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

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 kε 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.

Copyright © 2009 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Schematic of conventional hydrocyclone

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Velocity components in hydrocyclone

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

One of the used meshes in CFD calculations

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Predicted versus experimental tangential velocities

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Predicted versus experimental axial velocities at 0 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Predicted versus experimental axial velocities at 90 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Flow injection area

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

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

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

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

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

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

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Comparison of separation efficiency at 5.8 m/s inlet velocity

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Comparison of separation efficiency at 8.2 m/s inlet velocity

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Comparison of separation efficiency at 10.6 m/s inlet velocity

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

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




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 eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In