0
Research Papers

# One-Way and Two-Way Coupling Analyses on Three Phase Flows in Hydrocyclone Separator

[+] Author and Article Information
S. M. Mousavian, M. Ahmadvand, A. F. Najafi

School of Energy Engineering, Power and Water University of Technology, 16765-1719 Tehran, Iran

J. Appl. Mech 76(6), 061005 (Jul 23, 2009) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.3130445 History: Received August 01, 2007; Revised April 04, 2009; Published July 23, 2009

## Abstract

The flow behavior in hydrocyclones is quite complex. The computational fluid dynamics method was used to simulate the flow fields inside a hydrocyclone in order to investigate its separation efficiency. In the computational fluid dynamics study of hydrocyclones, the air-core dimension is a key to predicting the mass split between the underflow and overflow. In turn, the mass split influences the prediction of the size classification curve. Generally in hydrocyclone simulations, assuming low particle volume fractions, the discrete phase effects on the continuous phase have been excluded; therefore, one-way coupling method has been used. Due to high particle consistencies, regions in some cases, especially in underflow areas, excluding discrete phase effects on continuous phase may be ineligible. In this study for an example case by consisting discrete phase effects and using two-way coupling method, simulation accuracy noticeably has been improved. Three models, the $k−ε$ model, the Reynolds stress model (RSM) without considering air core, and Reynolds stress turbulence model with volume of fluid multiphase model for simulating air core, were compared for the predictions of velocity, axial, and tangential velocity distributions and separation proportion. Results by the RSM with air-core simulation and two-way coupling model, since it produces some detailed features of the turbulence and discrete phase mode effects, are clearly closer in predicting the experimental data than the other two.

<>

## Figures

Figure 1

Schematic of conventional hydrocyclone

Figure 2

Velocity components in hydrocyclone

Figure 3

One of the used meshes in CFD calculations

Figure 4

Predicted versus experimental tangential velocities

Figure 5

Predicted versus experimental axial velocities at 0 deg

Figure 6

Predicted versus experimental axial velocities at 90 deg

Figure 7

Flow injection area

Figure 8

Flow filed: (a) flow path lines, (b) downward velocity field, and (c) upward velocity field

Figure 9

(a) Pressure field, (b) shaping the air core via air suction, and (c) completed air core

Figure 10

Some obtained trajectory of particles, leaving the hydrocyclone: (up) from under flow and (down) from over flow

Figure 11

Comparison of separation efficiency at 5.8 m/s inlet velocity

Figure 12

Comparison of separation efficiency at 8.2 m/s inlet velocity

Figure 13

Comparison of separation efficiency at 10.6 m/s inlet velocity

Figure 14

Comparison of separation efficiency by one-way and two-way coupling methods

## Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

### Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related Proceedings Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections