% 90% 90% 92% 92% 92% 91% 91% 91% 92% 92% 92% 88% 88% 88% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 94% 94% 94% 73 126 147 73 126 147 21.9 16.0 73 126 147 18.9 34 126 142 25.0 6.6 11.9 12.6 12.7 34 126 142 25.5 7.1 34 126 142 24.9 7.0 34 124 142 20.8 11.7 16.3 12.5 12.8 11.9 15.2 16.6 15.3 34 124 142 20.8 11.3 16.0 34 124 142 24.4 12.6 18.3 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.20 1.20 1.20 34 126 142 33.4 17.0 25.6 1.13 34 126 142 30.3 12.9 20.4 1.13 44 44 77 77 77 146 146 146 21 21 21 34 126 142 29.1 15.5 22.8 1.13 44 41 110 146 26.8 16.8 22.3 1.12 33 11 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 41 110 146 25.0 16.9 22.1 1.12 33 11 41 110 146 25.3 15.9 21.2 1.12 33 11 41 111 147 26.6 19.9 25.5 1.11 18 11 11.7 11.2 10.5 9.0 4.9 4.3 4.4 5.4 5.2 5.7 6.6 3.1 3.5 8.1 8.5 7.6 41 111 147 28.1 20.3 26.0 1.11 18 11 8.2 1.5 2.1 29.6 27.1 1.6 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.2 0.6 0.6 1.5 12.7 1.4 41 111 147 20.3 17.2 21.0 1.11 18 11 8.4 1.5 41 111 147 23.8 15.1 20.0 1.12 22 11 8.4 1.5 41 111 147 27.6 17.5 23.1 1.12 22 11 8.5 1.5 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.06 0.06 41 111 147 28.5 18.0 23.8 1.12 22 11 7.8 1.4 0.08 66 110 145 25.1 17.6 22.8 1.09 44 10 9.6 1.7 0.12 1474 1582 1582 1582 1181 1181 1181 2377 2377 2377 720 720 720 862 862 862 1359 1359 1359 1397 1397 1397 66 110 145 28.3 19.7 25.7 1.09 44 10 10.1 1.8 0.12 1474 66 110 145 25.5 18.6 23.9 1.09 44 10 10.4 1.9 0.12 1474 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 66 110 145 27.9 18.3 24.3 1.09 36 10 10.3 1.9 0.12 1118 0 66 110 145 27.0 17.7 23.5 1.09 36 10 9.5 1.7 0.12 1118 0 27.0 27.0 26.6 26.6 26.6 24.7 24.7 24.7 27.5 27.5 27.5 26.6 26.6 26.6 15.8 15.8 15.8 19.2 19.2 19.2 7.7 7.7 7.7 23.2 23.2 20.4 66 110 145 25.4 17.4 22.8 1.09 36 10 11.6 2.1 0.12 1118 0 27.0 66 110 145 26.9 17.2 23.2 1.08 46 10 9.1 1.6 0.12 1562 0 25.6 29.3 30.2 30.2 30.2 29.9 29.9 29.9 28.3 28.3 28.3 30.7 30.7 30.7 29.2 29.2 29.2 20.6 20.6 20.6 23.8 23.8 23.8 11.5 11.5 11.5 26.6 26.6 23.8 66 110 145 28.7 19.9 26.2 1.08 46 10 9.0 1.6 0.12 1562 0 25.6 29.3 66 110 145 25.0 17.0 22.6 1.08 46 10 10.4 1.9 0.12 1562 0 25.6 29.3 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 43 126 136 27.2 11.5 17.8 1.21 51 25 5.4 1.0 0.07 1897 11 24.2 28.5 22

1.26

0.199

Solids Conc. (mg/L)

157

15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135

7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0

20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6

5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5

3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2

64

1.21

0.242

200

65

1.21

0.242

200

66

1.21

0.242

200

67

1.21

0.182

150

68

1.21

0.182

150

69

1.21

0.182

150

70

1.21

0.226

187

71

1.21

0.226

187

72

1.21

0.226

187

73

1.21

0.160

132

223

74

1.21

0.160

132

75

1.21

0.160

132

76

1.21

0.113

93

77

1.21

0.113

93

78

1.21

0.113

93

79

1.21

0.238

197

80

1.21

0.238

197

81

1.21

0.238

197

82

1.29

0.151

117

83

1.29

0.151

117

84

1.29

0.151

117

85

1.28

0.208

163

86

1.28

0.208

163

87

1.28

0.208

163

88

1.28

0.342

267

89

1.28

0.342

267

90

1.28

0.342

267

91

1.27

0.137

107

92

1.27

0.137

107

93

1.27

0.137

107

Table A.2 Experimental Conditions and Equipment Specifications for All Datasets (Cont'd)
Feed Conditions
Mean Part. Diam (m) Mean Part. Diam (m) Mean Part. Diam (m) Oil Concent. (mg/L) Head Temp. o ( F) Solids Conc. (mg/L) Solids Conc. (mg/L) Barrel Diam. (mm) Cone Length (mm) Feed d32 (m) O/F Pressure (psig) U/F Pressure (psig) Inlet Pressure (psig) O/F Flow Rate 3 (m /hr) U/F Flow Rate 3 (m /hr) Barrel Length (mm) Dist. Std. Dev. (m) Split Ratio (%) Dist. Std. Dev. (m) Dist. Std. Dev. (m)

O/F Conditions

U/F Conditions

SLHC Geometric Specs

Cone Angle (deg) Inlet Slot Area 2 (mm ) Vortex Finder Diam. (mm) Spigot Diam. (mm)

Dataset #

Flow Rate 3 (m /hr)

Solids Mass Flowrate (kg/hr)

94 94% 93% 93% 93% 93% 94% 94% 94% 94% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 91% 91% 91% 90% 90% 90% 91% 91% 89% 89% 90% 84% 85% 88% 87% 87% 58 126 125 58 126 125 29.2 19.3 58 126 125 18.8 40 106 100 20.3 15.5 14.3 19.4 14.8 40 105 99 17.7 13.6 46 125 144 20.4 12.3 46 124 144 19.6 13.9 17.7 16.3 16.6 19.3 17.8 25.5 18.5 46 125 144 17.2 13.4 16.1 40 113 138 20.7 14.0 18.1 1.17 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.13 1.13 1.11 1.10 1.09 40 115 109 20.0 14.3 18.1 1.18 23 106 141 19.2 13.7 17.2 1.12 29 18 22 36 16 20 35 30 30 42 34 23 106 141 20.5 14.5 18.4 1.12 29 23 106 141 17.8 13.9 17.0 1.12 29 5 5 5 15 14 25 25 25 5 6 25 25 25 23 106 135 15.7 12.0 14.6 1.13 37 6 23 106 135 15.2 11.6 14.1 1.13 37 6 8.5 8.5 9.6 9.2 8.5 8.6 6.3 7.5 6.2 7.0 6.7 7.6 7.0 7.1 10.1 23 106 135 24.2 15.1 19.6 1.13 37 6 9.5 26 106 134 29.6 15.9 22.5 1.13 27 5 7.2 1.3 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.8 26 106 134 30.7 16.9 24.0 1.13 27 5 6.7 1.2 26 106 134 22.7 14.8 19.6 1.13 27 5 7.5 1.4 26 106 134 30.8 18.8 26.5 1.13 13 5 5.0 0.9 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 26 106 134 30.3 17.2 25.0 1.13 13 5 5.2 0.9 0.11 26 106 134 30.9 17.4 25.5 1.13 13 5 5.3 1.0 0.11 517 517 517 1239 1239 1239 2204 2204 2204 1216 1216 1216 1138 1311 1381 329 801 1875 1339 1090 1539 1260 73 126 147 20.0 13.1 16.7 1.20 42 25 6.8 1.2 0.06 3421 73 126 147 23.9 16.0 20.4 1.20 42 25 7.6 1.4 0.06 3421 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 126 147 17.7 10.6 13.7 1.20 42 25 7.8 1.4 0.06 3421 10 73 126 147 23.5 13.3 18.0 1.20 42 25 8.2 1.5 0.06 3421 10 26.3 26.3 20.9 20.9 17.4 17.4 17.4 15.6 15.6 15.6 14.7 14.7 14.7 21.4 21.4 21.4 20.4 18.7 18.5 15.0 19.6 17.5 22.6 17.0 17.1 16.4 73 126 147 22.3 15.7 19.6 1.20 28 25 5.3 1.0 0.07 2461 10 20.6 73 126 147 22.7 16.0 20.1 1.20 28 25 6.8 1.2 0.07 2461 10 20.6 24.2 24.2 30.0 30.0 24.7 24.7 22.5 22.5 22.5 19.4 19.4 19.4 17.0 17.0 17.0 24.8 24.8 24.8 23.3 22.3 21.6 17.8 23.7 20.6 25.9 20.3 20.5 19.3 73 126 147 14.4 9.8 12.2 1.20 28 25 7.6 1.4 0.07 2461 10 24.9 28.5 73 126 147 17.1 10.8 13.8 1.20 28 25 7.6 1.4 0.07 2461 10 24.9 28.5 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 73 126 147 20.2 12.1 16.0 1.20 21 25 5.8 1.0 0.06 1397 10 20.4 23.8 22

1.27

0.137

Solids Conc. (mg/L)

107

15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135

7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0

20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6

5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5

3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 3.2 3.2 3.2

95

1.28

0.213

166

96

1.28

0.213

166

97

1.28

0.213

166

98

1.28

0.213

166

99

1.27

0.282

221

100

1.27

0.282

221

101

1.27

0.282

221

102

1.27

0.282

221

103

1.26

0.062

50

104

1.26

0.062

50

224

105

1.26

0.062

50

106

1.26

0.153

122

107

1.26

0.153

122

108

1.26

0.153

122

109

1.25

0.275

220

110

1.25

0.275

220

111

1.25

0.275

220

112

1.24

0.167

134

113

1.24

0.167

134

114

1.24

0.167

134

115

1.30

0.139

107

116

1.29

0.176

137

117

1.34

0.218

163

118

1.34

0.059

44

119

1.34

0.116

87

120

1.35

0.245

182

121

1.34

0.176

131

122

1.26

0.164

130

123

1.26

0.236

187

124

1.26

0.187

148

Table A.2 Experimental Conditions and Equipment Specifications for All Datasets (Cont'd)
Feed Conditions
Mean Part. Diam (m) Mean Part. Diam (m) Mean Part. Diam (m) Oil Concent. (mg/L) Head Temp. o ( F) Solids Conc. (mg/L) Solids Conc. (mg/L) Barrel Diam. (mm) Cone Length (mm) Feed d32 (m) O/F Pressure (psig) U/F Pressure (psig) Inlet Pressure (psig) O/F Flow Rate 3 (m /hr) U/F Flow Rate 3 (m /hr) Barrel Length (mm) Dist. Std. Dev. (m) Split Ratio (%) Dist. Std. Dev. (m) Dist. Std. Dev. (m)

O/F Conditions

U/F Conditions

SLHC Geometric Specs

Cone Angle (deg) Inlet Slot Area 2 (mm ) Vortex Finder Diam. (mm) Spigot Diam. (mm)

Dataset #

Flow Rate 3 (m /hr)

Solids Mass Flowrate (kg/hr)

125 90% 74% 74% 73% 85% 86% 85% 86% 84% 86% 87% 87% 85% 86% 87% 84% 84% 84% 85% 85% 84% 84% 90% 88% 89% 89% 91% 89% 88% 88% 87% 39 125 148 31 104 157 14.1 23.8 31 104 157 24.1 31 104 157 17.2 14.3 16.1 10.9 20.4 37 116 141 24.9 13.0 37 116 141 18.3 12.9 37 117 140 11.8 10.2 11.8 16.3 17.9 16.9 20.7 13.1 24.3 44 116 138 17.3 11.6 15.1 44 116 138 17.1 12.1 15.4 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0 126 143 25.5 15.3 21.0 0.24 0 126 143 16.9 13.1 16.0 0.24 17 17 15 16 26 23 34 51 29 18 48 0 116 142 21.6 14.4 18.8 0.23 20 0 117 142 20.8 12.9 17.0 0.23 22 16 16 25 25 16 16 15 16 16 3 3 3 25 0 116 139 25.0 15.9 21.2 0.23 19 15 0 116 139 17.4 14.3 17.4 0.23 17 15 5.3 5.2 5.8 5.1 6.0 4.5 4.8 5.1 6.7 5.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 5.7 9.5 0 116 139 19.5 12.9 16.3 0.23 39 15 6.1 0 116 163 25.8 15.1 20.2 0.23 22 15 6.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.1 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.2 0.9 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.7 0 115 163 23.6 17.2 22.1 0.22 15 15 5.0 0.9 0 116 163 28.2 20.0 26.0 0.22 18 15 5.8 1.0 0 126 128 30.0 18.9 24.9 0.24 18 25 6.6 1.2 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0 126 128 23.2 16.2 20.5 0.25 21 25 7.6 1.4 0.04 0 126 128 28.6 19.7 25.6 0.24 16 25 8.5 1.5 0.04 688 1040 814 922 442 1519 1490 990 1100 312 323 218 306 223 451 920 249 1686 1313 1086 416 1337 42 126 117 29.4 19.3 25.6 0.24 19 25 4.7 0.8 0.04 552 42 125 117 22.7 14.2 18.6 0.25 24 25 6.0 1.1 0.04 654 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 32 125 127 21.3 14.8 19.0 0.26 32 25 5.8 1.0 0.04 878 1 32 124 127 21.7 14.5 18.9 0.26 14 24 5.4 1.0 0.04 375 1 19.5 20.0 25.0 26.3 22.2 19.4 20.1 18.3 20.8 22.3 18.5 20.8 20.5 16.4 21.1 18.6 20.0 14.4 14.8 12.8 14.4 14.9 16.6 14.7 14.8 30.4 32 125 127 21.5 13.4 17.6 0.26 20 25 5.9 1.1 0.04 547 1 18.0 33 125 108 28.9 16.5 23.2 0.20 59 25 6.3 1.1 0.06 581 1 19.2 23.4 21.4 23.1 23.6 29.4 30.2 25.5 23.4 23.7 21.8 24.6 26.3 21.8 24.2 23.9 19.5 25.6 22.4 24.7 17.4 17.4 15.2 16.7 17.5 20.9 17.3 16.4 34.6 33 125 108 25.5 17.3 22.7 0.20 29 25 7.1 1.3 0.07 230 1 25.6 30.8 33 124 135 29.8 17.7 24.2 0.19 21 24 7.4 1.3 0.06 175 1 18.5 23.0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 58 126 125 15.7 10.9 13.8 1.15 31 26 11.7 2.1 0.08 1358 0 18.7 21.6 22

1.27

0.153

Solids Conc. (mg/L)

121

15 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

135 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

7.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

20.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2

5.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

3.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

126

0.26

0.016

63

127

0.27

0.024

87

128

0.27

0.050

183

129

0.30

0.031

103

130

0.30

0.020

67

131

0.30

0.050

164

132

0.29

0.035

122

133

0.29

0.028

98

134

0.28

0.034

119

135

0.28

0.048

171

225

136

0.28

0.043

153

137

0.26

0.047

179

138

0.26

0.023

88

139

0.26

0.063

242

140

0.27

0.082

302

141

0.27

0.051

188

142

0.27

0.056

207

143

0.27

0.021

77

144

0.27

0.018

67

145

0.28

0.015

52

146

0.28

0.019

69

147

0.28

0.010

36

148

0.28

0.019

69

149

0.16

0.022

136

150

0.16

0.009

54

151

0.16

0.031

196

152

0.16

0.032

203

153

0.16

0.026

167

154

0.16

0.010

64

155

0.17

0.037

218

APPENDIX B
CYCLONEMASTER DATABASE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

B.1 Database Architecture

The structure of the database (DB) system consists of six different data tables related by a Unique Primary Key which has been assigned to each dataset as a sequence number based on the date the experiment was performed. Each of these tables has been designed to store specific information of a single record, a group of them, or a complete data set. Mainly, the data are organized as follows: test conditions and summary of results, particle or droplet size distribution, cyclones specifications, instrumentation specifications and test objectives and field notes. Table B.1 contains an inventory of the available floppy disks and a summary of their content information. Also, a summary of the most common problems and discrepancies encountered is presented in Table B.2. The fields in each table have been documented to facilitate future DB expansion and user maintenance. The following sections present the description of each of the data tables forming the DB system.

226

Table B.1 Hydrocyclones Data Files and Inventory of Floppy Disks

Disk Label Hydrocyclone Hydrocyclone Hydrocyclone Hydrocyclone Hydrocyclone Hydrocyclone Hydrocyclone Hydrocyclone Hydrocyclone Hydrocyclone Hydrocyclone Hydrocyclone Hydrocyclone Hydrocyclone Hydrocyclone ONFIN4.XLS LLHC/ MEMBREX / COULTER/ RANGLEY 3M Field Trial Data / Vortoil K-liner Test Vortoil Disk # 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15 9/15 10/15 11/15 12/15 13/15 14/15 15/15 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 Overall Data .xls / multisizer Data, Backwash Files, figs .xls, . Xlc files (DECO, ONFIN, NOR, CAL, POU, CWF, OCT, NOV) .doc, .xls, LLHC Coulter data Vortoil.xls, K4MM*.xlc, K$MM*.xls, vortnote.doc LL data LL data Hydroswirl / Vortoil Data LLHC data Vortoil / SLHC Main Content SLHC data SLHC data SLHC data SLHC data SLHC data SLHC data SLHC data SLHC data SLHC data SLHC data SLHC data SLHC data SLHC data SLHC data SLHC data LL / SL data LL / Well data Alba Report Figures Type of Cyclone SLHC SLHC SLHC SLHC SLHC SLHC SLHC SLHC SLHC SLHC SLHC SLHC SLHC SLHC SLHC LLHC/SLHC LLHC Test Dates 09/01 - 09/10/92 09/11 - 09/14/92 09/15 - 09/23/92 09/24/92 09/25 - 09/30/92 10/01 - 10/05/92 10/06/92 10/07/92 10/08/92 10/09/92 10/14 - 10/19 10/20 - 10/28/92 11/02 - 11/05/92 11/06 - 11/12/92 11/18 - 11/25/92 09/01 - 12/09/92 07/23 - 09/30/91 01/13/94 01/03/93 01/11/03 Type of Status Data Original OK Original OK Original OK Original Recovered Original OK Original OK Original OK Original OK Original OK Original Recovered Original OK Original OK Original OK Original OK Original OK Original OK Original Original Original OK OK OK

HC Transport Disk

1/1

Misc

Misc

Original / Recovered Copy Original / Backup OK

Backup Word Files

1/1

LLHC

Preseparator HC Data LLHC Main-0426 LLHC Main-0426 Coulter Data (Excel) Hydroswirl Data Disc LLHC System Disc "AUTOST"

1/1 1/2 2/2 1/1 1/1 1/1

Vortoil LLHC LLHC Hydroswirl / Vortoil LLHC

4/95 - 5/95 07/22/91 07/22/91 02/13/91 07/30 - 07/31/91

Original

Ok

Original Unreadable Original Unreadable Original Unreadable Original Original Unreadable Unreadable

227

Table B.2 Summary of Data Review and Audit Results (Data Log)
Test_Date Comments / Observations on Data Review 09/01/92 RUN II: Cut size diameter corrected from 9.0 to 3.5 09/03/92 OK 09/08/92 Test conditions data was included into database. 09/09/92 OK 09/10/92 OK 09/11/92 OK 09/14/92 RUN I: Cut size diameter corrected from 9.0 to 6.5 09/15/92 OK 09/17/92 No Hardcopy 09/23/92 Data Swap. Data from 0.3 and 1.0 um (coulter filter size) were swapped 09/24/92 OK 09/25/92 RUN IA, C: Cut size diameter corrected from 10 to 2.5 09/28/92 Data Not included. Bad solid/liquid mass balance 09/29/92 Data Not included. Bad solid/liquid mass balance 09/30/92 RUN IB: Cut size diameter corrected from 17 to 10.75 and RUN II from 15 to 10.75 10/01/92 RUN IA, C: Cut size diameter corrected from 12 to 10.25 10/05/92 OK 10/06/92 OK 10/07/92 Data Swap. Data from O/F of Run I and II were swapped 10/07/92 RUN I, II: Cut size diameter corrected. Data were not reported properly 10/08/92 OK 10/09/92 OK 10/14/92 OK 10/15/92 OK 10/19/92 OK 10/20/92 OK 10/20/92 OK 10/21/92 OK 10/23/92 OK 10/27/92 No Hardcopy. Temp. was estimated to be 126 F. Pinlet cyclone#2 was corrected 10/28/92 No Hardcopy. Temp. was estimated to be 126 F. Pinlet cyclone#2 was corrected 11/02/92 Pinlet cyclone#2 was corrected. 11/03/92 Pinlet cyclone#2 was corrected. 11/05/92 OK 11/06/92 OK 11/09/92 OK 11/10/92 OK 11/11/92 OK 11/12/92 OK 11/18/92 OK 11/19/92 OK 11/23/92 OK 11/24/92 RUN 3: Cut size diameter corrected from 1.8 to 3.75 11/25/92 OK 11/25/92 OK 12/01/92 No Electronic records. Data will be digitized and included in DB. 12/02/92 OK 12/03/92 No Electronic records. Data will be digitized and included in DB. 12/09/92 No Electronic records. Data will be digitized and included in DB.

228

B.1.1 Test Conditions Table This table contains all the general information regarding test and flow conditions, test setup, test general objective, tested equipment and configuration, and instruments used. This table also stores a summary of statistical results, including solids/droplets concentrations at inlet/outlet conditions, and cyclone efficiencies of each single test run. One important featured included in this table is the data source filename, which allows for auditing data records and tracking original data source files. A unique ID or Primary Key relates this table with the rest of the tables in the DB so that specific information of a record of group of records can be accessed. In this case, the key is the Test_ID, which consists of a nine-digit field, based on the Excel sequential serial number of the test date, the test run number, and the run group number, which represents a different set of conditions for the same test run. In summary, the Test_ID field is formed as follows: 999999-9X
Test Run Group letter Test Run or Trial number Excel built-in sequential serial number of the test date (PC-Format)

Table B.3 shows the list of each of the fields in the table with their corresponding caption or description.

229

Table B.3 Design of the Test Conditions Data Table

230

B.1.2 Particle Size Data Table The table, Particle_Size_Data contains all particle size distributions for each of the datasets. Specifically, all particle size distributions are discriminated for inlet, overflow and underflow conditions. The size distributions show the number of particles measured by the Coulter Counter Multisizer (CC) for each of the 32 characteristic diameters or channels. This information for all datasets is consolidated in a single table where it can be easily accessed and uploaded for model and/or cyclone simulation benchmarking. The Primary Key is also the Test_ID. Table B.4 shows the list of each of the fields in the table and their respective caption or general description.

B.1.3 Equipment Specifications Table This table, Equipment_Specs stores general cyclones description and specs, namely, body, inlet, and outlet dimensions; manufacturers name; serial, model or reference numbers; manufacturer rated efficiency, etc. This information helps to keep record of relevant information of the tested cyclones, and to establish systematic data uncertainties. The storage of this information also provides added flexibility and convenience at the time of benchmarking. The Primary Key of this table is the Equip_ID field. Table B.5 shows the list of each of the fields in the table and their respective caption or general description.

231

Table B.4 Design of the Particle Size Data Table

232

Table B.5 Design of the Equipment Specifications Data Table

233

B.1.4 Instrumentation Specifications Table A table called Instruments_Specs is available to store all relevant information regarding the instruments used to measured flow rates, pressures, temperatures, and droplet/particle size distributions. General and specific properties including specifications and general description can be stored in this table. This is particularly useful to establish systematic uncertainties and/or to determine the confidence level of the data. Table B.6 shows a list of each of the fields in the table and their general description for future use.

B.1.5 Test Objectives and Field Notes Table The table Test_Objectives&Notes stores a set of test objectives and experimental goals. In some cases, detailed field notes, findings, data analysis, experimental setup description and other relevant information is also available. This information has been stored in a separate table to avoid redundancy and increase database capacity. A list showing each of the fields that form the DB table and their general description is given in Table B.7

B.1.6 Particle Size Distribution Calculations This table stores all hydrocyclone performance calculations results including test conditions and geometrical configuration data. Mechanistic modeling results have been added to this table by using a VBA program that performs all computations, and outputs the results into an Excel spreadsheet that is linked to CycloneMaster. Table B.8 shows the list of each of the fields in the table.

234

Table B.6 Design of the Instrument Specifications Data Table

235

Table B.7 Design of the Objectives and Field Notes Data Table

236

Table B.8 Design of the Particle Size Distribution Calculations Data Table

237

B.2 CycloneMaster DB Management System Description

The CycloneMaster DB management system was created using Microsoft Access and Visual Basic (VBA). It can be used to store, handle and analyze experimental data. The code is composed of a Main Menu Form that provides easy access to the stored datasets. Also, a series of Sub forms, Queries, and Reports are linked to the Main Form to make possible the plotting, listing, and visualizing the data. Some forms show performance computations and can be used to generate Look-Up tables that are particularly useful for benchmarking simulators and models. The interface also provides the user with the most relevant information of the experimental program, including equipment documentation, test objectives, test configurations, and the description of the experimental procedures. The system has a Help Menu to guide users through the main features of the program and provide a general description of the Experimental Procedure. Sample screens are shown in Figures B.1 and B.2.

238

Figure B.1 Main Menu: Dataset Reference Info Panel

Figure B.2 Main Menu: Dataset Detailed Info Panel and Performance Plots Tab Page

239